Facebook Admits It Was Used to Incite Violence in Myanmar (2018) • Hacker News Board

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

#251

Post by gdilla » Tue, Jan 12, 2021, 4:00 PM UTC

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.

Shut down by who? Parlers vendors dropped them. They weren’t shut down by the feds.facebooks little vendors are free to take a stand and drop their biggest customer, sure. Facebook rolls it’s own infrastructure so it would take federal overreach to shut them down. This ain’t China, however.

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

#252

Post by arrosenberg » Tue, Jan 12, 2021, 4:48 PM UTC

FFRefresh wrote: post #243

arrosenberg wrote: post #236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1. Without serious competition we will never know if their waning mainstream popularity would have diminished their financial success. Limit M&A by denying acquisitions that would consolidate markets, like we did for a long time in this country. You don’t have to hurt startups if you have a little bit of creativity. Create different tiers of review, etc. You cut down on hot money by reinstating the firewall between c…

2. You dislike algorithms that feed right wing propaganda to people. What about left wing propaganda? What about sites that don't feed right wing propaganda? How would you craft rules that address what you see as the problem? The devil is in the details. I totally get you want to attack Facebook and its ilk, but regulation can entrench the incumbents and reduce competition if not thought through. 3. Thanks for answer…

> I totally get you want to attack Facebook and its ilk, but regulation can entrench the incumbents and reduce competition if not thought through.

They're already entrenched. What exactly are you worried about? You are just playing the devils advocate without actually having a point.

> It raises the cost of advertising.

Huge assumption that nothing better takes the place of algorithmic CPC-based advertising, or that a marketplace based entirely on ad-driven consumption is even desirable. It's not even worth discussing the rest of the speculation, because I reject the premise. The well-being of these ad-networks is no where near the top of my priorities list.

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

#253

Post by deanCommie » Tue, Jan 12, 2021, 5:14 PM UTC

_fq4v wrote: post #237

deanCommie wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Although parlor was only used for hate > Right. I used parler to do such things as . I stopped using Twitter for because I figured that ... it was only a matter of time before they were banned (for ) I know you don't think it's hate. I know you think trans rights are a subjective ethical issue. But what if you're wrong? What if it's an objectively human rights issue? Like sexuality, and race? I know there is still…

I am a brown man who has been subject to many racist attacks. After 9/11 my elementary school classmates called me a terrorist. My father and I (when I was a young boy) was chased out of a car dealership by a mad salesman yelling strawberry picker at us. Walking through the downtown of my city with my white wife, I have been harassed by people who don't like we are in an interracial marriage. I still do not believe t…

Do you think your personal subjective experience with tolerating racism is therefore broadly applicable to other people's subjective experience with racism?

I'm probably misunderstanding but your post reads as "I don't call personal racist discrimination I faced hatred or racism, therefore my own personal discrimination of transgender people is not hatred or "...

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

#254

Post by imwillofficial » Tue, Jan 12, 2021, 6:08 PM UTC

patagurbon wrote: post #205

imwillofficial wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And that’s how things escalate.

Some of the "problems" people have aren't solvable. There are people who are just racist or sexist etc. There are certainly a lot of problems these groups have which we can and should solve: poverty, drug addiction, lack of social mobility, education. But sometimes the core issue really is pure unadulterated hate. What then?

That’s a very simplistic view, and false reductionism.

You take no efforts to understand their grievances, hear them out, so their problems never get solved.

By reducing people to simple labels, it might be able to deal with them in your own mind with a reduced cognitive load, but this leads to further alienation and eventually full breakdown of coexistence.

These people are here. They have problems with how things are run. Deny them the soap box and you push them to the ammo box. I hope I never see this in my beloved country.

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

#255

Post by imwillofficial » Tue, Jan 12, 2021, 6:09 PM UTC

jandrese wrote: post #147

imwillofficial wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And that’s how things escalate.

Yeah, we should just reinstate slavery already so the white supremacists won't be so angry all the time. /s

How does this help the conversation? Are you engaging me in good faith? If not, why?

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

#256

Post by imwillofficial » Tue, Jan 12, 2021, 6:14 PM UTC

MartinCron wrote: post #119

imwillofficial wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And that’s how things escalate.

So what is your alternative? Do we need to bend over backwards to appease the guys in “six million wasn’t enough” shirts? How much political legitimacy should we give to people who are all-in on ridiculous conspiracy theories? How much attention to Holocaust deniers deserve? Do flat-earthers deserve equal time in geography class?

So you are lumping several groups together who have nothing to do with one another except the fact that you disagree with them.

So the first step in deescalation would be to understand their grievances. What are the big issues they care about? Why do they care about them? Is there a common ground?

The more you call regular Americans who’s parents and grandparents fought and died fighting Germany, Nazi’s, the more you show that you not only don’t understand them and their views, you show you have no interest in learning about their views.

Remember what happened last time there was taxation without representation?

The more you sum up large swaths of people with simple labels, the more you show your own bigotry and lack of empathy.

First try to understand, then find common ground. These people are here to stay, we can either cooperate with them or fight them. Is the best armed population group on the planet the one you want to corner into armed conflict?

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

#257

Post by JakeTheAndroid » Tue, Jan 12, 2021, 6:15 PM UTC

jenwkejnwjkef wrote: post #229

JakeTheAndroid wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well in your case with the New Yorker, they actually review and actively publish the information. Where is the peer reviewed check from Facebook? Where do these status' imply that Facebook supports and endorses them? And what is the social difference between a publisher and a platform in terms of expected social responsibility? This distinction only now exists because people attempted to use a legal definition that i…

> they actually review and actively publish the information They do it to save their own ass. Since they publish it, they are responsible. Facebook should either review the all content they publish, or they should stop being a publisher. > Do we honestly believe that between ML and a real person Facebook is validating and approving every comment on Facebook? I never said that; here's my point: if, say, the New Yorker…

> the New Yorker replaced their human editors with AI ones, then the outcome is the same and they are still publishers.

Okay, but being a publisher doesn't MEAN anything. Not socially, not legally. And MY point was that the New Yorker makes it explicit that what they post is approved and endorsed by them. It's IMPLIED.

On Facebook, where is the IMPLIED ownership of your comments on Facebook? Where is the delay between your status and some form of review to endorse or support the status? That never happens, and I don't think anyone on Facebook believes that personal status updates are reflective of Facebooks ethos.

Thats the chasm between a news outlet and a service built around user generated content.

The New Yorker gets submissions or requests the use of different stories or whatever. They are EXPLICITLY seeking this information out to display on their site. Facebook does not.

> And on your Gmail point, Google is not a publisher, it acts like a phone service. You send your email, the recipient receives it, unconditionally, without modification.

Not always true. Headers can be modified, you might not have the proper records in place for people to get your emails, or if they don't like or trust your attachment. Google creates a barrier that must be overcome and can limit your direct person to person communication.

> Facebook actively shadow-bans, time-delays and puts fact-check warnings on posts. Since that show they disapprove of some posts, it kind of implies that they approve of all the others.

Okay, so your point is ANYONE that moderates content is now a publisher? So every BBS or forum is a publisher? Is Weebly a publisher? Is Github a publisher? I mean, I just want to understand where this line is drawn.

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

#258

Post by anigbrowl » Tue, Jan 12, 2021, 8:08 PM UTC

newen wrote: post #248

anigbrowl wrote: post #230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not just one post. The same person posed something like 15 different questions in the thread. Soliciting clarity on another's views via questioning is a valid kind of discourse, but Socrates also took time to listen to answers and offer his own views rather than throwing out 5 questions in a row. Also, if you read that Wikipedia article to the end you'll realize that I pointed you to the original use of the term…

No he didn’t. He just made that one post with the questions and you randomly accused him of sealioning. Just asking questions is not sealioning. I know where the term originated.

That's simply false. Anyone who looks back up the subthread can see for themselves that there are 9 posts from the same person and most of them are rhetorical questions. I don't know who you think you're going to convince by making such counterfactual statements, but I see no point in further discussion. Bye.

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

#259

Post by _fq4v » Wed, Jan 13, 2021, 1:31 AM UTC

_fq4v wrote: post #235

jandrese wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a counterexample you claim to have joined Parlor because Twitter wouldn't let you hate transsexuals openly? This is supposed to support the premise that Parlor had a use for something other than to amplify hate speech?

So, what's the end game here? Can I not ever talk about my opinion to anybody? Can I share it with my wife? Can my wife look at what's going on in the world and disapprove, or is that not allowed? Are people who believe as I do simply to not exist? Should we be exterminated? Should our lives simply be made so miserable that we'd rather we were killed in Gulags? Exactly what are you attempting to accomplish here, beca…

Oh got it, the endgame is to downvote me into oblivion! How incredibly, incredibly childish. This country really needs to improve at the most basic human levels.

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

#260

Post by crististm » Wed, Jan 13, 2021, 6:31 AM UTC

nend wrote: post #126

crististm wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You don't get to enter into debate and get away with 'disliking' other's argumentation!

That's typically the reason why I get into a debate.

Go pass the megaphone to your friends then