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

91–100 of 262 posts

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

#91

Post by snomad »

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.

At a certain level of daily MAU, (say 100k?), every single post most be manually checked before becoming available to the public. They should be checked for a) child porn b) violence c) doxxing

They are free to run algos to auto reject, sort whatever order.

This would likely be too burdensome, and the socials would almost certainly have to start charging for access, which in of itself would probably remove much of the problem.

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

#92

Post by ng12 »

fairity wrote: post #7

I'd love Facebook to do more to prevent misuse of its platform, but I don't see why I should blame Facebook for Myanmar violence. Facebook at its core is a tool that helps people spread information and opinions - not too different from the telephone or email. The blame for Myanmar violence should be placed squarely on the people that are spreading misinformation that incites violence. Even if Facebook does a better j…

I agree with you 100%. It's why I don't like that Parler is being forced off the web.

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

#93

Post by mc32 »

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…

That’s the difficulty, isn’t it? If I say, let’s go and burn that police station down now! Let’s be there at 9:15. It’s pretty clear. If you say, I wish that police station would get burned down. I don’t know. It’s not a nice thought, but you’re not actively working to have it burned down. On the other hand the wish does not have pure intentions.

This is why I think it’s impossible to “monitor” and purge or ban violent tweets or what have you.

One, what is the intention of the speaker, two who is responsible for the audiences reaction? Do you take the most extremely negative interpretation? It cannot work.

And that’s not even taking slang into account where violent words don’t mean violence and normal words can take on other meanings.

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

#94

Post by bedhead »

anigbrowl wrote: post #83
bedhead wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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.

But that's the ENTIRE point here! This supposed itty-bitty exception - "Hey, just no bad stuff, okay?" - is actually EVERYTHING. You say something like "Just no hate speech" or "Only if they have violence in mind" and those statements inherently violate the very notion of free speech the people are erroneously saying they're in favor of, and those innocent-sounding qualifiers are why things are devolving so rapidly. We've taken a simple concept that worked brilliantly for 250 years (free speech) and in the blink of an eye, now that online life has (for better or worse) usurped the government's role in setting rules for society, we're just rearranging how the game is played. This is the broader issue, online life (for lack of a better phrase, but I hope you get my point) has become so ubiquitous that it's like some sort of alternate society with a new governance. We wouldn't/couldn't insert these qualifiers into the constitution, but here we are giddily doing it for our new alternate world.

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

#95

Post by GavinMcG »

trident5000 wrote: post #81
tootie wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> From my understanding Parler has been taking down explicit calls for violence but the bar is just high.

Amazon pulled the plug specifically because they were not doing so.

https://www.gadgetsnow.com/tech-news/read-amazons-letter-to-...

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

#96

Post by trident5000 »

GavinMcG wrote: post #95
trident5000 wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> From my understanding Parler has been taking down explicit calls for violence but the bar is just high. Amazon pulled the plug specifically because they were not doing so. https://www.gadgetsnow.com/tech-news/read-amazons-letter-to-...

You cant really be using a letter from the company that dropped them as a source. Of course they are going to say all of this. Twitter just recently let hang mike pence trend for a while until it was taken down. Did they act fast enough? This is all subject to interpretation. We just had a summer of riots that caused quite a bit of destruction, did they act fast enough there? Again, there isnt a science to this, its highly discretionary.

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

#97

Post by Jtsummers »

trident5000 wrote: post #81
tootie wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> Is this not an absurd standard considering section 230 exists? Where the govt literally tells platforms to not moderate?

Section 230 does not "literally [tell] platforms to not moderate". It removes some degree of liability for content not produced by the host itself.

If I, on Twitter, make a false statement (libel) against someone, Twitter is not liable for it (I am). Now, Twitter could remove that false statement (on its own or directed by a court as part of or after a suit against me by the injured party). Whether they need to remove it in order to avoid liability would depend on various other circumstances. For instance, if my content is actually illegal (by some measure) then Twitter could actually be legally obligated under other rules. But they remain free of liability for the post itself so long as they (eventually) comply with the law and remove it. But if they permit the illegal content to remain, then they could eventually become liable for it (per other statutes).

Moderation is, as a consequence of the laws in place, both permitted and occasionally mandated.

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

#98

Post by mc32 »

klmadfejno wrote: post #71
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…

For real though, if you haven't tried Japanese curry, try to find some. It's really tasty (sweeter and not spicy) and not at all like Indian curry. (Indian curry is good too but most people have access to try it)

Ha! I like Japanese curry too. But I meant Indian curry prepared in Japan. I did not mean Japanese curry.

My point was that people can have discussions about who or what is better and it can diverge into other areas that could be considered hate by very sensitive people. Japan notoriously claimed for example that their snow is unique[1] and thus made it difficult to import European skis some time ago. Today this would be viewed and xenophobic or something when all it was was protectionism.

[1] kinda true. It’s ‘wetter’ than snow in some other places, but doesn’t mean Rosignol should not be sold in Japan.

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

#99

Post by Karunamon »

matz1 wrote: post #75
Karunamon wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 employee decides what posts to show you Here FB manually decide what constitute 'good' or 'bad' content. For example: fb employee decide trump content is 'bad' thus not allowing it. >Facebook employees write post engagement algorithm Here depending on how the algorithm works, it may not make a judgment whether the content is 'good' or 'bad' as long as it drive engagement. So here 'good' and 'bad' content ca…

The metrics they use for exercising editorial control do not matter for this line of logic. The fact that they are exercising editorial control, promoting some posts, censoring others, rather than neutrally carrying the content people wish to send (like a phone company or an ISP) makes them a publisher.

The alternative is to allow these companies to hide behind "but we didn't do it, the algorithm did". The algorithm is an agent of the company and they are responsible for its behavior like any other employee.

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

#100

Post by [deleted] »

yters wrote: post #85
elbrian wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

[deleted]
Post reply on HN