Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Facebook Admits It Was Used to Incite Violence in Myanmar (2018)

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 262 posts

Re: Facebook Admits It Was Used to Incite Violence in Myanmar (2018)

#61

Post by rat87 »

bedhead wrote: post #33
MrMan wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think Facebook should be broken up but I havent heard any good ideas yet regarding how to somehow regulate social networks. Beyond hate speech, I dont see any reason to limit what people can say. Somehow limiting how the network connects people, or how content propagates, seems like the key. Only FB has done the social experiments at scale to know how to engineer this, which is faintly ironic.

"Beyond hate speech" lol. That's kinda the problem, isn't it? Who gets to define "hate"? And why ban speech that is actually legal (even if highly offensive) anyway? And if it's worthy of banning on a major platform, why not just make it explicitly illegal? These are serious and important questions (among others) that seem to get conveniently glossed over.

> why not just make it explicitly illegal

That violates freedom of speech

Re: Facebook Admits It Was Used to Incite Violence in Myanmar (2018)

#62

Post by lazyjones »

MrMan wrote: post #12
sschueller wrote: post #6

I guess you could argue Facebook should be shutdown as parlor was. Although parlor was only used for hate, Facebook didn't do anything to stop it either. I think a big issue is how facebooks algo (and others) are built for maximum profit which at the same time also radicalizes people in their filter bubble.

I think Facebook should be broken up but I havent heard any good ideas yet regarding how to somehow regulate social networks. Beyond hate speech, I dont see any reason to limit what people can say. Somehow limiting how the network connects people, or how content propagates, seems like the key. Only FB has done the social experiments at scale to know how to engineer this, which is faintly ironic.

Here's a good idea: Poland's "freedom of speech" bill.

https://polandin.com/51388314/justice-minister-announces-onl...

  Under its provisions, social media services will not be allowed to remove content or block accounts if the content on them does not break Polish law. In the event of removal or blockage, a complaint can be sent to the platform, which will have 24 hours to consider it. Within 48 hours of the decision, the user will be able to file a petition to the court for the return of access. The court will consider complaints within seven days of receipt and the entire process is to be electronic.

Re: Facebook Admits It Was Used to Incite Violence in Myanmar (2018)

#63

Post by Karunamon »

matz1 wrote: post #54
chopin24 wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People develop algorithms. They aren't some neutral force of nature, like a tornado. These are choices.

yes but is the algorithms include : spread only bad content ? I doubt so, the algorithms may be : spread content that increase engagement, without making explicit judgement whether the content is 'good' or 'bad'.

That doesn't matter at the end of the day.

Facebook employee decides what posts to show you → Facebook Inc is responsible for picking and choosing content (exercising editorial control) → Facebook is a publisher.

vs

Facebook employees write post engagement algorithm → Facebook computer program decides what posts to show you -> Facebook Inc is responsible for picking and choosing content (exercising editorial control) → Facebook is a publisher.

Re: Facebook Admits It Was Used to Incite Violence in Myanmar (2018)

#64

Post by safog »

yters wrote: post #57
thelean12 wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Parlor was created in response to hate moderation on other platforms. It's not too far off to say "Parlor was created as a space for hate". Only used for hate is obviously wrong, but that doesn't change much.

unfortunately, "hate speech" seems to be defined as "whatever makes me upset" where "me" is a group accepted by tge platform e.g. there are prolife groups that say nothing negative against any people, but get banned for explaining the facts behind abortion and who does it

Have you been on /r/The_Donald at all? Or are you just making whatever you'd like up?

Re: Facebook Admits It Was Used to Incite Violence in Myanmar (2018)

#65

Post by fsflover »

MrMan wrote: post #12
sschueller wrote: post #6

I guess you could argue Facebook should be shutdown as parlor was. Although parlor was only used for hate, Facebook didn't do anything to stop it either. I think a big issue is how facebooks algo (and others) are built for maximum profit which at the same time also radicalizes people in their filter bubble.

I think Facebook should be broken up but I havent heard any good ideas yet regarding how to somehow regulate social networks. Beyond hate speech, I dont see any reason to limit what people can say. Somehow limiting how the network connects people, or how content propagates, seems like the key. Only FB has done the social experiments at scale to know how to engineer this, which is faintly ironic.

> I think Facebook should be broken up but I havent heard any good ideas yet regarding how to somehow regulate social networks.

I think a better idea is to force them to provide an API for interoperability, alternative clients and exporting the user data. Together with the federated social networks, it will change everything: https://the-federation.info.

Re: Facebook Admits It Was Used to Incite Violence in Myanmar (2018)

#67

Post by yters »

safog wrote: post #64
yters wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

unfortunately, "hate speech" seems to be defined as "whatever makes me upset" where "me" is a group accepted by tge platform e.g. there are prolife groups that say nothing negative against any people, but get banned for explaining the facts behind abortion and who does it

Have you been on /r/The_Donald at all? Or are you just making whatever you'd like up?

sure, they might be hate speech, but seems no worse than what i see on daily kos

however, i am talking about an entirely separate group that goes out of its way to not say anything hateful and not condone violence due to tragic occurrences in the past, yet gets banned due to pointing out inconvenient and very uncomfortable truths

if free speech cannot protect uncomfortable yet unhateful speech, it is worthless

Re: Facebook Admits It Was Used to Incite Violence in Myanmar (2018)

#68

Post by jimbob45 »

MartinCron wrote: post #55
jimbob45 wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Should we shut down radio too, since radio is frequently used in guerilla warfare? The technology isn’t the problem - the people feeling violent is. How very American is it that we want to immediately stamp out dissenting voices rather than actually solving the problem that these people disagree with (whatever it may be).

I don't really care to try to "solve the problem" that white supremacists have.

I’m speaking more broadly. I don’t feel inclined to solve ISIS’ problems either but they’re not going to go away unless we sit down with them.

Hardline stances seem nice until people get hurt and progress isn’t made.

Re: Facebook Admits It Was Used to Incite Violence in Myanmar (2018)

#70

Post by imwillofficial »

MartinCron wrote: post #55
jimbob45 wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Should we shut down radio too, since radio is frequently used in guerilla warfare? The technology isn’t the problem - the people feeling violent is. How very American is it that we want to immediately stamp out dissenting voices rather than actually solving the problem that these people disagree with (whatever it may be).

I don't really care to try to "solve the problem" that white supremacists have.

And that’s how things escalate.
Post reply on HN