21–30 of 86 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
source, if any?
Watch this from 27:59 https://youtu.be/1OW7AQxpf2g (Edit: it’s in Hindi)
With this finally being mentioned, it also needs to be said that they are quite enthusiastic about mowing down Congress on FB, and IG. And that very much unlike other far more on the fringe parties. This was going on for far longer before Facebook's political engagement became known in the West. It feels to me, Zuckerberg wants INC dead, and buried. Wouldn't be against that myself. INC, is for all reasons, synonymic…
The Indian leading party has over 3.2 million WhatsApp accounts. These groups are used during Election Day in many states to spread misinformation amongst gullible citizens and change the outcome on the last moment....
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't buy the "argument from hypocrisy" at all. The situations are not symmetric because there is a right answer on each side and they give different results. Google should filter information when it's the right thing to do. It should not filter information when it's the wrong thing to do. The superficial symmetry of the two situations is completely irrelevant to which course of action is right and acceptable.
And who decides what's wrong and what's right? You? Or, Google?
It seems to me on this topic almost everyone (including myself) is in a completely hypocritical position. We want facebook to take action in countries where we disagree, but not take action in areas/countries where we agree. Here is a perfect example. I imagine most people criticising Facebook here were in favour of facebook wiping the hunter biden story from everywhere. Because one is a conservative government, the…
You also need to get out of the headspace where you think Biden is "left wing" just because Trump or Modi is so extremely right wing. If you want to see "left wing" criticism on Facebook it's not about Hunter Biden, it's about things like the ("alleged") Uyghur genocide or the portrayal of socialist governments.
Biden isn't a socialist, he's a centrist moderate leaning towards fiscal conservatism with some moderately progressive social policies. Even relative to the US population he's barely "left wing". His appeal was literally that he plans to "reach across the isle" and "unite" with Republicans (who, for the record, have shown no such interest themselves).
Neither is Facebook, by the way. While Facebook has cracked down on right-wing disinfo campaigns after they gained massive traction after 2016, they've also cracked down hard on socialist accounts and groups, often with no recourse and no clear explanation of which parts of the ToS they allegedly violated. Meanwhile they cozied up to Republican politicians during the Trump era and there have been leaked conversations and memos indicating Zuckerberg & co intentionally pushing for a more right-wing slant to offset the employees' supposed liberal bias.
I'm not in support of Facebook wiping "the Hunter Biden story", I'm in support of Facebook enforcing its ToS. But they need to do so transparently and objectively. They aren't doing that, though, and that's a problem. But it doesn't only impact "the right". The right is just more likely to see their own being banned over bannable offenses like explicitly racist remarks and calls to violence and portray it as "censoring conservatives".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Watch this from 27:59 https://youtu.be/1OW7AQxpf2g (Edit: it’s in Hindi)
I am from India and know Hindi. The person in Video is Mr. Amit Shah. President of BJP and Home Minister of India. At the above timestamp he says (translation): Even if it is sour or sweet, truth or false we could spread it to people because we had created a group of 32 Lac (3.2 Million) people on Whatsapp.
He indeed said that they created a WhatsApp account with 32 lakh people in it...
Hence the translation above is correct.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I am from India and know Hindi. The person in Video is Mr. Amit Shah. President of BJP and Home Minister of India. At the above timestamp he says (translation): Even if it is sour or sweet, truth or false we could spread it to people because we had created a group of 32 Lac (3.2 Million) people on Whatsapp.
Apologies, revising previous comment because I misunderstood the said text. He indeed said that they created a WhatsApp account with 32 lakh people in it... Hence the translation above is correct.
It seems to me on this topic almost everyone (including myself) is in a completely hypocritical position. We want facebook to take action in countries where we disagree, but not take action in areas/countries where we agree. Here is a perfect example. I imagine most people criticising Facebook here were in favour of facebook wiping the hunter biden story from everywhere. Because one is a conservative government, the…
No, the Hunter Biden story was "wiped from everywhere" because it was part illegal (the authentic parts, if they were indeed authentic, would likely have violated revenge porn laws in addition to Facebook's ToS on nudity), part misinformation and part (and this is probably the least important) character assassination. It also wasn't a very successful "wipe" if the story got coverage in various mainstream media. It wa…
Just like obtaining and publishing Trump's tax returns were illegal, but talking about it isn't, and they most certainly weren't wiped from Facebook and Twitter.
Which is an extremely easy example of just what double standards there were during the election.
Also - how do you know it was illegal? Has a court ruled so? Are you basically expecting Facebook and Twitter to know what and what isn't illegal in real time, and act upon that? To know what a court might rule before there's even been a court case? What your suggesting is ridiculous.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I am from India and know Hindi. The person in Video is Mr. Amit Shah. President of BJP and Home Minister of India. At the above timestamp he says (translation): Even if it is sour or sweet, truth or false we could spread it to people because we had created a group of 32 Lac (3.2 Million) people on Whatsapp.
Apologies, revising previous comment because I misunderstood the said text. He indeed said that they created a WhatsApp account with 32 lakh people in it... Hence the translation above is correct.
Don't lie man. Not cool at all! He said "Woh isliye hopaya ki hum battis lakh WhatsApp ka EK group banakar khade the". Which translates to "it happened because we created a WhatsApp group with 32 lakh people in it". You accuse a political party of spreading misinformation and you do that yourself! Did you seriously think you are the only one who knows Hindi in Hacker News and that you can get away with this lie? There is no need to even "listen carefully". It is as audible as it gets.
32 lakh WhatsApp groups is technically crazy to pull off unless done programmatically. And what is the point of 32 lakh WhatsApp groups? It serves no purpose to have so many groups.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, the Hunter Biden story was "wiped from everywhere" because it was part illegal (the authentic parts, if they were indeed authentic, would likely have violated revenge porn laws in addition to Facebook's ToS on nudity), part misinformation and part (and this is probably the least important) character assassination. It also wasn't a very successful "wipe" if the story got coverage in various mainstream media. It wa…
A story about hunter biden is not the same as the material itself, which might have been illegal. Just like obtaining and publishing Trump's tax returns were illegal, but talking about it isn't, and they most certainly weren't wiped from Facebook and Twitter. Which is an extremely easy example of just what double standards there were during the election. Also - how do you know it was illegal? Has a court ruled so? Ar…
> how do you know it was illegal? Has a court ruled so? Are you basically expecting Facebook and Twitter to know what and what isn't illegal in real time, and act upon that? To know what a court might rule before there's even been a court case?
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
PS: If you don't see the difference between yellow press trying to create a moral panic over a candidate's son engaging in behavior the incumbent has been documented to have engaged in himself, and news sites covering a candidate's tax returns which were leaked after the candidate spent years claiming he wanted to publish them but couldn't for legal reasons, I have nothing to say to you. I don't even like Biden but its pretty clear the most tangible criticism based on the Hunter Biden laptop situation was that the leaked sex tapes were previously used to blackmail the candidate, which clearly ceased to be relevant the instance they were published unless the claim was that this had influenced his actions as a VP, which none of these sites dared to assert.