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

101–110 of 262 posts

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

#101

Post by newen »

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.

That's not what sealioning is.

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

#102

Post by Nacdor »

thelean12 wrote: post #53
9front wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe "parlor was only used for hate" but Parler, no. There is questionable content on Parler as much as is on Twitter, Facebook, etc.

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.

> Parlor was created in response to hate moderation on other platforms.

Again, not true.

Parler was created in response to biased moderation of other platforms and was intended to be bipartisan.

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

#103

Post by timothyduong »

Last time this was brought up HN user @Zackees debating about semantics whether this was a genocide or not.

Would love to hear his perspective on this now that FB admits this. I guess it's 'technically' not 'genocide' so its all a-ok according to @Zackees, it's all the MSM's fault.

https://news.ycombinator.com/threads?id=zackees

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

#104

Post by colejohnson66 »

mratzloff wrote: post #90
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.

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…

The big problem is that if you draw a line, everyone is going to toe it and try to push past it. Trump has shown that he is willing to push the boundaries of what is acceptable his entire presidency.

That’s the “slippery slope” argument. If you define what’s allowed, people will ask for more, and others will push past it saying it’s not much different than previous.

And besides that, the line has been drawn many times by the Supreme Court. Hate speech is allowed by the First Amendment, but inciting violence may not be. There’s “tests” for these sorts of issues that lower courts are supposed to apply.

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

#105

Post by notahacker »

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.

> Although parlor was only used for hate,

There's your difference. Facebook is a network for a couple of billion people to communicate over which incidentally serves to amplify some of their hate. Parler is a niche network to provide a safe space for stuff too extreme for the likes of Facebook.

(and no, Parler shouldn't be forcibly 'shut down' either, but it's unsurprising businesses don't want to transact with it)

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

#106

Post by nend »

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.

>Who gets to define "hate"?

I really dislike this argument. A lot of democratic countries have defined hate speech. In the US, individual companies define it and moderate it as they see fit. In other countries, their legislators and courts define it. The US has defined lots of difficult terms to define already.

>And why ban speech that is actually legal (even if highly offensive) anyway?

I mean if we're talking about why companies should ban it, I'm sure they have a variety of reasons that range from bad PR and loss of revenue, to the founders/owners/employees don't want to build a product that's used for violence.

If we're talking about at the society level, because it threatens democracy, peace, individuals safety

>And if it's worthy of banning on a major platform, why not just make it explicitly illegal?

A lot of democratic countries already have. UK, Canada, France, Germany, New Zealand, Sweden, Switzerland (and yes, they managed to define it somehow): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_laws_by_country

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

#107

Post by bedhead »

mratzloff wrote: post #90
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.

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…

But now you're back to square one - who defines "hate"? That's the line you're talking about. Keep in mind mind that in many cases, some speech you consider "hate" is totally vague, and opinions will inevitably just fall along convenient ideological lines. SO, outside of some really explicit cases, it's really not definable at all.

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

#108

Post by p_j_w »

arrosenberg wrote: post #35
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 havent heard any good ideas yet regarding how to somehow regulate social networks. * Break them up, and keep them small enough so that no one site can do that much damage. * Remove safe harbor provisions on algorithmic content feeds. * Pass a transaction tax on ad auctions to discourage free-for-attention business models.

1. How do you plan on keeping them small enough? With mandatory federation and compliance with open standards, would this even be a good idea?

2. Sounds like a great way to encourage site moderators to bring down the ban hammer hard and fast.

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

#109

Post by AniseAbyss »

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.

Parlor refused to moderate. Facebook at least makes an honest attempt to.

And in case you haven't noticed governments across the world are stopping Facebook. Zuckerberg has been questioned in Washington and Brussels.

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

#110

Post by bedhead »

nend wrote: post #106
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.

>Who gets to define "hate"? I really dislike this argument. A lot of democratic countries have defined hate speech. In the US, individual companies define it and moderate it as they see fit. In other countries, their legislators and courts define it. The US has defined lots of difficult terms to define already. >And why ban speech that is actually legal (even if highly offensive) anyway? I mean if we're talking about…

If this speech threatens democracy, peace, and safety, why hasn't it been made illegal by the government, and how has the US managed to do so well for centuries with it being perfectly legal? Odd, the speech you're talking about being legal hasn't seemed to affect things much at all. Actually, we've done nothing but thrive despite hate speech being legal. Why haven't people been clamoring for decades to change the constitution because of all the mayhem caused by hate speech?
Post reply on HN