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

Why Facebook is losing the war on hate speech in Myanmar

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 112 posts

Re: Why Facebook is losing the war on hate speech in Myanmar

#91

Post by seanmcdirmid »

charlesism wrote: post #86
magnetic wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This sentiment, which I read repeatedly, really irritates me. Most of us program here. It's not that hard a problem! What solution do you think would work?

A combination of things. There's a wealth of information available if you're running a social network. Start by just banning text like "n-----" and "(((". Then give users a reputation, and do a page rank style analysis. So if someone has a good reputation, and they report another user, a moderator doesn't need to be involved. Take account age into consideration... you can't post publicly the instant you get your acco…

I think you've just reinvented Chinese censorship. Congrats!

Re: Why Facebook is losing the war on hate speech in Myanmar

#92

Post by perfmode »

pjc50 wrote: post #45
perfmode wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

efficient market hypothesis?

EMH is literally the "P=NP" of economics.

i’d go out on a limb to call that a false equivalence. economics doesn’t deserve to be put on the same footing as mathematics and computer science.

Re: Why Facebook is losing the war on hate speech in Myanmar

#93

Post by a_tractor »

beaconstudios wrote: post #67
0x445442 wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Post scarcity wouldn't matter anyway. You'd still have the problems of who watches the watchers and the idea that some of us are more equal than others... There is no Star Trek utopia.

> You'd still have the problems of who watches the watchers Could you expand on what you mean by this? If you remove the concept of material wealth (as a distinction between individuals), the cause for conflict is greatly reduced. > the idea that some of us are more equal than others I don't see how this would continue to cause conflicts once people's material needs and wants are all met. People tend to hate on excep…

[dead]

Re: Why Facebook is losing the war on hate speech in Myanmar

#94

Post by [deleted] »

seanmcdirmid wrote: post #91
charlesism wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A combination of things. There's a wealth of information available if you're running a social network. Start by just banning text like "n-----" and "(((". Then give users a reputation, and do a page rank style analysis. So if someone has a good reputation, and they report another user, a moderator doesn't need to be involved. Take account age into consideration... you can't post publicly the instant you get your acco…

I think you've just reinvented Chinese censorship. Congrats!

[deleted]

Re: Why Facebook is losing the war on hate speech in Myanmar

#95

Post by a_tractor »

aleksei wrote: post #52
imgabe wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the lynch mobs were being organized over the telephone, would it be the telephone company's responsibility to intercept the communications and stop it? If not, what makes Facebook different? Do we want Facebook to be the arbiter of what we are allowed to say to each other, or do we want them to be a neutral carrier for communications?

> Do we want Facebook to be the arbiter of what we are allowed to say to each other, or do we want them to be a neutral carrier for communications? Facebook is a private entity that can do as they please. It most certainly is not a neutral carrier for communications, and to treat it as such is foolish.

It is publicly accessible. You do not need an account to view "public" pages and posts. Anybody can get an account in order to interact with it if they want to.

It is a publicly accessible platform that allows for public and private for communication, that happens to be owned and maintained by a for-profit, publicly traded organization.

I really have a hard time understanding how the few areas in which Facebook as an entity is private outweighs the many areas in which it is not.

Re: Why Facebook is losing the war on hate speech in Myanmar

#96

Post by charlesism »

seanmcdirmid wrote: post #91
charlesism wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A combination of things. There's a wealth of information available if you're running a social network. Start by just banning text like "n-----" and "(((". Then give users a reputation, and do a page rank style analysis. So if someone has a good reputation, and they report another user, a moderator doesn't need to be involved. Take account age into consideration... you can't post publicly the instant you get your acco…

I think you've just reinvented Chinese censorship. Congrats!

Facebook isn't the state. In any event, I try not to think of problems that way. Like most things, state censorship is neither universally good nor bad. It depends on the state, and the censorship. The universe doesn't care that it's easier for humans to have hard and fast rules about things.

Re: Why Facebook is losing the war on hate speech in Myanmar

#97

Post by coldtea »

Nasrudith wrote: post #55
_vertigo wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wonder how it would have gone over if Facebook had just said from the outset, “We’re not entering Asian markets yet because they’re too culturally different than us.” Bet people would have really liked that.

That does amusingly sound very stereotypically Japanese corporation and the annoyingly common practice of ignoring viable overseas markets and demands out of a misguided sense of exceptionalism.

Isn't it their products? Why should they sell them to markets they don't want to sell them to? Because of those markets' misguided sense of entitlement?

Re: Why Facebook is losing the war on hate speech in Myanmar

#98

Post by coldtea »

beaconstudios wrote: post #51
tomc1985 wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Facebook is riding in on its royal horses trying to connect (read: own the primary means of communication) the world like all the classically imperialist westerners before them. The first thing they teach you in international business and/or marketing is that cultural considerations will destroy you if you do not devote effort to addressing them. If, in building a hyperlocal product (like facebook), you do not take t…

I mean, they do some pretty distasteful stuff but saying that providing an international communications platform is imperialist is just beyond silly.

Actually it's very apt, whether the intention was imperialist or not the result inevitably is: a single company from a single culture/country controls an important communications channel globally.

Besides, the intention is very much imperialist - to conquer the global markets. So much so that "world domination" is a standard part of business parlance.

Post reply on HN