Facebook Admits It Was Used to Incite Violence in Myanmar (2018) • Hacker News Board

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

#171

Post by COGlory » Mon, Jan 11, 2021, 11:15 PM UTC

tomcam wrote: post #168

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.

Which is exactly the problem with trying to put a box around these things, and classify tools as the problem. The problem is people, not platforms, and trying to sort platforms into "full of hate" and "not full of hate", especially with some sort of coherent, crossable line that gets you shut down is never going to work, let alone work equitably.

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

#172

Post by deanCommie » Mon, Jan 11, 2021, 11:17 PM UTC

_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…

> Although parlor was only used for hate

> Right. I used parler to do such things as . I stopped using Twitter for because I figured that ... it was only a matter of time before they were banned (for )

I know you don't think it's hate. I know you think trans rights are a subjective ethical issue.

But what if you're wrong? What if it's an objectively human rights issue? Like sexuality, and race?

I know there is still an ongoing "cultural war" about these subjects in the more conservative western nations like the US and the UK. But on every socially progressive position, for the last few decades, countries like The Netherlands, Sweden, and Canada, lead the way, and the US/UK eventually follows.

So my question is genuine - do you genuinely believe that you will come out ahead on this issue on a historical timeline? That the trans discussion will be nothing but a passing fad?

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

#173

Post by vorpalhex » Mon, Jan 11, 2021, 11:18 PM UTC

lovecg wrote: post #141

surge wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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?

Uh, yes? The yellow vest protests: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/nov/24/french-gilets-...

Some of the BLM counter-protests in the UK also became rather heated: https://www.politico.eu/article/johnson-condemns-racist-thug...

Of course the Belgium bombing was a political attack: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/27/world/europe/iran-disside...

Are you suggesting only the US has political violence?

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

#174

Post by jenwkejnwjkef » Mon, Jan 11, 2021, 11:23 PM UTC

JakeTheAndroid wrote: post #156

jenwkejnwjkef wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure why anybody falls for the frankly absurd idea that social media sites are platforms and not publishers. They choose what to show you, just like the NYT or any other traditional publisher. The only difference is who does the choosing---algorithms or humans. But that, to me, is just a logistical detail and shouldn't have an effect on the distinction between publisher and platform. To think that Facebook an…

Facebook doesn't create the content that you share. Is Google a publisher because you have a gmail account? What we are talking about at its core is a platform that allows you to talk to people you know or might want to know. Is it objectionable that my text messages are displayed in terms of arrival time? What if I want it sorted alphabetically by contact but the SMS app won't let me? And you can still send all the…

It doesn't matter who makes the content. Take for example, the New Yorker, which curates short stories and poetry not written by their own authors/editors. If they were to publish something inciting violence or otherwise illegal/immoral, they can't just throw their hands in the air and say "it wasn't me!", legally nor socially.

Besides, I'm talking mostly on a social aspect rather than a legal one. I'm not a lawyer. But too often do we give Facebook a pass since it doesn't make the content, it only curates it. The curation is automated at a massive scale by AIs, and is done for each user, every day, but it is still undeniably curation.

An example of a platform is if the user does their own curation. E.g. old Instagram. You got everything posted by everyone you follow, in chronological order. Now Instagram will change the feed order and time-delay/shadowban posts, making it, in my view, a publisher. Your SMS example is a platform since you chose to have your SMS's sorted by time.

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

#175

Post by deanCommie » Mon, Jan 11, 2021, 11:23 PM UTC

I'd like to understand better someone who is commenting on this site, or this thread, and raising the question of "How can we possibly define/moderate/ban what is hate speech and what isn't?"

The implication is because this is impossible, then we shouldn't even bother, because it's a slippery slope, and leads to all sorts of repressive behaviour.

If you believe this position, I have some follow-up questions for my own curiosity:

1) Is it not true that we already have defined lines that we universally agree cannot be breached? Child pornography. Explicitly soliciting accomplices for murder. Explicitly organizing plans for murder.

2) If lines in the sand have already been defined, why not redefine them if there is new information available in our society? Please answer me without a "slippery slope" argument. That is abstract and hypothetical. Let's deal with concrete scenarios.

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

#176

Post by eightysixfour » Mon, Jan 11, 2021, 11:28 PM UTC

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 the paradox of tolerance, unlimited tolerance leads to the disappearance of tolerance. A tolerant society must draw lines or end up overrun. Taleb has an interesting perspective on it as well: https://medium.com/incerto/the-most-intolerant-wins-the-dict...

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

#177

Post by victor106 » Mon, Jan 11, 2021, 11:39 PM UTC

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.

Also remember that Facebook is (partly?) to blame for the outcome of the 2016 US Presidential Election.

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

#178

Post by ForHackernews » Mon, Jan 11, 2021, 11:43 PM UTC

fsflover wrote: post #159

ForHackernews wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If I want to chat and share posts with 3 friends who use 3 different federated nodes, my details end up on all 3 of those nodes. Consider email as an example of a federated network: My name, email address, and text of my emails exist today on hundreds (thousands?) of different servers. If I decided I want to "delete" my name from the global email network, that's close to impossible. The same would be true of a federa…

> If I want to chat and share posts with 3 friends who use 3 different federated nodes, my details end up on all 3 of those nodes. This is not how federation works. You can talk to any other node without having an account there. Sure, your private messages may be delivered to your friends' nodes, but is this a big problem? Toots are public by design. Everyone understands that and it has nothing to do with privacy.

> Sure, your private messages may be delivered to your friends' nodes, but is this a big problem?

It kinda depends on the content of those messages, doesn't it? In the context of this OP, if my messages are organising a genocide then yes it might be a pretty fricking big problem.

> Toots are public by design. Everyone understands that and it has nothing to do with privacy.

Says you. Most users will have been accustomed to centralized services where it is possible to delete a tweet and have it gone, unless somebody else has gone to special effort to archive it or screenshot or what-have-you.

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

#179

Post by indigochill » Mon, Jan 11, 2021, 11:53 PM UTC

deanCommie wrote: post #172

_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…

> Although parlor was only used for hate > Right. I used parler to do such things as . I stopped using Twitter for because I figured that ... it was only a matter of time before they were banned (for ) I know you don't think it's hate. I know you think trans rights are a subjective ethical issue. But what if you're wrong? What if it's an objectively human rights issue? Like sexuality, and race? I know there is still…

Sexual mores have been fluid throughout history. There's no particular reason to think one side is more on the "right side" than the other from an absolute sense, looking at the historical track record.

For that matter, the notion of human rights as we conceive of them is a relatively modern invention. Liberalism isn't even 400 years old yet (and the notion of universal rule of law as codified in the Magna Carta is itself only just past 800). By comparison, Ancient Egypt lasted for around 3,000 years, and Rome for 1,200. We've got a while yet before we can declare our way is any more successful than theirs.

Particularly if someone believes that it's a religious issue dictated by a deity who takes an active interest in the world, then they'll definitely believe they're on the right side of history.

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

#180

Post by WheelsAtLarge » Tue, Jan 12, 2021, 12:00 AM UTC

Mass communication seems to be the culprit. Yellow journalism had a huge impact in the US in the past, Rwanda's problems were inflamed via Radio and now social media is hurting the US and the world.

Social media is the genie that's been let out of its cage. It's not going to go back in. I suspect the fix is to treat social media in the same way radio and TV are managed. They can't and should not be completely stopped but they can be managed by federal law.

People will complain that it's against freedom of speech but free speech does not mean reckless speech. Words have consequences and social media lets every one have a virtual loud speaker that amplifies ideas that are said without much thought behind them. You can't even know whether the person is serious of just trying to be funny. It's a problem.