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

71–80 of 262 posts

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

#71

Post by klmadfejno »

mc32 wrote: post #40
bedhead wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Beyond hate speech" lol. That's kinda the problem, isn't it? Who gets to define "hate"? And why ban speech that is actually legal (even if highly offensive) anyway? And if it's worthy of banning on a major platform, why not just make it explicitly illegal? These are serious and important questions (among others) that seem to get conveniently glossed over.

Yes it’s a very difficult problem and one with bad solutions (see fictitious chatter below): I like Indian curry. Yes, Indian curry is the best curry. Yes, Indian curry in Japan is not the same. They don’t know how to make it. Yes, Indians are better at making curry. After all it was invented in India and we have the local spices. Definitely, I would not buy curry inJapan unless it’s made by an Indian who knows how t…

For real though, if you haven't tried Japanese curry, try to find some. It's really tasty (sweeter and not spicy) and not at all like Indian curry.

(Indian curry is good too but most people have access to try it)

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

#72

Post by elbrian »

yters wrote: post #67
safog wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have you been on /r/The_Donald at all? Or are you just making whatever you'd like up?

sure, they might be hate speech, but seems no worse than what i see on daily kos however, i am talking about an entirely separate group that goes out of its way to not say anything hateful and not condone violence due to tragic occurrences in the past, yet gets banned due to pointing out inconvenient and very uncomfortable truths if free speech cannot protect uncomfortable yet unhateful speech, it is worthless

Could you provide a couple examples of the types of groups you're referring to?

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

#73

Post by r00fus »

mc32 wrote: post #40
bedhead wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Beyond hate speech" lol. That's kinda the problem, isn't it? Who gets to define "hate"? And why ban speech that is actually legal (even if highly offensive) anyway? And if it's worthy of banning on a major platform, why not just make it explicitly illegal? These are serious and important questions (among others) that seem to get conveniently glossed over.

Yes it’s a very difficult problem and one with bad solutions (see fictitious chatter below): I like Indian curry. Yes, Indian curry is the best curry. Yes, Indian curry in Japan is not the same. They don’t know how to make it. Yes, Indians are better at making curry. After all it was invented in India and we have the local spices. Definitely, I would not buy curry inJapan unless it’s made by an Indian who knows how t…

What's your point? I think the line is drawn when people are put at risk of life or liberty or have died/suffered. At that point, warning then excising those users and groups, reporting them to authorities (if crimes have been committed) is what's needed. And it needs to be timely.

As I understand it Facebook, if it did anything at all, did id months/years after the fact, essentially doing CYA not anything meaningful.

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

#74

Post by diveanon »

tboyd47 wrote: post #56
diveanon wrote: post #5

I volunteered at the Rohingya camps in Bangladesh while this was happening. Most of them were aware of this and attempted to stay ahead of the raids by monitoring some of the groups. Their stories are horrific and to this day I have bad dreams about what I saw / heard in those camps. One of my coworkers escaped through the jungle to Thailand where I now live. He lost his brother and father to a group with machetes. H…

Do you have any recommendations for charity groups working to lessen the plight of these people?

There are several.

A key thing to look for is whether or not the charity is focused on relocation. The conditions they were in while I was there were horrendous. The largest camp I visited was over 600k people.

I was working with a few organizations, but from what I saw islamic relief was the most effective at getting people out. I believe most of the relocated refugees through that org wound up in aceh, indonesia.

It's a humanitarian disaster that has been largely forgotten, I shudder to think what covid has done to their efforts.

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

#75

Post by matz1 »

Karunamon wrote: post #63
matz1 wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

yes but is the algorithms include : spread only bad content ? I doubt so, the algorithms may be : spread content that increase engagement, without making explicit judgement whether the content is 'good' or 'bad'.

That doesn't matter at the end of the day. Facebook employee decides what posts to show you → Facebook Inc is responsible for picking and choosing content (exercising editorial control) → Facebook is a publisher. vs Facebook employees write post engagement algorithm → Facebook computer program decides what posts to show you -> Facebook Inc is responsible for picking and choosing content (exercising editorial control)…

>Facebook employee decides what posts to show you

Here FB manually decide what constitute 'good' or 'bad' content. For example: fb employee decide trump content is 'bad' thus not allowing it.

>Facebook employees write post engagement algorithm

Here depending on how the algorithm works, it may not make a judgment whether the content is 'good' or 'bad' as long as it drive engagement. So here 'good' and 'bad' content can spread equally.

Here if its algorithmic then trump content doesn't depend on whether someone decide its 'good' or 'bad' but merely the engagement metric.

I would support the later, even if the content that finally show up is something 'bad' because here fb is merely act as tools.

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

#76

Post by rib3ye »

fsflover wrote: post #65
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.

> 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 .

I don't know if this is the "right" thing to do, but I am certainly in favor of hearing more future-learning solutions versus pre-internet solutions that merely introduce friction to slow growth.

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

#77

Post by lostlogin »

diveanon wrote: post #5

I volunteered at the Rohingya camps in Bangladesh while this was happening. Most of them were aware of this and attempted to stay ahead of the raids by monitoring some of the groups. Their stories are horrific and to this day I have bad dreams about what I saw / heard in those camps. One of my coworkers escaped through the jungle to Thailand where I now live. He lost his brother and father to a group with machetes. H…

Have you or anyone you know made contact with Facebook about it? I’m not suggesting you should, I’m just wondering if anyone did and if there was ever any Facebook response that wasn’t per-canned lawyer crap.

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

#78

Post by bedhead »

mc32 wrote: post #40
bedhead wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Beyond hate speech" lol. That's kinda the problem, isn't it? Who gets to define "hate"? And why ban speech that is actually legal (even if highly offensive) anyway? And if it's worthy of banning on a major platform, why not just make it explicitly illegal? These are serious and important questions (among others) that seem to get conveniently glossed over.

Yes it’s a very difficult problem and one with bad solutions (see fictitious chatter below): I like Indian curry. Yes, Indian curry is the best curry. Yes, Indian curry in Japan is not the same. They don’t know how to make it. Yes, Indians are better at making curry. After all it was invented in India and we have the local spices. Definitely, I would not buy curry inJapan unless it’s made by an Indian who knows how t…

"In mind" - what does this mean? Who exactly gets to define "in mind"? Like, you're now literally reading people's minds about their intentions? So I don't need to explicitly tell people to go do bad things, I can just say I'm upset about something and that's enough? I can make some bogus claim and that's enough? Because there aren't that many people spewing bullshit all day long on twitter? And let me take a wild guess on what your conclusion will be for people who say vague things on "your" side vs the "other" side...

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

#79

Post by lostlogin »

lazyjones wrote: post #62
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.

Here's a good idea: Poland's "freedom of speech" bill. https://polandin.com/51388314/justice-minister-announces-onl... Under its provisions, social media services will not be allowed to remove content or block accounts if the content on them does not break Polish law. In the event of removal or blockage, a complaint can be sent to the platform, which will have 24 hours to consider it. Within 48 hours of the decision,…

I’ve got a reflexive “why did they implement this?” and look for the downside. That law does does appear good, but Poland is on a dark path with it’s politics and leadership.

https://www.amnesty.org/en/countries/europe-and-central-asia...

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

#80

Post by tboyd47 »

diveanon wrote: post #74
tboyd47 wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you have any recommendations for charity groups working to lessen the plight of these people?

There are several. A key thing to look for is whether or not the charity is focused on relocation. The conditions they were in while I was there were horrendous. The largest camp I visited was over 600k people. I was working with a few organizations, but from what I saw islamic relief was the most effective at getting people out. I believe most of the relocated refugees through that org wound up in aceh, indonesia. I…

Thanks.
Post reply on HN