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

221–230 of 262 posts

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

#221

Post by PurpleFoxy »

Alupis wrote: post #206
lrossi wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I think these days no games use BitTorrent anymore since it’s easier to distribute your own files now and users do not like unexpected large amounts of data usage which can slow down their other applications and use up their data cap

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

#222

Post by PurpleFoxy »

wolco5 wrote: post #128
notahacker wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 intercomm…

The other side is facebook shouldn't offer a service to a country/people it can't support.

Agreed. There would be a lot of benefit in countries having their own local services that understand their culture better.

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

#223

Post by swirepe »

sli wrote: post #162
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 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 per…

Not to be tHaT gUy, but Christians aren't supposed to hate the sin in others. It's not our business, but God's.

>Do not judge, and you will not be judged. Do not condemn, and you will not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven.

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke+6%3A37-42

Edited to add: I don't think there should be a religious exemption to hate speech.

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

#224

Post by FFRefresh »

arrosenberg wrote: post #35
MrMan wrote: post #12

Earlier 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. 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.

> I havent heard any good ideas yet regarding how to somehow regulate social networks. * Break them up, and keep them small enough so that no one site can do that much damage. * Remove safe harbor provisions on algorithmic content feeds. * Pass a transaction tax on ad auctions to discourage free-for-attention business models.

Could you clarify a bit more on these proposals?

> * Break them up... How do you ensure that all companies in a vertical will remain small? What would the legislation look like? The internet certainly enables more 'winner takes all' type markets, so not sure how you consistently keep social networks small when everyone will naturally gravitate to those that have the best UX + network effects (there are surely other variables, just listing 2 as an example)

> * Remove safe harbor provisions... What does this mean? How are algorithmic content feeds currently treated relative to non-algorithmic content feeds? How would you target the legislation to not have externalities?

> * Pass a transaction tax Never heard of this, what does this mean? Who is getting taxed? Advertisers? Publishers? Website visitors? How will your proposal change incentives? What's your take on how smaller news sites are dependent on the ad model and that ad models promote websites that are open to more people (as opposed to subscription businesses which incentivize optimizing for your paying customers and giving them exactly what they want)

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

#225

Post by newen »

anigbrowl wrote: post #196
newen wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not what sealioning is.

http://wondermark.com/1k62/ Reasonable people can disagree

From Wikipedia

> Sealioning (also spelled sea-lioning and sea lioning) is a type of trolling or harassment that consists of pursuing people with persistent requests for evidence or repeated questions, while maintaining a pretense of civility and sincerity. It may take the form of "incessant, bad-faith invitations to engage in debate".

One post is not it.

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

#227

Post by tonfreed »

temp8964 wrote: post #199
99_00 wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Anytime you look at the trending hashtags on Twitter they are always divisive and hatred. Even when unify was trending, the top twitters and top comments are the ones against unification, like "we don't unify with nazis".

What's considered a Nazi just keeps gradually expanding. Twitter seems at that point where any white male is a Nazi, and any woman that loses weight is enabling the white males so are therefore Nazis as well.

I'm curious to see what happens when Biden refuses to meet with any of the BLM radicals and the more senior Democratic members of congress reign in the young ones like AOC, these people have outlived their usefulness now that Trump's out 3and I don't think they're going to like what comes next.

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

#228

Post by tonfreed »

KraftKacke wrote: post #217
cbozeman wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

You vastly underestimate the complexity of the human genome and also assume transsexuality is _all genetics. Ontogenesis, epigenetics, environmental factors, ... there is a lot more on sex variant hardware front than genetics. Sex is bimodal, by definition parents can't define a "right body" in this regard. And anyway, at that point of understanding and manipulating human biology, "people" will likely moved beyond li…

So what you're saying is that people are grooming young boys and girls to be transgender?

Sounds pretty bigoted, bro

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

#229

Post by jenwkejnwjkef »

JakeTheAndroid wrote: post #216
jenwkejnwjkef wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.…

Well in your case with the New Yorker, they actually review and actively publish the information. Where is the peer reviewed check from Facebook? Where do these status' imply that Facebook supports and endorses them? And what is the social difference between a publisher and a platform in terms of expected social responsibility? This distinction only now exists because people attempted to use a legal definition that i…

> they actually review and actively publish the information

They do it to save their own ass. Since they publish it, they are responsible. Facebook should either review the all content they publish, or they should stop being a publisher.

> Do we honestly believe that between ML and a real person Facebook is validating and approving every comment on Facebook?

I never said that; here's my point: if, say, the New Yorker replaced their human editors with AI ones, then the outcome is the same and they are still publishers. Alternatively, say they made human-run personal curations---each subscriber gets an individually-tailored set of articles which are suggested---then they are obviously still publishers. So if they replace these human curators with AI, are they still publishers? Because that would be what Facebook is today.

And on your Gmail point, Google is not a publisher, it acts like a phone service. You send your email, the recipient receives it, unconditionally, without modification. Facebook actively shadow-bans, time-delays and puts fact-check warnings on posts. Since that show they disapprove of some posts, it kind of implies that they approve of all the others.

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

#230

Post by anigbrowl »

newen wrote: post #225
anigbrowl wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

http://wondermark.com/1k62/ Reasonable people can disagree

From Wikipedia > Sealioning (also spelled sea-lioning and sea lioning) is a type of trolling or harassment that consists of pursuing people with persistent requests for evidence or repeated questions, while maintaining a pretense of civility and sincerity. It may take the form of "incessant, bad-faith invitations to engage in debate". One post is not it.

It's not just one post. The same person posed something like 15 different questions in the thread. Soliciting clarity on another's views via questioning is a valid kind of discourse, but Socrates also took time to listen to answers and offer his own views rather than throwing out 5 questions in a row.

Also, if you read that Wikipedia article to the end you'll realize that I pointed you to the original use of the term.

Post reply on HN