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)

#201

Post by SV_BubbleTime » Tue, Jan 12, 2021, 12:53 AM UTC

marcusverus wrote: post #52

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 I encourage everyone to keep an eye out for these casual little calumnies, presented without evidence.

>> Although parlor was only used for hate

>I encourage everyone to keep an eye out for these casual little calumnies, presented without evidence.

Yea. I had a parlor account. It's news to me it was used for hate!

I posted to Parler and Twitter at the same time manually. I was DM'ed by a Pakistani man on Parler that I eventually hired for contract work and he's been great, I had no idea he was a hateful person either.

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

#202

Post by cbozeman » Tue, Jan 12, 2021, 12:55 AM 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…

You realize trans people are going to go extinct right?

It should be clear as day to anyone with even a passing interest in biology. Once we've identified exactly what genes influence transgenderism, and genetic editing of our embryos is commonplace for the populace, no one is going to allow their children to be born with a predilection for being transgender. You'd be literally putting your child at an enormous disadvantage for no discernable reason.

Look how long its taken for gay people to be accepted by society. Not decades, but centuries. Transgender people don't have that long. In a century, we'll be editing genetically superior superbabies. No parents in their right mind would give their children such a tremendous disadvantage in life when they could make them "normal". I suspect gay people will probably go extinct too, but one never knows with 100% certainty how these things play out.

I suspect a great many classes of people / traits will go extinct. Down's Syndrome babies will certainly be screened out of the population, because again... in a society of beautiful 200 IQ super athletes, why would you deliberately hinder your child?

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

#203

Post by subsubzero » Tue, Jan 12, 2021, 1:02 AM UTC

eightysixfour wrote: post #176

xupybd wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

Great article, the %3 rule explains alot of the dysfunction in US politics. With fringe actors on the right(tea party, Qanon) and left(AOC, Antifa). The need for solidarity in either party allows for embrace of ideas/ideals the majority would reject if not for the need to "band together on party lines".

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

#204

Post by patagurbon » Tue, Jan 12, 2021, 1:02 AM UTC

yters wrote: post #169

jandrese wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Can you point to one?

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

#205

Post by patagurbon » Tue, Jan 12, 2021, 1:06 AM UTC

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.

Some of the "problems" people have aren't solvable. There are people who are just racist or sexist etc. There are certainly a lot of problems these groups have which we can and should solve: poverty, drug addiction, lack of social mobility, education. But sometimes the core issue really is pure unadulterated hate. What then?

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

#206

Post by Alupis » Tue, Jan 12, 2021, 1:08 AM UTC

lrossi wrote: post #198

Alupis wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>>> only used for hate >> This reminds me of "BitTorrent is only used by illegal downloaders", "bitcoin is only used by criminals" etc. > Where's the lie. Right here: https://downloads.raspberrypi.org/raspios_full_armhf/images/... There are all sorts of legitimate use cases for torrents, including downloading large linux distro install images.

Many games have been using as well BitTorrent to distribute their installation files.

It's a fantastic download protocol for anything large, has the possibility of being "paused" or resumed later, allows for content integrity checking, etc... such as video game files.

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

#207

Post by ModernMech » Tue, Jan 12, 2021, 1:17 AM UTC

cbozeman wrote: post #202

deanCommie wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

You realize trans people are going to go extinct right? It should be clear as day to anyone with even a passing interest in biology. Once we've identified exactly what genes influence transgenderism, and genetic editing of our embryos is commonplace for the populace, no one is going to allow their children to be born with a predilection for being transgender. You'd be literally putting your child at an enormous disad…

Haven’t you seen Gattaca? There will be plenty of babies born to parents who can’t afford to genetically modify their children. We can’t even get insulin to the people who need it today.

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

#208

Post by kazinator » Tue, Jan 12, 2021, 1:25 AM UTC

"The Earth's atmosphere admits it has been used for millennia for calls to violence, such as battle cries, carried from mouth to ears by sound waves."

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

#209

Post by BoorishBears » Tue, Jan 12, 2021, 1:31 AM UTC

99_00 wrote: post #163

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.

Site A has a TOS that bans hate speech

Site B is just like Site A, but with less reach. However, their TOS allows hate speech as long as it's not tortious

So on Site A a comment spamming nig**r will get you banned, and on Site B it is a-ok as long as it doesn't mention anyone's name.

-

Site B should be expected to have more hate speech.

Additionally even if Site A gets hate speech, it's providers are more likely to give it leeway since it's not by design that hate speech appeared.

Meanwhile Site B, by the very virtue of it's design becomes a lightning rod for hate speech not allowed on Site A, and it is understandable providers are not on board with it.

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

#210

Post by garden_hermit » Tue, Jan 12, 2021, 1:31 AM UTC

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.

Ideally, the definition of hate will result from a complex negotiation between stakeholders in society, just as we draw a line on who counts as an "adult", what counts as "self defense", and what counts as "libel".

The definition will be less than ideal, open to abuse, and problematic, but having it is better than not, just as having a definition of "adult", "self defense", and "libel" are better than not having them.