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)

#241

Post by cbozeman » Tue, Jan 12, 2021, 10:43 AM UTC

ModernMech wrote: post #207

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…

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.

> There will be plenty of babies born to parents who can’t afford to genetically modify their children.

Yes, and how far behind will they be left?? This is one of my primary concerns.

GATTACA tells the story of a single individual with Herculean willpower. That's simply not most of society. For every one Vincent Freemans, there's 999,999 Carls from The Breakfast Club.

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

#242

Post by whoisthemachine » Tue, Jan 12, 2021, 1:29 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.

The difference is no single entity can likely "shutdown" Facebook, since it likely runs its own servers, or has multiple back-ends in case one shuts down.

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

#243

Post by FFRefresh » Tue, Jan 12, 2021, 2:22 PM UTC

arrosenberg wrote: post #236

FFRefresh wrote: post #234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1. Facebook already had 1 billion MAU in 2012, the year it acquired Instagram. How would you limit M&A? Won't that really hurt the startup ecosystem if you use the state to close off one of the paths to an exit? How do you propose limiting 'hot money' to finance growth ahead of revenue? Are you proposing getting rid of venture capital? 2. I'm familiar with safe harbor provisions, but am asking you for more specifics.…

1. Without serious competition we will never know if their waning mainstream popularity would have diminished their financial success. Limit M&A by denying acquisitions that would consolidate markets, like we did for a long time in this country. You don’t have to hurt startups if you have a little bit of creativity. Create different tiers of review, etc. You cut down on hot money by reinstating the firewall between c…

2. You dislike algorithms that feed right wing propaganda to people. What about left wing propaganda? What about sites that don't feed right wing propaganda? How would you craft rules that address what you see as the problem? The devil is in the details. I totally get you want to attack Facebook and its ilk, but regulation can entrench the incumbents and reduce competition if not thought through.

3. Thanks for answering the question this time. So advertisers are getting taxed, which will increase the cost of advertising for companies seeking to drive awareness for their products. Some potential effects of this:

* It raises the cost of advertising. This means that you'll need higher margins for the increased cost of advertising to make sense as an advertiser. Given the higher cost/margin requirement, you may see smaller advertisers drop-off, having the potential to reducing competition in different markets. This would be a good thing for big companies/incumbents.

* Depending on the size of the tax, it could put upward pressure on prices elsewhere, as businesses attempt to maintain their margins and account for the increased marketing costs.

* Tax collection will add a new operational cost for ad networks. Google and Facebook, given their size and profitability will be able to deal with this cost easier than most.

* If it reduces total ad revenue for publishers, you'll likely see a bunch of smaller companies go out of business that depend on ad revenue. Smaller and local news/content sites will be hurt, leaving fewer sources, and further entrenching the major news companies. Ad revenue models by their nature promote strategies to appeal to the widest audience possible, in order to maximize impressions/engagement. The alternative model in news (just to use as an example) is subscription, which doesn't have that same incentive. The incentive is to maximize paying customers. In some niche areas you may likely see higher quality (which we already see today). But some of the downsides are: less privileged people won't have access to the same information that they may have previously, increased polarization & bubbles as publishers cater to exactly what their paying customers want to hear (and thus continue paying for).

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

#244

Post by yters » Tue, Jan 12, 2021, 2:25 PM UTC

jandrese wrote: post #231

yters wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

live action is one well known one https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Live_Action_(organization)#S...

Liveaction hasn't been deplatformed from what I can see. https://twitter.com/LiveAction https://www.facebook.com/liveaction Looking through their feed they have a real bug up their butt about Planned Parenthood. Well, I guess they were deplatformed a bit: https://twitter.com/LiveAction/status/1347927726150324225

Yes the wiki page states their Pinterest account was suspended, along with other media getting dropped from other platforms. Most pro life groups experience the same thing.

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

#245

Post by pocketgrok » Tue, Jan 12, 2021, 2:27 PM UTC

Alupis wrote: post #190

polemic wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where's the lie.

>>> 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.

I’m genuinely interested in seeing BitTorrent traffic stats showing usage across various categories.

I’d wager that the vast majority is illegal content but wouldn’t be surprised if software updaters were a dark horse.

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

#246

Post by BoorishBears » Tue, Jan 12, 2021, 2:47 PM UTC

toomim wrote: post #238

BoorishBears wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 g…

Parler does ban hate speech within the rule banning "Any direct and very personal insult with the intention of stirring and upsetting the recipient". https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20200625/16303844790/just-...

Parler does not ban hate speech.

Parler bans "tortious" speech, meaning speech that would open someone up to a civil tort, think defamation.

In fact, Parler later switched to just using the simplified wording of "we won't be used as a tool in a civil tort"

-

My example is not tortious, it is not targeting a person in a direct and personal manner.

There is _a lot_ of hate speech that is not tortious, and does not fall under "direct and very personal"

Spamming nig**r in a public forum is upsetting to some readers, but not covered under the fighting words doctrine they tried to invoke nor their guidelines.

Saying "I hate these damn they should all go back home" is the same.

-

And like I mentioned above, your article is out of date, their latest guidelines before going down no longer even bothered with breaking this out and all of what was quoted no longer existed.

Instead it was all replaced with

> Parler will not knowingly allow itself to be used as a tool for crime, civil torts, or other unlawful acts.

You can confirm this by googling this URL (which us obviously down if you try to visit it directly) "https://legal.parler.com/documents/guidelines.pdf"

The latest revision was on 12/04

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

#247

Post by KraftKacke » Tue, Jan 12, 2021, 3:03 PM UTC

cbozeman wrote: post #240

KraftKacke wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> You vastly underestimate the complexity of the human genome We mapped it out 20+ years ago. We learn more about it each year, but what's more, the extent of our knowledge increases exponentially, not linearly. > Ontogenesis, epigenetics, environmental factors, ... there is a lot more on sex variant hardware front than genetics. You act like these are factors that can't be controlled, if not entirely, at least to so…

Mapping DNA is not understanding genes. We know very, very little about the genome. In fact we're still discovering new mechanisms of encoding and meta-encoding. We can't even say where "genes" begin and where they end.

We identified a few single genes in _association with certain risks, but literally nothing is understood in complex interactions and how environment and genetics make for the concrete phenotype.

Transsexuality is related to brain anatomy, which... is about the most obvious complex system in the body...

Have you had any introduction to bioinformatics at all? Your enthusiastic futurism is uncalled for.

We also thought to be at the edge of AI in the 50s, thought the mystery of the brain was about to be illuminated with the introduction of fMRI and weather prediction is only marginally better at what farmers were capable of for thousands of years. Nobody can extensively model even a single cell today. Do you know how prostate cancer cells ultimately always evade androgen deprivation therapy? Me neither. Nobody does. All we are celebrating is "this transporter may play a role" types of "breakthrough", achieved by extensive experimentation.

Humans tend underestimate chaotic complexity...

And again, what are you even getting at? To understand and manipulate transsexuality completely, you need to understand and manipulate sex expression completely. It's pretty telling that you assume "parents" will chose to eliminate transsexuality exclusively. Why wouldn't you rather have intersex humans? There is no inherent value to sexual dimorphism and the sexual evolution likely isn't related to survival, but rather costly (see birds).

Snails do fine.

Clown fish do fine.

Sex is overrated.

You just want to construct a reason to be edgy on transsexuality... don't you?

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

#248

Post by newen » Tue, Jan 12, 2021, 3:15 PM UTC

anigbrowl wrote: post #230

newen wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

No he didn’t. He just made that one post with the questions and you randomly accused him of sealioning. Just asking questions is not sealioning. I know where the term originated.

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

#249

Post by bedhead » Tue, Jan 12, 2021, 3:20 PM UTC

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.

You couldn't help illustrate my point any better, thanks. My opinion is invalidated by my racial/economic identity. Actually, it's worse: the opposite of what I say must be true. Brave new world.

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

#250

Post by bedhead » Tue, Jan 12, 2021, 3:38 PM UTC

garden_hermit wrote: post #210

bedhead wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Why do we even need to define this at all???? We're never going to. Again, the US functioned just fine allowing "hate speech" to be legal. Would there be consequences to such speech? Sure, and deservedly. But the government couldn't do anything to you, that's the point. And I would strongly argue that Facebook, Twitter, et al have de facto replaced the government - they are a new governance for society whether we like it or not.

And why would we engage in a "complex negotiation" (that sounds to me like a euphemism for right/left extremists and massive unprecedented violence) to reach a "less than ideal" outcome over an issue that 250 years of history prove is not only unnecessary but in all likelihood extraordinarily dangerous??? Again, why was free speech the first one???? It f-ing works, that's why. It's the foundation for the best governance human beings have ever achieved. To have people now in 2021 just kinda shrug about its importance is mind-blowing to me.