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

81–90 of 164 posts

Re: Facebook takes down main page of Myanmar military

#81

Post by dilap »

A side-effect of actions like this is it makes it much easier for governments themselves to justify censorship or internet restrictions.

See, e.g., this interview by Der Spiegel w/ the president of Uganda:

> DER SPIEGEL: Observers complain that they have been denied access to social media.

> Museveni: If you're talking about the all-powerful rulers of Facebook, I can tell you it was the other way around. Facebook blocked my party's accounts. Is that freedom of expression? If the people at Facebook think they're silencing me, they're wrong.

> DER SPIEGEL: It wasn't just about Facebook. The entire internet was blocked in Uganda for days.

> Museveni: That was done for security reasons. The internet was misused to stir up trouble. The opposition spread misinformation about the election results. The block has long since been lifted.

https://www.spiegel.de/international/world/interview-with-ug...

Re: Facebook takes down main page of Myanmar military

#82

Post by hshshs2 »

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.…

No post body was provided.

Re: Facebook takes down main page of Myanmar military

#83

Post by hshshs2 »

tester756 wrote: post #60
sillysaurusx wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Those on social media are more powerful than those off it. The most obvious example is that large Twitter audiences can be monetized, whether by selling a book or asking for Patreon subscribers. That seems to imply social media is here to stay, in one form or another. It's a bit of a "rules for rulers" paradox: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rStL7niR7gs&ab_channel=CGPGr... in the sense that power structures exist in…

I completely disagree. People who manage to monetize $platform are probably tiny, tiny %. Also there are negative consequences of using social medias.

I’ve seen nearly equivalent hires decided on “they have a large social media following” - not a critical factor, but a bonus that makes a difference. I almost lost my job protesting it.

Re: Facebook takes down main page of Myanmar military

#84

Post by notahacker »

dilap wrote: post #81

A side-effect of actions like this is it makes it much easier for governments themselves to justify censorship or internet restrictions. See, e.g., this interview by Der Spiegel w/ the president of Uganda: > DER SPIEGEL: Observers complain that they have been denied access to social media. > Museveni: If you're talking about the all-powerful rulers of Facebook, I can tell you it was the other way around. Facebook blo…

Governments have been justifying internet restrictions since before Facebook was an idea. If Facebook had a policy of absolute tolerance of political speech in Uganda it would have been just as easy a segue to "security reasons... misinformation".

Even the developed and democratic world doesn't look to the US, still less US corporations, as an actual inspiration for its policies on speech.

Re: Facebook takes down main page of Myanmar military

#86

Post by nix23 »

asxd wrote: post #48
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...

The difference is the Myanmar military was killing their own citizens. A country's military firing live rounds on their own citizens with seemingly no remorse is different than a country's military committing violence in foreign countries. I'm certainly not condoning either example of military force presented here, but the duty of the military should ultimately be to preserve their citizens. Killing its own citizens…

Aung San Suu Kyi Defends Myanmar Against Rohingya Genocide Accusations:

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/11/world/asia/aung-san-suu-k...

Re: Facebook takes down main page of Myanmar military

#87

Post by notahacker »

DyslexicAtheist wrote: post #75

turn the tables to consider actual reality: if a country like the US would be at the receiving end of meddling and influence by a Myanmar social media business at the scale of facebook, then any key-employee of the company would have been declared a terrorist, taken to black sites or murdered by drones. That's about the level of hypocrisy that we deal with when discussing Facebook's actions in Myanmar over the past y…

Facebook's "interference" in Myanmar consists of hosting comments supportive of the government whilst it was committing genocide and being criticised internationally for not intervening, and choosing to take down a single government propaganda outlet after a military coup.

Facebook has "interfered" more against the interests of sitting US presidents without a single black ops operation against its staff.

Re: Facebook takes down main page of Myanmar military

#88

Post by Andrex »

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.…

Something's going to change, soon.

https://mattstoller.substack.com/p/facecrook-dealing-with-a-...

Re: Facebook takes down main page of Myanmar military

#89

Post by bko »

sep_field wrote: post #79
bko wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Noone needs Facebook, it serves no valid purpose for the human race Billions of people find value in facebook and use it daily. Who are you to make that call?

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 no one really needs or can be trivially replicated.

It's a big claim and there's a huge payoff if you're right. There are thousands of companies trying to pick away at facebooks services, but despite that Facebook usage and engagement grows every quarter.

You can speak up and make your prediction and hope it comes true. But it looks like wishful thinking at this point and it's underlying premise is wrong IMO. Trying to challenge Facebook or encourage others to do so with that framework won't work.

Re: Facebook takes down main page of Myanmar military

#90

Post by vmception »

wil421 wrote: post #27
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...

Why even bring this up? Whataboutism is a very shallow argument.

Given that “Whataboutism” really means “hypocrisy in a geopolitical context” I think the entire definition should be updated to reflect it as a very valid observation, instead of the assumption that it is a weak argument because in my experience it usually isnt, even during the height of the cold war the Soviet Union’s observations about the US were accurate.
Post reply on HN