Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Class-action suit filed against Meta for facilitating Rohingya Genocide [pdf]

edelson.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 164 posts

Re: Class-action suit filed against Meta for facilitating Rohingya Genocide [pdf]

#121

Post by triceratops »

1cvmask wrote: post #67

Obama graced Aung San Suu Kyi despite her well known track record. Obama also at similar times embraced Narendra Modi, despite his known track record. Obama even removed the Modi sanctions and visa block that George W Bush put on him after his alleged role in the Gujarat Muslim massacre/genocide. Newspapers gloated about Obama's bromance with Modi. Will they now sue Obama? https://www.haaretz.com/world-news/asia-and-…

At the time Bush visa-banned Modi, he was not the Prime Minister of India. By the time Obama embraced him, he was. For better or worse, Modi came to power in a free and fair, democratic election. Diplomacy demands treating him like any other leader of a major power.

Re: Class-action suit filed against Meta for facilitating Rohingya Genocide [pdf]

#122

Post by wonderwonder »

dekhn wrote: post #118
wonderwonder wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sorry friend, I was willing to engage with you in good natured debate but if you think that China's response will be cowering in fear then you are very much not versed in what's going on in the world, especially regarding China's capabilities and government. China is a military power very close to the US in capability. China commands and enforces absolute loyalty from its citizens, and is more than happy to turn to g…

This seems to completely ignore the US's significant naval advantage and nuclear superiority, as well as a large number of well-armed allies around the world, and its satellite infrastructure Also I think if US/China war happened, each country would break the other's civilian infrastructure (we know for sure that both countries actively probe the other's defences) badly enough that there would be serious threat to th…

China has demonstrated the ability to destroy satellites, generally has more battle ships than the US (although not aircraft carriers) and has missiles capable of sinking US ships. The entire argument is moot though, my point is that the US will not invade Myanmar because of the likely war with China that will result. Even if the US was able to defeat China, a likely situation, the victory would be pyrrhic as both countries would likely be devastated and have lost lives numbering in the hundreds of thousands.

Re: Class-action suit filed against Meta for facilitating Rohingya Genocide [pdf]

#123

Post by dirtyid »

baybal2 wrote: post #115
dirtyid wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's how you gift PRC a firm client state with naval base and infra that circumvents Malacca and mitigates Andaman & Nicobar. US can only maximize logistics with forward staging, which is still tiny compared to Myanmar / PRC land routes, who can support Tatmadaw indefinitely, with little green men if need be. Regardless, unlikely anyone in the region will allow it, least of all India, whose already dealing with bor…

> Also SKorea, Japan, Singapore - basically anyone that's remotely US friendly If that treacherous trio wasn't rooting for China, and not spending billions on their factories in China, the talk would be entirely different. It's in US best interest to keep its allies in line. The worst thing they can do is really to die on US, by failing to resist China. And I think, this is even more important now that getting Modi/I…

>keep its allies in line

With that kind of characterization then label US "allies" for what they are, satraps. Which while the trio are somewhere on the continuum, they still have autonomy to realize US security commitment is only worthwhile if it ensures holistic security. Plunging entire region into war, potentially another forever one isn't in their security interest. At the end of the day security guarantee is a different arrangement than committed alliance, especially to contain PRC in their own backyard at all costs. Security partners are not allies who are obligated to come to US defense or bleed for US interests after all. That's not the kind of commitment US can twist arm for buy in. India/Modi doesn't seem very on board either. Ultimately, Jaishankar sees US/west as hegemon of yesterday and PRC/India collaboration as essential to Asian Century. Previously sanctioned Modi knows how fickle west can be, hasn't bought in outside of hedging. Certainly not enough to provide basing for US considering their history.

>I bet, in a decade or so, China will be back into a state of North Korea, except with skyscrapers if the US will do so.

US probably could do so, but the problem even NK emerging from rubble retained enough expertise to now have a nuclear program that credibly threatens US. But they're simply too small bargain for anything better. PRC on the other hand is large and capable enough to negotiate/fight for better, and could feasibly turn US (and satraps) into North Korea as well. IMO, short of utter calamity, PRC is simply too big to acquiesce to US foreign policy indefinitely and is in a position to at least make sure US suffers decline as much if not more.

Re: Class-action suit filed against Meta for facilitating Rohingya Genocide [pdf]

#124

Post by baybal2 »

wonderwonder wrote: post #120
baybal2 wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> China is a military power very close to the US in capability. False, Chinese military is numerically inferior to America, with nearly 4-fold disadvantage in combat aircraft, and already surrounded by US allies, and military assets. Ultimately, China don't have enough nuclear weapons to destroy enough US military bases to prevent effective retaliation.

Again, you are not paying attention to logistics. America has to get its military aircraft to China and then once there China has an overwhelming array of surface to air missiles it can deploy from its own territory. The fact that you had to say "China don't have enough nuclear weapons to destroy enough US military bases to prevent effective retaliation" proves the reason the US will not invade Myanmar. We are not go…

> China has an overwhelming array of surface to air missiles

False, China has at most 10 long to medium range air defence regiments, most near its capital.

For everything else, China's SAMs are outranged even by glide bombs.

> China has an estimated 300+ nuclear warheads; potentially more

That's obviously not enough to blunt even a quarter of US military potential, even if they have many times the number of missiles, or can launch them all in a surprise attack.

Re: Class-action suit filed against Meta for facilitating Rohingya Genocide [pdf]

#125

Post by iso1631 »

asow92 wrote: post #84
iso1631 wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But that's not what the headline says

The poster of this PDF link chose the headline and who here at HN doesn't know who Meta are? Also read the Plaintiff in the document: Plaintiff, v. META PLATFORMS, INC. (f/k/a Facebook, Inc.), a Delaware corporation

By changing the name, we get headlines like

" Investors sue Meta for alleged failure to protect mental health of users "

https://www.jurist.org/news/2021/11/investors-sue-meta-for-a...

And

"‘An egregious breach of public trust’: Ohio sues Meta over whistleblower revelations"

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2021/nov/16/ohio-sues...

Does it stop every headline? No. But it helps disconnect the idea of "facebook the site" (pics of granny's cat) and "facebook the company" (shady)

Re: Class-action suit filed against Meta for facilitating Rohingya Genocide [pdf]

#126

Post by diveanon »

ryan93 wrote: post #34
bikeshaving wrote: post #14

Between the UN fact-finding mission saying Facebook played a “determining role” in the genocide, the Bosworth memo, and the shit ton of access we now have thanks to the whistleblower, how is this not a strong case?

I don’t see how Facebook is liable for the actions of other adults.maybe evidence comes out that Facebook actively encouraged it. But seems unlikely.

Facebook is a radicalization engine.

It is designed to reinforce existing beliefs and preferences in order to increase engagement.

In this case the beliefs were virulently racists and bigoted, and the engagement was usually done with a machete.

Re: Class-action suit filed against Meta for facilitating Rohingya Genocide [pdf]

#127

Post by diveanon »

FridayoLeary wrote: post #82
_blz2 wrote: post #74

Will someone do the same against Twitter for the Arab springs which lead to the rise of ISIS?

Why not against Western countries who did far more to create ISIS then merely be a passive communication platform?

Algorithmically tailoring feeds is not passive.

Re: Class-action suit filed against Meta for facilitating Rohingya Genocide [pdf]

#128

Post by bb88 »

shadowgovt wrote: post #65
bikeshaving wrote: post #14

Between the UN fact-finding mission saying Facebook played a “determining role” in the genocide, the Bosworth memo, and the shit ton of access we now have thanks to the whistleblower, how is this not a strong case?

It's going to get into some very thick first-amendment weeds before section 230 protections are even introduced. Where do we draw the culpability line? Should Facebook have been legally obligated to ban those posts? If so, then if next week a failed coup attempt occurs in Burma to try and overthrow the military power that took control, should Facebook be held accountable for aiding and abetting the coup? We rapidly c…

In general I think I agree with you, but on forums this is subtly different.

In a general internet forum, it's up to you decide what you read. On FB, there's an algorithm that determines your feed, and therefore the profit of Facebook itself.

If FB were connecting people, making the world a better place, and making profit by doing that, I think I'd be fine with that.

But it looks like FB can trade the general good will of people, replace it with extremism and make a profit doing so. And if that's true, I think we need to seriously look at section 230.

There's a series of commons that we all share (e.g. water, air). I'm not quite sure if this fits in this category, but for democracy to work, people have to agree to not resort to violence to solve their problems. Trading the common good will for your fellow country men for profit, while watching the world burn, is I think not what we want as a society.

Re: Class-action suit filed against Meta for facilitating Rohingya Genocide [pdf]

#129

Post by 1cvmask »

y-c-o-m-b wrote: post #112
_blz2 wrote: post #74

Will someone do the same against Twitter for the Arab springs which lead to the rise of ISIS?

Seems kind of a wild leap to blame the rise of ISIS on Twitter. ISIS came from the events in Iraq and is an offshoot of "Al Qaeda in Iraq". It even stands for "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant". They existed long before the Arab Spring. The Arab Spring started in 2010 and ISIS didn't enter Syria (which I think is the connection you're making?) until well after that.

Twitter, and others, is a tool of the government, and national security state, and was weaponized multiple times to overthrow governments, institute color revolutions, allow terrorists to flourish etc... The Obama administration even bragged about it:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2009/jun/17/obama-iran-twi...

https://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/17/world/middleeast/17media....

Re: Class-action suit filed against Meta for facilitating Rohingya Genocide [pdf]

#130

Post by shadowgovt »

bb88 wrote: post #128
shadowgovt wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's going to get into some very thick first-amendment weeds before section 230 protections are even introduced. Where do we draw the culpability line? Should Facebook have been legally obligated to ban those posts? If so, then if next week a failed coup attempt occurs in Burma to try and overthrow the military power that took control, should Facebook be held accountable for aiding and abetting the coup? We rapidly c…

In general I think I agree with you, but on forums this is subtly different. In a general internet forum, it's up to you decide what you read. On FB, there's an algorithm that determines your feed, and therefore the profit of Facebook itself. If FB were connecting people, making the world a better place, and making profit by doing that, I think I'd be fine with that. But it looks like FB can trade the general good wi…

Every forum has an algorithm (including this one, which sorts by upvotes and hides dead content unless the user asks for it).
Post reply on HN