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

Facebook Admits It Was Used to Incite Violence in Myanmar (2018)

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 262 posts

Re: Facebook Admits It Was Used to Incite Violence in Myanmar (2018)

#151

Post by pixl97 »

bedhead wrote: post #138
nend wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>If this speech threatens democracy, peace, and safety, why hasn't it been made illegal by the government Because of the first amendment, and how the courts have very consistently interpreted to allow hate speech. >and how has the US managed to do so well for centuries with it being perfectly legal? If by "do so well for centuries" you mean the US's economic output and world status over the centuries, I would argue t…

I've noticed a high correlation between people who callously want to ban all sorts of speech and people who just seem completely miserable and think the US is the most awful place on earth.

I would assume this is because you are a WASP with both high income and privilege levels and have never really experienced the fallout of hate speech directed towards you.

Re: Facebook Admits It Was Used to Incite Violence in Myanmar (2018)

#152

Post by jandrese »

sschueller wrote: post #6

I guess you could argue Facebook should be shutdown as parlor was. Although parlor was only used for hate, Facebook didn't do anything to stop it either. I think a big issue is how facebooks algo (and others) are built for maximum profit which at the same time also radicalizes people in their filter bubble.

Wasn't Parlor created explicitly because Facebook and Twitter started fact checking content on its platform and white supremacists were feeling unjustly targeted simply because their posts were being flagged as being nonfactual?

It's not like they were going to start checking their sources or having any introspection. That's for wimps and losers.

Re: Facebook Admits It Was Used to Incite Violence in Myanmar (2018)

#153

Post by pixl97 »

unethical_ban wrote: post #21
MrMan wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think Facebook should be broken up but I havent heard any good ideas yet regarding how to somehow regulate social networks. Beyond hate speech, I dont see any reason to limit what people can say. Somehow limiting how the network connects people, or how content propagates, seems like the key. Only FB has done the social experiments at scale to know how to engineer this, which is faintly ironic.

It is a tough nut to crack. Social media as we know it today brings some benefits. I thank some aspects of "woke" twitter for making me realize the reality of several societal ills, pulling me out of the "theory only" political alignment that is Libertarianism (IMO). Letting everyday people, including the poor, minorities, and targeted groups, have a direct platform to share their story with the world, is a positive…

As they say, Libertarianism is awesome in theory and a violent authoritarian dictatorship in practice.

Re: Facebook Admits It Was Used to Incite Violence in Myanmar (2018)

#154

Post by nend »

bedhead wrote: post #138
nend wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>If this speech threatens democracy, peace, and safety, why hasn't it been made illegal by the government Because of the first amendment, and how the courts have very consistently interpreted to allow hate speech. >and how has the US managed to do so well for centuries with it being perfectly legal? If by "do so well for centuries" you mean the US's economic output and world status over the centuries, I would argue t…

I've noticed a high correlation between people who callously want to ban all sorts of speech and people who just seem completely miserable and think the US is the most awful place on earth.

Are you referring to me? I don't think any of that reflects my opinions.

Re: Facebook Admits It Was Used to Incite Violence in Myanmar (2018)

#155

Post by Nextgrid »

MrMan wrote: post #12
sschueller wrote: post #6

I guess you could argue Facebook should be shutdown as parlor was. Although parlor was only used for hate, Facebook didn't do anything to stop it either. I think a big issue is how facebooks algo (and others) are built for maximum profit which at the same time also radicalizes people in their filter bubble.

I think Facebook should be broken up but I havent heard any good ideas yet regarding how to somehow regulate social networks. Beyond hate speech, I dont see any reason to limit what people can say. Somehow limiting how the network connects people, or how content propagates, seems like the key. Only FB has done the social experiments at scale to know how to engineer this, which is faintly ironic.

Preventing them from promoting content for engagement's sake would be a good first step.

It's one thing to be a neutral platform and allow people to say what they want (even if it sometimes means things that shouldn't be said), but at least the platform here is neutral and doesn't directly profit off the bad content (or at least doesn't profit off it any more than it profits off "good" content).

It's a totally different thing where the platform starts acting as a publisher and starts promoting the bad content (since divisive/outrageous content generates the most "engagement"). Here, the platform directly profits off bad content and should be held liable for it; you shouldn't be able to have your cake and eat it too.

Re: Facebook Admits It Was Used to Incite Violence in Myanmar (2018)

#156

Post by JakeTheAndroid »

jenwkejnwjkef wrote: post #18
jeromegv wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Those arguments always forget 1 thing. Facebook recommend users to join groups, follow pages, and even shows content that is not from people you follow. So it isn't just a telephone company that allows you to make phone calls, it's a service that makes an editorial choice about what they show you. If they show you posts that incite violence in Myanmar and show you fake news that make you outraged about a certain ethn…

I'm not sure why anybody falls for the frankly absurd idea that social media sites are platforms and not publishers. They choose what to show you, just like the NYT or any other traditional publisher. The only difference is who does the choosing---algorithms or humans. But that, to me, is just a logistical detail and shouldn't have an effect on the distinction between publisher and platform. To think that Facebook an…

Facebook doesn't create the content that you share. Is Google a publisher because you have a gmail account? What we are talking about at its core is a platform that allows you to talk to people you know or might want to know. Is it objectionable that my text messages are displayed in terms of arrival time? What if I want it sorted alphabetically by contact but the SMS app won't let me? And you can still send all the same information to people you know off of Facebook or on peoples walls or through messenger. Facebook doesn't create the content, you do. So how are they publishers?

Also, there is no meaningful difference between "publisher" and "platform" here[0]. So the entire conversation is built on a faulty premise.

What specific regulations does the NYT have for showing you news? What specific regulations does Google have for promoting different sites? The NYT gets to decide what they report on, they have no obligation to show you "the other side". How is that any different than the FB algo?

Now, their lack of moderation is a different discussion worth having. We can argue that it's harder to moderate at scale and be forgiving, or we can say that doesn't matter and that they still have the obligation all the same.

[0] eff.org/deeplinks/2020/12/publisher-or-platform-it-doesnt-matter

Re: Facebook Admits It Was Used to Incite Violence in Myanmar (2018)

#157

Post by pixl97 »

kerng wrote: post #113
maxerickson wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No service that Facebook depends on decided to stop doing business with Facebook the way AWS decided to stop doing business with Parler. Parler built thier infrastructure in one place, with critical dependency on that provider. So when the provider booted them, they ended up having to shut the service down.

Apple and Google still have the Facebook app in their respective stores. Why not hold everyone to the same standards? Or are there differences I'm not seeing at a high level? Maybe sophistication/existence of content moderation is better?

Because the Apple and Google execs live in the US where the violence is happening.

It is very easy to be concerned about an issue when it is right out your back door.

Re: Facebook Admits It Was Used to Incite Violence in Myanmar (2018)

#158

Post by Nextgrid »

worker767424 wrote: post #131
fsflover wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I think Facebook should be broken up but I havent heard any good ideas yet regarding how to somehow regulate social networks. I think a better idea is to force them to provide an API for interoperability, alternative clients and exporting the user data. Together with the federated social networks, it will change everything: https://the-federation.info .

Cambridge Analytica happened because of an API and users who will click anything to learn if they're a Samantha or a Carrie.

Does it mean we should keep technology backwards because a stupid minority will misuse it? In this case should we also ban cash machines, since idiots may withdraw all their cash & throw it in the wind?

Re: Facebook Admits It Was Used to Incite Violence in Myanmar (2018)

#159

Post by fsflover »

ForHackernews wrote: post #137
fsflover wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How? Your data will only be on server(s) which you choose. I did not suggest that everyone can download everyone's data.

If I want to chat and share posts with 3 friends who use 3 different federated nodes, my details end up on all 3 of those nodes. Consider email as an example of a federated network: My name, email address, and text of my emails exist today on hundreds (thousands?) of different servers. If I decided I want to "delete" my name from the global email network, that's close to impossible. The same would be true of a federa…

> If I want to chat and share posts with 3 friends who use 3 different federated nodes, my details end up on all 3 of those nodes.

This is not how federation works. You can talk to any other node without having an account there.

Sure, your private messages may be delivered to your friends' nodes, but is this a big problem?

Toots are public by design. Everyone understands that and it has nothing to do with privacy.

Re: Facebook Admits It Was Used to Incite Violence in Myanmar (2018)

#160

Post by wolco5 »

mc32 wrote: post #146
wolco5 wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Context matters. "Let’s go and burn that police station down now" If anyone I knew said that I would treat it as a dry joke.

I guess this is the problem in identifying “shooters”. Lots of people kid around about horrible things but don’t mean it. One day you find out that one of the kids was not joking and actually meant it. Even people who are friends of the perp have problems sussing this out and can only do it in retrospect.

What about songs like kill the police by ice tea. A direct call to action exists / police have been killed but he still is free to act in police dramas?
Post reply on HN