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

Internal documents shed light on the guidelines that Facebook’s censors use

propublica.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 71 posts

Re: Internal documents shed light on the guidelines that Facebook’s censors use

#51

Post by Broken_Hippo »

eehee wrote: post #46

What if it's true?

How would you even trust such results? I mean, lets look at where they come from.

Reported crimes in systems that are biased against some folks, with laws that are easier to break and get caught with when you are poor. Some of the folks are poor because of the situations that have happened to them - war, civil unrest, domestic violence, racism and discrimination of the past still affecting them. And lets not forget, a lot of folks don't report crimes like rape - this is higher in some countries than others. In some cases, reporting a rape might ruin your life.

How can you trust numbers coming from such systems when they say that skin color x or cultural background y does more crimes? We've had reports that do say such things, and the inherent biases in them generally make them untrue.

Re: Internal documents shed light on the guidelines that Facebook’s censors use

#52

Post by sgift »

buckbova wrote: post #6

> Now the German government is considering legislation that would allow social networks such as Facebook to be fined up to 50 million euros if they don’t remove hate speech and fake news quickly enough. As an American I can't imagine being arrested for speaking my mind about a race or religion whether it's considered hate speech or not. It's just unfathomable. Thanks to our forefathers for putting free speech on such…

Germany learned the hard way that letting people "speak their mind" does not always lead to great outcomes. The Weimar Republic actually had the things you wanted, it even allowed parties to be part of the parliament while wanting to eliminate the Republic. The result was Nazi Germany. We decided against repeating this. Different histories lead to different results.

Re: Internal documents shed light on the guidelines that Facebook’s censors use

#53

Post by watwut »

vkou wrote: post #45
JBReefer wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The ACLU famously defended the KKK's right to have parades/rallies. Both have a pretty good history of killing Americans and saying horrible things. This country exists because of freedom of speech and press, and it really does matter to us.

America has historically cared very little for the Americans the KKK killed. Judging by the commentary that arises whenever BLM is mentioned, it still doesn't.

To be fair to ACLU, they have good record defending speech no matter who talk. The did care about civil rights groups speech as much as KKK.

Re: Internal documents shed light on the guidelines that Facebook’s censors use

#54

Post by dmichulke »

sgift wrote: post #52
buckbova wrote: post #6

> Now the German government is considering legislation that would allow social networks such as Facebook to be fined up to 50 million euros if they don’t remove hate speech and fake news quickly enough. As an American I can't imagine being arrested for speaking my mind about a race or religion whether it's considered hate speech or not. It's just unfathomable. Thanks to our forefathers for putting free speech on such…

Germany learned the hard way that letting people "speak their mind" does not always lead to great outcomes. The Weimar Republic actually had the things you wanted, it even allowed parties to be part of the parliament while wanting to eliminate the Republic. The result was Nazi Germany. We decided against repeating this. Different histories lead to different results.

The problem here is that Nazi Germany also disallowed people to "speak their mind".

So if you say free speech caused Nazi Germany, I might as well say: Lack of free speech let Nazi Germany (and even more so the Holocaust) go on for such a long time.

So is limiting free speech really the solution? I think we're setting a dangerous precedent.

Re: Internal documents shed light on the guidelines that Facebook’s censors use

#55

Post by jbmorgado »

Broken_Hippo wrote: post #51
eehee wrote: post #46

What if it's true?

How would you even trust such results? I mean, lets look at where they come from. Reported crimes in systems that are biased against some folks, with laws that are easier to break and get caught with when you are poor. Some of the folks are poor because of the situations that have happened to them - war, civil unrest, domestic violence, racism and discrimination of the past still affecting them. And lets not forget,…

You are setting up a framework of thought where no matter how much data you gather that shows some group is indeed more violent, you are allowed to just dismiss it on the basis of some situational perceived discrimination.

Re: Internal documents shed light on the guidelines that Facebook’s censors use

#56

Post by powertower »

Broken_Hippo wrote: post #51
eehee wrote: post #46

What if it's true?

How would you even trust such results? I mean, lets look at where they come from. Reported crimes in systems that are biased against some folks, with laws that are easier to break and get caught with when you are poor. Some of the folks are poor because of the situations that have happened to them - war, civil unrest, domestic violence, racism and discrimination of the past still affecting them. And lets not forget,…

> How would you even trust such results?

If those results are universal (meaning they are evident in all locations regardless of the location's history), then its likely extremely true.

Another way is to simply use your eyes, ears, and common sense.

Re: Internal documents shed light on the guidelines that Facebook’s censors use

#58

Post by pluma »

dmichulke wrote: post #54
sgift wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Germany learned the hard way that letting people "speak their mind" does not always lead to great outcomes. The Weimar Republic actually had the things you wanted, it even allowed parties to be part of the parliament while wanting to eliminate the Republic. The result was Nazi Germany. We decided against repeating this. Different histories lead to different results.

The problem here is that Nazi Germany also disallowed people to "speak their mind". So if you say free speech caused Nazi Germany, I might as well say: Lack of free speech let Nazi Germany (and even more so the Holocaust) go on for such a long time. So is limiting free speech really the solution? I think we're setting a dangerous precedent.

The status quo is that we're not Nazi Germany. The status quo is therefore that we're at the risk of becoming Nazi Germany.

This is the case in modern Germany as much as it is the case in the US or the UK.

The German answer to that is to look at what allowed us to become Nazi Germany last time and to avoid that.

Some of the resulting limitations are questionable (e.g. the parliamentary 5% hurdle), some are not (e.g. treating incitement of violence and racial hatred as a crime).

If you rally a crowd, step on a podium and tell them to "gas the Jews" or "kill all white men" or "hunt down and murder Edward Snowden", you're facing jail time. Because you're intentionally motivating people to commit serious crimes. Whether you're Joe Blow or a major politician.

FWIW I do disagree that censorship is the wrong solution although many politicians in Germany demand it because it's an easy win. Deleting incitement may stop the hatred from spreading but it doesn't address the cause. Even worse: it hides a crime and interferes with criminal investigations.

Social media companies' response to meeting the legal demands in Germany is to either block content preemptively or to basically give you a button that lets you opt into not seeing it. That doesn't follow the spirit of the law, let alone the letter of it.

Re: Internal documents shed light on the guidelines that Facebook’s censors use

#59

Post by eehee »

dang wrote: post #57
eehee wrote: post #46

What if it's true?

A dismayingly high proportion of your comments look like trolling. Please don't use HN that way. We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14661061 and marked it off-topic.

Sorry, it's probably a bad culture fit. I'll leave.

Re: Internal documents shed light on the guidelines that Facebook’s censors use

#60

Post by [deleted] »

eehee wrote: post #49
badminton1 wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you think so, you need to start asking yourself why. When hostile racial stereotypes get reinforced day after day you end up with a brainwashed society like this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i20d11fGz-0

Oh, I don't really think so, no, but it is conceivable. And I'd actually rather have people communicate what they believe to be true rather than what they think they can get away with.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN