Why is Parler shut down and Facebook not?
Facebook Admits It Was Used to Incite Violence in Myanmar (2018)
111–120 of 262 posts
Re: Facebook Admits It Was Used to Incite Violence in Myanmar (2018)
#112Why is Parler shut down and Facebook not?
No service that Facebook depends on decided to stop doing business with Facebook the way AWS decided to stop doing business with Parler.
Parler built thier infrastructure in one place, with critical dependency on that provider. So when the provider booted them, they ended up having to shut the service down.
Re: Facebook Admits It Was Used to Incite Violence in Myanmar (2018)
#113Why is Parler shut down and Facebook not?
No service that Facebook depends on decided to stop doing business with Facebook the way AWS decided to stop doing business with Parler. Parler built thier infrastructure in one place, with critical dependency on that provider. So when the provider booted them, they ended up having to shut the service down.
Apple and Google still have the Facebook app in their respective stores. Why not hold everyone to the same standards? Or are there differences I'm not seeing at a high level? Maybe sophistication/existence of content moderation is better?
Re: Facebook Admits It Was Used to Incite Violence in Myanmar (2018)
#114Earlier 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…
You don't get to enter into debate and get away with 'disliking' other's argumentation!
Re: Facebook Admits It Was Used to Incite Violence in Myanmar (2018)
#115Earlier quoted context omitted.
No service that Facebook depends on decided to stop doing business with Facebook the way AWS decided to stop doing business with Parler. Parler built thier infrastructure in one place, with critical dependency on that provider. So when the provider booted them, they ended up having to shut the service down.
Apple and Google still have the Facebook app in their respective stores. Why not hold everyone to the same standards? Or are there differences I'm not seeing at a high level? Maybe sophistication/existence of content moderation is better?
I don't have the answer to those questions. My other comment is purely mechanistic, you'd have to ask Apple why they have not booted Facebook.
Re: Facebook Admits It Was Used to Incite Violence in Myanmar (2018)
#116Earlier 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…
I tend to agree with this, but given we're discussing Myanmar here I think it's worth adding that knowing where to draw the line can get a lot more complex than deciding 'Hang Mike Pence' crosses it.
Myanmar's language and culture are completely alien to people drafting Facebook policies, driving forces behind intercommunity violence include things like [likely at least partially true] news reports of other intercommunity violence and official government statements, and then there's nuances like Burmese people seemingly accepting the false claim the ethnically-cleansed Rohingya actually were Bangladeshi regardless of where they stand on other things, and the outpouring of support for Aung Sung Suu Kyi after Western criticism that might have been signals that they believed the conflict was the generals' doing rather than hers or might have been mass endorsement of the government's violence. I suspect my Myanmar-based Facebook friends' one or two allusions to burning villages and politicians are probably calls for peace and meditation, but honestly, I don't know.
Re: Facebook Admits It Was Used to Incite Violence in Myanmar (2018)
#117Earlier 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. 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.
How? Your data will only be on server(s) which you choose. I did not suggest that everyone can download everyone's data.
Re: Facebook Admits It Was Used to Incite Violence in Myanmar (2018)
#118I 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.
Forcing them to split off Instagram and WhatsApp would be a fine start.
Re: Facebook Admits It Was Used to Incite Violence in Myanmar (2018)
#119Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't really care to try to "solve the problem" that white supremacists have.
And that’s how things escalate.
So what is your alternative? Do we need to bend over backwards to appease the guys in “six million wasn’t enough” shirts? How much political legitimacy should we give to people who are all-in on ridiculous conspiracy theories? How much attention to Holocaust deniers deserve? Do flat-earthers deserve equal time in geography class?
Re: Facebook Admits It Was Used to Incite Violence in Myanmar (2018)
#120Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Poland also has elected officials instituting 'gay free zones', and arguing that whilst Poland is progressive enough to have legalised homosexuality in 1932, people waving rainbow flags and talking about homosexuality are as dangerous as Nazis and Communists. Poland is not free from bias.