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

101–110 of 164 posts

Re: Facebook takes down main page of Myanmar military

#101

Post by [deleted] »

bko wrote: post #89
sep_field wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They'll be able to find value in nonmonopolized and nonalgorithmic versions of the services that Facebook has gobbled up, just like they did before Facebook existed. I'm not making that call, I'm making a prediction and hoping it comes true, and contributing to a discussion that may possibly, in some small way, contribute to it coming true. If you look around this thread, you'll notice some other people that seem to…

When you use the word valid, you're making a judgement call. You have no right to decide what's valid or not. On the broader point, you're making a strong assertion. Facebook is probably the most popular consumer product in the history of the world (apart from maybe Coke). You brush off what they do as just providing services that others had provided before Facebook "gobbled" them up, or providing some services that…

[deleted]

Re: Facebook takes down main page of Myanmar military

#102

Post by slibhb »

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…

> I really don't understand the purpose of these fortune cookie slogans. First off, how does 'ethics' vanish if we curb free speech?

Ethics are normative. They shift over time and everyone contributes, partly through speech. Restricting speech cripples this long-running, civilization ethical discussion.

You are engaged in sawing off the branch we're all standing on.

Re: Facebook takes down main page of Myanmar military

#103

Post by dilap »

notahacker wrote: post #97
dilap wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, there has always been & always will be a tug-of-war, but I think the dominant social media institutions quite blatently engaging in political censorship certainly has to be a help to those tugging for the censorship side. It's true without FB's actions, Museveni could've immediately started with "security reasons & dsinformation", but that would've been a far weaker answer. > Even the developed and democratic w…

A dictatorial leader who has censored the press in his country since before the internet existed, like the dictators before him, does not need "help" in justifying censorship. > The trend everywhere, it seems to me, is to look to China for inspiration on speech policies. And yet there is more access to less censored media in most parts of the world than at any point in human history.

The question is, if the giant US internet companies acted more in alignment w/ the speech values the US professes to believe in (at least when convenient), would that contribute to those values being more widely adopted?

You're taking the position that no, it wouldn't make any difference, other entities will just do what they were going to do anyway.

But I don't think the US example is entirely without influence. Eventually policies reflect beliefs which reflect narratives; the narrative of the internet as a non-partisan enhancer of freedom becomes much harder to sustain when its major sites are clearly picking sides.

> And yet there is more access to less censored media in most parts of the world than at any point in human history.

Because of the internet, of course.

Now, in reaction, we are seeing rising censorship (since the internet suddenly made speech much more available and powerful). Whether we'll end up having more or less uncensored access to information ultimately is still unknown, I think.

Re: Facebook takes down main page of Myanmar military

#104

Post by sep_field »

geitir wrote: post #92
Andrex wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Something's going to change, soon. https://mattstoller.substack.com/p/facecrook-dealing-with-a-...

Censoring an entire continent* As soon as I see a dumb typo like that the rest of the article imo is now trash

It's the kind of typo a spellcheker would overlook. Maybe the article could have used more proofreading but so what? Somtimes content is more important than presentation.

Re: Facebook takes down main page of Myanmar military

#105

Post by rib3ye »

sillysaurusx wrote: post #33
sep_field wrote: post #26

I'm in favor of Facebook taking down absolutely any page, whether it agrees with my political views or not. Why? Because Facebook's power comes from network effects. The more people, across the political spectrum, find their interests to be blocked on Facebook, the less people will find value in Facebook in general. Over time, this means Facebook is committing suicide. This is the best possible outcome for humanity.…

I'm not sure this is a realistic worldview though. This supposes there will be a facebook competitor. As the decades march on, perhaps there will be, but it might not be till we're long gone. There still isn't a competitor to Google, for example. Parler was a competitor to Twitter, and you saw how that played out. The next competitor is going to have to deal with that quandary.

You can still create an account and use Parler.

Re: Facebook takes down main page of Myanmar military

#106

Post by eplanit »

aminozuur wrote: post #20

What about the US military's FB page? Didn't they cause thousands of innocent deaths in Iraq? I'm sure some Americans can somehow justify it, but I doubt the grieving Iraqi's will accept it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mukaradeeb_wedding_party_massa...

Its removal should be actively encouraged amongst the SJWs. FB backing itself, and being backed into, corner after corner helps reveal the hypocrisy more quickly.

Re: Facebook takes down main page of Myanmar military

#107

Post by mrmonkeyman »

sep_field wrote: post #104
geitir wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Censoring an entire continent* As soon as I see a dumb typo like that the rest of the article imo is now trash

It's the kind of typo a spellcheker would overlook. Maybe the article could have used more proofreading but so what? Somtimes content is more important than presentation.

With text, the presentation is the content though..

Re: Facebook takes down main page of Myanmar military

#108

Post by DanBC »

freeburma wrote: post #74
DanBC wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The civilian government is also under investigation. https://www.thenewhumanitarian.org/anaylsis/2019/11/21/Myanm...

Again, the elected civilian government has zero control or decisions or power over the military and border affairs (border affairs, home affairs ministry controlled by military). So when ARSA or AA attack military outposts and police stations, and the Myanmar military chooses to shell villages, kill civilians, and commit war crimes, causing a refugee crisis (or “genocide” as westerners like to throw around) at no poi…

Can you link me to any statements she's made where she condemns the genocidal actions of the military?

Re: Facebook takes down main page of Myanmar military

#109

Post by freeburma »

nix23 wrote: post #80
freeburma wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Again, the elected civilian government has zero control or decisions or power over the military and border affairs (border affairs, home affairs ministry controlled by military). So when ARSA or AA attack military outposts and police stations, and the Myanmar military chooses to shell villages, kill civilians, and commit war crimes, causing a refugee crisis (or “genocide” as westerners like to throw around) at no poi…

Again why then are they investigated, your story sound too easy and one-sided, if you dont have an argument, you just say "we can just speculate." Fact is: -Aung San Suu Kyi defended actively a genocide for not being one, while speaking in The Hague. -The civilian government was informed and partially included in the genocide. Both points are fact, and NOT speculations.

What, exactly, do you mean by the “civilian government was partially included in the genocide?”

The military does not take orders from civilian government, it’s the other way around. Civilian gov has no legal or de facto control over Tatmadaw, or border control, or home affairs (police, courts). There is no civilian legislative control over Rakhine operations. Tatmadaw just does whatever they wants.

And anyone who speaks against their actions is imprisoned. If AASK spoke against them they would have imprisoned her again, like they just did. The politics AASK is dealing with are complex.

Re: Facebook takes down main page of Myanmar military

#110

Post by playingchanges »

sillysaurusx wrote: post #33
sep_field wrote: post #26

I'm in favor of Facebook taking down absolutely any page, whether it agrees with my political views or not. Why? Because Facebook's power comes from network effects. The more people, across the political spectrum, find their interests to be blocked on Facebook, the less people will find value in Facebook in general. Over time, this means Facebook is committing suicide. This is the best possible outcome for humanity.…

I'm not sure this is a realistic worldview though. This supposes there will be a facebook competitor. As the decades march on, perhaps there will be, but it might not be till we're long gone. There still isn't a competitor to Google, for example. Parler was a competitor to Twitter, and you saw how that played out. The next competitor is going to have to deal with that quandary.

What if, just hear me out, we collectively decide we don’t really like the fb style social media and there actually isn’t a replacement. What if we just moved on?
Post reply on HN