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

141–150 of 262 posts

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

#141

Post by lovecg »

surge wrote: post #122
nend wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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…

>A lot of democratic countries have defined hate speech. They have very poor subjective definitions that boil down to anything any group considers offensive which is a moving needle, and that make make things like satire and certain forms of comedy illegal and have a chilling effect on valid criticism. It's also compelled speech, and in some cases leaves violence as the only resort, as opposed to a conversation and d…

You talk a lot about theoretical outcomes, but isn’t it reasonable to look at what different systems result in empirically? Which of the aforementioned countries had a violent assault on their seat of government in recent times? Does that support your argument, or maybe there are virtues to those alternative legal frameworks?

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

#143

Post by esja »

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 [sic] was only used for hate"

What does this mean exactly? All the content on Parler was hateful? Or something else?

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

#144

Post by jandrese »

_fq4v wrote: post #130
marcusverus wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Although parlor was only used for hate I encourage everyone to keep an eye out for these casual little calumnies, presented without evidence.

Right. I used parler to do such things as follow EWTN. I stopped using Twitter for this sort of thing because I figured that -- with EWTN's stance on the trans issue -- it was only a matter of time before they were banned (there had been talk of banning JK Rowling for similar tweets at the time, so it's a reasonable fear). I joined parler to not have to worry about this. This constant belittling of anyone who does no…

As a counterexample you claim to have joined Parlor because Twitter wouldn't let you hate transsexuals openly? This is supposed to support the premise that Parlor had a use for something other than to amplify hate speech?

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

#145

Post by jandrese »

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

Is there an example of an anti-abortion group being deplatformed that you can point me towards? I saw Reddit banned a number of subreddits on Jan 6, but I don't specifically recall any of them looking like anti-abortion subreddits.

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

#146

Post by mc32 »

wolco5 wrote: post #129
mc32 wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 viole…

Context matters. "Let’s go and burn that police station down now" If anyone I knew said that I would treat it as a dry joke.

I guess this is the problem in identifying “shooters”.

Lots of people kid around about horrible things but don’t mean it. One day you find out that one of the kids was not joking and actually meant it. Even people who are friends of the perp have problems sussing this out and can only do it in retrospect.

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

#147

Post by jandrese »

imwillofficial wrote: post #70
MartinCron wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

And that’s how things escalate.

Yeah, we should just reinstate slavery already so the white supremacists won't be so angry all the time.

/s

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

#148

Post by [deleted] »

_fq4v wrote: post #130
marcusverus wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Although parlor was only used for hate I encourage everyone to keep an eye out for these casual little calumnies, presented without evidence.

Right. I used parler to do such things as follow EWTN. I stopped using Twitter for this sort of thing because I figured that -- with EWTN's stance on the trans issue -- it was only a matter of time before they were banned (there had been talk of banning JK Rowling for similar tweets at the time, so it's a reasonable fear). I joined parler to not have to worry about this. This constant belittling of anyone who does no…

[deleted]

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

#149

Post by pixl97 »

bedhead wrote: post #110
nend wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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 co…

>how has the US managed to do so well for centuries

If you were a minority, it really has not done well at all.

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

#150

Post by matz1 »

Karunamon wrote: post #99
matz1 wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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…

>The metrics they use for exercising editorial control do not matter for this line of logic.

Sure it may not matter to you but it matter to other people including me.

How they publish it mater (at least to me). I would support one but not the other

Post reply on HN