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

81–90 of 262 posts

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

#81

Post by trident5000 »

tootie wrote: post #22
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.

The distinction is that Facebook are failing in their moderation efforts while Parler prohibits themselves from even trying. There's also the face that Facebook has such an enormous footprint of positive or neutral content. It would be like shutting down air travel because some planes crash.

Is this not an absurd standard considering section 230 exists? Where the govt literally tells platforms to not moderate? From my understanding Parler has been taking down explicit calls for violence but the bar is just high.

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

#82

Post by bedhead »

rat87 wrote: post #61
bedhead wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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

Wow it's almost like the the founding fathers had a good idea when they drafted the bill of rights and the literal first thing that came to mind was freedom of speech.

I'm sure this experiment of ripping up the constitution in our de facto new online lives that usurp what the government is capable of doing will go just fine...

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

#83

Post by anigbrowl »

bedhead wrote: post #78
mc32 wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes it’s a very difficult problem and one with bad solutions (see fictitious chatter below): I like Indian curry. Yes, Indian curry is the best curry. Yes, Indian curry in Japan is not the same. They don’t know how to make it. Yes, Indians are better at making curry. After all it was invented in India and we have the local spices. Definitely, I would not buy curry inJapan unless it’s made by an Indian who knows how t…

"In mind" - what does this mean? Who exactly gets to define "in mind"? Like, you're now literally reading people's minds about their intentions? So I don't need to explicitly tell people to go do bad things, I can just say I'm upset about something and that's enough? I can make some bogus claim and that's enough? Because there aren't that many people spewing bullshit all day long on twitter? And let me take a wild gu…

Endlessly peppering people with questions is sometimes called Sealioning. How about engaging with the point(s) made by the person you're replying to, and offering your own suggestions for how you'd go about things. Also, the HN guidelines (link at the bottom of the page) encourage you to respond to the strongest possible interpretation of what was said, rather than the worst.

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

#84

Post by lenwood »

lazyjones wrote: post #62
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.

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,…

If the goal is to avoid capricious removal of content then this is great. If the goal is to avoid the platform being used for harm then this seems insufficient. The law cannot move fast enough to stay current with social trends.

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

#85

Post by yters »

elbrian wrote: post #72
yters wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Could you provide a couple examples of the types of groups you're referring to?

yes, prolife groups

in the past abortionists have been shot due to what prolifers have said, so now they go out of their way to avoid anything hateful and violence inducing, yet they are getting deplatformed en mass in the fallout from 6 Jan, which is entirely unrelated to their messaging

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

#86

Post by diveanon »

lostlogin wrote: post #77
diveanon wrote: post #5

I volunteered at the Rohingya camps in Bangladesh while this was happening. Most of them were aware of this and attempted to stay ahead of the raids by monitoring some of the groups. Their stories are horrific and to this day I have bad dreams about what I saw / heard in those camps. One of my coworkers escaped through the jungle to Thailand where I now live. He lost his brother and father to a group with machetes. H…

Have you or anyone you know made contact with Facebook about it? I’m not suggesting you should, I’m just wondering if anyone did and if there was ever any Facebook response that wasn’t per-canned lawyer crap.

I remember speaking to a few aid workers who were trying to get FB to donate to their efforts.

To my knowledge they never received any money. If anyone can fact check that I would love to be corrected.

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

#88

Post by ForHackernews »

fsflover wrote: post #65
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.

> 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 .

The best argument against this is that it means your data will potentially end up splatted across even more more different servers controlled by various unaccountable parties.

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

#89

Post by lazyjones »

lostlogin wrote: post #79
lazyjones wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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,…

I’ve got a reflexive “why did they implement this?” and look for the downside. That law does does appear good, but Poland is on a dark path with it’s politics and leadership. https://www.amnesty.org/en/countries/europe-and-central-asia...

It might be a matter of perspective. Poland has seen both Communism and Nazi occupation in recent history and can tell when suppression of free speech starts being harmful, on either side of the spectrum. We here in the West tend to be a bit biased.

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

#90

Post by mratzloff »

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.

Pick a point and draw a line in the sand. Then enforce it.

So many HN replies amount to "we all agree this is a problem, but we can't fix the entire problem perfectly, and it has some hypothetical drawbacks, so we shouldn't even try."

(Never mind that as a result of inaction in the face of disinformation and hate speech our societies are rotting from the inside, and many, many real-world atrocities are being carried out as a direct result.)

This is, by the way, a fundamentally conservative viewpoint. Cf. gun violence, homelessness, living wage, etc. Just because something is a complex issue with imperfect solutions doesn't mean we have permission to do nothing.

Post reply on HN