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

161–170 of 262 posts

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

#161

Post by xupybd »

jandrese wrote: post #144
_fq4v wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

This is where it gets interesting and the devil really is in the detail on this one. If you define hate speech according to this:

The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) states that "any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility, or violence shall be prohibited by law".

You are saying that this group cannot broadcast a message if that message tells transsexual people that they cannot be transsexual and be approved of by this groups god. Yet broadcasting such messages is a core part of their religion. So are you now discriminating against that religion in an effort to avoid discriminating against transsexual people?

If that is so then your comment could be classed as hate speech. I don't think it should be but I do think this highlights the risks and the need to limit what we consider hate speech. That to err on the side of free speech is the safer option.

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

#162

Post by sli »

xupybd wrote: post #161
jandrese wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

This is where it gets interesting and the devil really is in the detail on this one. If you define hate speech according to this: The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) states that "any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility, or violence shall be prohibited by law". You are saying that this group cannot broadcast a message if…

This is a bad faith argument, or at least just a bad argument in general. Denouncing transphobia has absolutely nothing to do with said transphobe's religion and everything to do with denoucning hateful rhetoric. It's a leap in logic to assume otherwise.

What's that common Christian refrain? Love the sinner, hate the sin? By your same logic, "love the sinner, hate the sin" is hate speech despite not attacking the person, but their harmful views and actions.

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

#163

Post by 99_00 »

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.

It's impossible to believe that Facebook, Twitter, iPhones, and Google weren't in major ways used by the perpetuators and organizers of the assault on the capital to facilitate their criminal conspiracy and actions.

Selective enforcement of rules is being used to against political positions and, let's face it, competing platforms.

>Although parlor was only used for hate,

I don't think that is in evidence.

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

#164

Post by yibg »

bedhead wrote: post #107
mratzloff wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Why does there need to be a single definition? You can have a different definition of what hate is compared to me. For example, you can choose not to associate with someone because you think they're hateful, where as I find them just find and we're buddies.

Facebook is influential yes, but they are still one private organization of many. Why do we need a consistent definition of hate speech between facebook, twitter, reddit etc?

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

#165

Post by drak0n1c »

rvz wrote: post #20
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.

Even if you wanted to, Facebook can't be de-platformed. They are entrenched in the internet and own their own data centres, are also themselves domain registrars and members part of the ICANN.

Market entrenchment is an unfortunate side effect. The oligopolistic old guard can weather or ignore such criticism against themselves and lobby for their own Section 230 protections, while using such to eliminate small market entrants.

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

#166

Post by mc32 »

wolco5 wrote: post #160
mc32 wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

What about songs like kill the police by ice tea. A direct call to action exists / police have been killed but he still is free to act in police dramas?

If we took “progressive” politics out of it but retained that we need to remove “violence” from discourse, yes they would have to be banned from Twitter.

Progressive politics will say we have to consider the background of the singer and the audience as mitigating circumstance so they might let it slide.

Objectively it would have to be banned if we use Twitter’s new rubric.

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

#167

Post by thebean11 »

pixl97 wrote: post #157
kerng wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Because the Apple and Google execs live in the US where the violence is happening. It is very easy to be concerned about an issue when it is right out your back door.

I thought the capitol attack was largely planned on Facebook too..

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

#168

Post by tomcam »

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 parler was only used for hate

I would love to see proof of that completely unsupportable statement. Obviously all social media sites are used for hate. Maybe they were used a higher percentage of the time, I don’t know. But your statement does nothing to add to the discourse and does a considerable amount to harm it.

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

#169

Post by yters »

jandrese wrote: post #145
yters wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I am wrong about deplatforming in response to 6 Jan. However, prolife groups are regularly deplatformed without presenting misinformation or hate speech.

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

#170

Post by boredumb »

pixl97 wrote: post #151
bedhead wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've noticed a high correlation between people who callously want to ban all sorts of speech and people who just seem completely miserable and think the US is the most awful place on earth.

I would assume this is because you are a WASP with both high income and privilege levels and have never really experienced the fallout of hate speech directed towards you.

`White Anglo-Saxon Protestants`

Maliciously categorizing someone based on skin color, race, income, social status and religion in an attempt to denounce hate speech.

Poetic

Post reply on HN