Hard Questions: How We Counter Terrorism
newsroom.fb.com
Hard Questions: How We Counter Terrorism
1–10 of 72 posts
Re: Hard Questions: How We Counter Terrorism
#2Here's a scenario: imagine China agrees to un-ban Facebook as long as they can provide their own "terrorist photos" and "terrorist text" as input to this software, giving them the power to censor Facebook worldwide. The fact that this capability even exists is a bit concerning!
Re: Hard Questions: How We Counter Terrorism
#3I am always wondering if "terrorists" really use means of communication that are easy to compromise.
Re: Hard Questions: How We Counter Terrorism
#4Terrorism is better than a police state. That said, hopefully "extreme vetting" will make the choice unnecessary.
Re: Hard Questions: How We Counter Terrorism
#5In the counter speech section, where the answer is to promote messages from credible people they say that terrorists live a "Hate filled violent life."
Is this accurate or just another easy way of saying "these people are not human they are just evil"
Is it both more accurate and more frightening to allow yourself to think that terrorists live a generally peaceful and happy life within a family? Aren't the worse monsters the ones who live amongst us and not the ugly other?
I suspect it is and that makes the solution harder on some ways but also easier in others. If your brother can fall into thinking one way then he can change his thinking and move into another way.
Re: Hard Questions: How We Counter Terrorism
#6Here's a scenario: imagine China agrees to un-ban Facebook as long as they can provide their own "terrorist photos" and "terrorist text" as input to this software, giving them the power to censor Facebook worldwide. The fact that this capability even exists is a bit concerning!
Don't panic. This is unlikely. IF FB goes in China, yes it will partner with censors. But why would FB permit flagrant abuse of its anti-terror policies for censorship? Doesn't make sense. It already has other mechanisms to censor. Anyway, China takes terrorism as seriously as the US and has the same things to lose. China would likely not misues "terrorism" to censor. Unlike the West, China doesn't have to pretend something is "terrorism" to censor it. It's bolder on suppressing ideas it doesn't like across the board to design harmony in its society. Maybe its bolder stance is why it doesn't have such issues with terrorism as the US, despite being active in parts of the world that have large disadvantage Islamic populations and having its own large disadvantaged Islamic population in the NW.
Re: Hard Questions: How We Counter Terrorism
#7This post makes it seem like Facebook subscribes to the theory that hiding unpleasant content prevents terrorism, and that there is universal global agreement on what counts as terrorism.
Is there any scientific literature that supports this? The post seems to treat it as a foregone conclusion and declares war on that basis, but I would love to see the research before deciding whether I agree with what they're doing.
Re: Hard Questions: How We Counter Terrorism
#8Communicate.
Really, "terrorists" usually have the same goals as "we" do: peace, respect, safety, prosperity. If we stopped pretending that "we" are right and "they" are wrong, the problem might go away in the long run.
Note that I do not approve of the terrorist approach to communication but, maybe, they just have no other way of making themselves heard, so if we listened, they might start talking instead of bombing.
Re: Hard Questions: How We Counter Terrorism
#9Terrorism is better than a police state. That said, hopefully "extreme vetting" will make the choice unnecessary.
Not an American (I'm a भारतीय) but as "anti-India" as Trump may be, I actually like this platform of Trump's (extreme vetting that is). I wish to return to the time when flight check-in was much faster. If 9/11 hadn't happened, we'll have more concordes and economy would be at a different place today (I know this wasn't the only reason for their demise but surely it helped)
I wish our country could do something similar but Pakistan doesn't send terrorists by plane :|
Re: Hard Questions: How We Counter Terrorism
#10Terrorism is better than a police state. That said, hopefully "extreme vetting" will make the choice unnecessary.
How can you even promote that? Even taken at face value...on the one hand, you have illegal violence carried out by non-state actors. On the other hand legal violence carried out by the state. Unless I totally misunderstood you, you are saying being subject to illegal violence carried out by non-state actors is better than police violence? No. Way. Societies worldwide would also disagree with you. The State has a monopoly on violence. And this form of social organization is the majority in the world today, not your "terrorism is better" alternative. Deal with it.