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

Facebook takes down main page of Myanmar military

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 164 posts

Re: Facebook takes down main page of Myanmar military

#11

Post by EB-Barrington »

The argument regarding private platform freedom of speech/censorship isn't relevant for Facebook, where documented examples of the state/governments working with Facebook to censor opinions and restrict speech exist. The line between state/private is blurred at best, and disappearing.

Re: Facebook takes down main page of Myanmar military

#13

Post by Barrin92 »

exacube wrote: post #5

Well, here goes another thread about free speech vs. ethical discourse, where atleast one side uncompromisingly refuses to put themselves in the shoes of the other. Just to fast-forward this thread a bit for everyone: - Free speech doesn't exist on some for-profit company's platform. Communities should be moderated on some ethical standard for the benefit of peace - Free speech trumps ethics and peace -- without free…

>Free speech trumps ethics and peace -- without free speech, we have neither

I really don't understand the purpose of these fortune cookie slogans. First off, how does 'ethics' vanish if we curb free speech? Like is there a date where we solved ethics and now every moral framework that does not value freedom of speech highly is just invalid, like some sort of math problem?

Regarding peace it's just flat out wrong. Of course you can have peace without free speech, probably much more of it. Of course it's worthy asking if sacrificing speech for more peace is justified or not.

But in all seriousness can we stop being dogmatic and unthinking about free-speech, which is in itself kind of ironic? You can debate everything, just not whether free speech is debatable apparently.

Re: Facebook takes down main page of Myanmar military

#14

Post by fareesh »

mantap wrote: post #6
aerodog wrote: post #4

Aung San Suu Kyi oversaw a genocide against the Rohingya. Didn't see FB take down her page then

She did that before the capitol riots, which seems to be the inflexion point at which Facebook threw out their old dogma of political neutrality.

The hallowed halls of insider trading were breached by a man in a Viking hat, surrounded by press photographers as he did so, while his minions rushed in to claim control of the country as they walked in an orderly line through the velvet rope turnstiles. Any fair minded person would see this as an legitimate attempt to overthrow the government, necessitating extraordinary intervention by a website.

Re: Facebook takes down main page of Myanmar military

#15

Post by kkoncevicius »

The outrage people have about censorship wouldn't be that big if those companies simply stated "we censor opinions we don't like, and we censor for political reasons" in their terms of service. Instead they create the outrage by having vague rules about what is allowed and not allowed on the platform and then, on top of that, start enforcing those rules selectively.

Re: Facebook takes down main page of Myanmar military

#17

Post by ekianjo »

Barrin92 wrote: post #13
exacube wrote: post #5

Well, here goes another thread about free speech vs. ethical discourse, where atleast one side uncompromisingly refuses to put themselves in the shoes of the other. Just to fast-forward this thread a bit for everyone: - Free speech doesn't exist on some for-profit company's platform. Communities should be moderated on some ethical standard for the benefit of peace - Free speech trumps ethics and peace -- without free…

>Free speech trumps ethics and peace -- without free speech, we have neither I really don't understand the purpose of these fortune cookie slogans. First off, how does 'ethics' vanish if we curb free speech? Like is there a date where we solved ethics and now every moral framework that does not value freedom of speech highly is just invalid, like some sort of math problem? Regarding peace it's just flat out wrong. Of…

You can make the claim that ethics are a way people agree on what is acceptable or not and for this agreement to happen you need to have freedom of expression in the first place. Otherwise its just the whims of the ruler instead of a system of values.
Post reply on HN