Slashdot Mirror


Zuckerberg On Facebook's Role In Ethnic Cleansing In Myanmar: 'It's a Real Issue' (vox.com)

An anonymous reader quotes a report from Vox: Facebook's fake news problems extend far beyond Russian trolls interfering in U.S. elections. Overseas, false stories have turned into tools of political warfare -- most notably in Myanmar, where government forces have carried out a campaign of ethnic cleansing against the Rohingya, the country's Muslim minority group. In an interview with Vox's Ezra Klein, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg addressed Facebook's role in fueling and inciting anti-Muslim and anti-Rohingya sentiment. "The Myanmar issues have, I think, gotten a lot of focus inside the company," Zuckerberg said. "And they're real issues and we take this really seriously."

He recalled one incident where Facebook detected that people were trying to spread "sensational messages" through Facebook Messenger to incite violence on both sides of the conflict. He acknowledged that in such instances, it's clear that people are using Facebook "to incite real-world harm." But in this case, at least, the messages were detected and stopped from going through. "This is certainly something that we're paying a lot of attention to," Zuckerberg continued. "It's a real issue, and we want to make sure that all of the tools that we're bringing to bear on eliminating hate speech, inciting violence, and basically protecting the integrity of civil discussions that we're doing in places like Myanmar, as well as places like the U.S. that do get a disproportionate amount of the attention."

136 comments

  1. The Zuck needs to follow the adivce of his lawyers by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 1

    Keep your damn mouth shut!

    Zuckerberg's mouth is like on of those gigantic backhoes in strip mines that you see on EXtreme TV documentaries . . .

    . . . he keeps digging himself deeper, and deeper . . . and deeper . . .

    --
    Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
  2. "protecting the integrity of civil discussions " by Mr307 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    What a joke. You can't police so called 'hate speech' whatever that is and also protect anything, the more they stick their fingers into things the worse it gets.

    Protection of speech means allowing everything and letting us decide for ourselves, we are fully capable of telling the wingnuts and assholes from reasoned discussion.

    They are so desperate to control the narrative 'for your protection', its scary. Go ahead and cull the outright incitements to immediate violence but leave the rest and let us decide.

  3. World without facebook by thinkwaitfast · · Score: 1

    What if the www never existed and the same thing was done through netnews?

    1. Re:World without facebook by Comrade+Ogilvy · · Score: 1

      IME, you are about 10X to find intelligent discussion on NetNews and threaded discussions, than feeds like FB. Now 10X a very small number is not exactly a big number, but it counts for something.

    2. Re:World without facebook by thinkwaitfast · · Score: 1

      If www never exist, NN would have undoubtedly become more ubiquitous though. People would eventually found alternative uses..

    3. Re:World without facebook by Comrade+Ogilvy · · Score: 1

      Fair point. NN was not always exactly nice, which I know you know, from your question.

    4. Re:World without facebook by thinkwaitfast · · Score: 1

      One of the most interesting and exciting (maybe because of it's novelty) was following someone during the first gulf war on NN in realtime of someone living in israel as their neighborhood was hit by a missile. That was a non-journalist (something that didn't exist at the time). Anyway, it was just in general a big discussion board on any topic you wanted to make up.... aside from a.b.p.e. :) Essentially reddit without ranking

    5. Re:World without facebook by havana9 · · Score: 2

      The biggest difference is the usage of the service. I remember using BBS, USENET and mailing lists. YOU had, using a personal computer, dial up to a service, download the messages, read them on an 80x25 screen and then dial up again and upload the messages.

      You didn't have a portable device capable of multimedia content, sending notifications always with you, in an easily digestible format, specially built to hook you and overfill you with advertising.

      The information bubble you were creating there wasn't automatically generated by the system, but was a more active one, like choosing a newspaper or borrowing a book. You had to dial up to the punk anarchic BBS or the neo nazi one, and was a conscious decision, and you were expecting different content. Not that you were catalogued by the platform and served accordingly.

  4. Connecting people by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Connecting people to engage in war

    1. Re:Connecting people by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wars are about connecting people, violently.

    2. Re: Connecting people by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      âoeConnectingâ

  5. This is what happens... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    This is what happens when you destroy the original culture of the internet and replace it with a centralized authoritarian model which by the way is built to feed on narcissism.

    Which happens to be exactly what FB did. And what 2 billion people and counting happily voted for.

    1. Re:This is what happens... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, exactly.

  6. In the US by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Same kind of hate in the US led to a Bernie supporter opening fire on a group of congressmen at a charity baseball game.

  7. Re:The Zuck needs to follow the adivce of his lawy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Zuck's so glib about it.

  8. It's NOT ethnic cleansing! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    These people are invaders from another country, and the government has every right to send them back to where they came from. Something goddamn Europe should do with the foreign invaders claiming to be 'refugees'. please!

    1. Re:It's NOT ethnic cleansing! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

      A bunch of squatters set up camp, and invited a bunch more squatters to come join them. The government razes the camp like what is done countless other times across the globe with other squatters. But for some reason because they are Muslim, they somehow need to be left alone???

    2. Re: It's NOT ethnic cleansing! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes. Exactly. They are a persecuted minority. Burma should be proud to have them

    3. Re: It's NOT ethnic cleansing! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      So proud of their knife and acid attacks, female genital mutilation, stoning homosexuals to death, religious sanction of rape, car bombs, beheadings, hatred, racism, and fascism!

      Yay Islam!

    4. Re: It's NOT ethnic cleansing! by Jzanu · · Score: 0, Troll

      Fuck off you stupid son of a bitch, and go back to hell with the other demonic spawn of Satan. You have nothing to contribute except the blackness of your absent soul and the toxic bile spewing form the abyss you call a brain.

    5. Re: It's NOT ethnic cleansing! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      but he is rigth

    6. Re:It's NOT ethnic cleansing! by sg_oneill · · Score: 1, Informative

      Rohingya are not "refugees from another country". They are native to the Rakine region of Burma , speak their own language unique to the Rakine/Arakan region and have been there for at least 5000 years (The age of the oldest known Rohingya temples in burma).

      Religiously, they are mostly Sufi (Sufi is kind of the 'hippy' wing of Islam, meditation, mysticism etc, peaceful people) but there are christians, budhists and hindus there.

      And the army is hell bent on killing them all.

      --
      Excuse the Unicode crap in my posts. That's an apostrophe, and slashdot is busted.
    7. Re:It's NOT ethnic cleansing! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are wrong. They are from India and Bangladesh. Not part of Burma at all. They are invaders and should be sent back.

    8. Re: It's NOT ethnic cleansing! by sg_oneill · · Score: 3, Informative

      Donâ(TM)t just make shit up. The Rohingya have been there at least 5000 years in the regi M of Burma that was once the kingdom of Arakan (the other word for Rohingan are Arakans). The Rohingans had 200 documented generations of Kings , and the earliest Rohingan/Arakan temples in Burma are dated to at least 3000 BC.

      They are native and have no ancestors anywhere else outside of the old Arakan kingdom , what we now call Rashin state , Burma

      So please before you post again I suggest you read some more

      --
      Excuse the Unicode crap in my posts. That's an apostrophe, and slashdot is busted.
    9. Re: It's NOT ethnic cleansing! by johanw · · Score: 1

      They are sensitive to wahabistic fundamentalism like all muslims. Birma sees what happens in the west and all other countries with a large amount of muslims and understandable does not want that happen there so they remove the threat. "Moderate" islam is not a stable condition, look at where the only countries where that ruled for some time, Turkey and Indonesia, are going.

    10. Re: It's NOT ethnic cleansing! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Found the muslim extremist

    11. Re: It's NOT ethnic cleansing! by Jzanu · · Score: 2

      Nope, I'm German CDU and staunch Catholic. Slashdot has just degenerated into placating weekend fascists so badly that I seem like the complete opposite.

    12. Re: It's NOT ethnic cleansing! by Jzanu · · Score: 1

      No, this is the result of excessive nationalism turned genocide that started more than 30 years ago with Burma stripping citizenship from an identifiable minority despite their ancestors living in the area for 5000 years longer than any nation existed in Myanmar.

    13. Re: It's NOT ethnic cleansing! by yfeefy · · Score: 1
      Exactly!! If you search about facebook comments, and other social media, you will find numerous comments from Myanmar/Burma who are PROUD that villages were burnt, by gangs of Gov't approved marauding reavers, who gang-raped women, took their kids taken and threw them into the fire. This is BLATANT GENOCIDE, happening NOW, and these anonymous cowards here are likely some of the perpetrators themselves!! These are people who brag about it, and spew their black-hearted hatred on facebook with inpunity.

      The CHIEF ARCHITECT OF THE GENOCIDE HIMSELF -> MIN AUNG HLIANG -> IS ON FACEBOOK AND HAS 1.3 MILLION LIKES!!

      G R E A T J O B F A C E B O O K !!! Way to shrug it off Mark, while clipping coupons contentedly in your fat bank accounted comfort.

      What goes around comes around... When Min Aung Hliang goes to the bardo, he will meet a very large demon made entirely of cactus, who takes a personal interest in him. He will stay in the bardo for a long time...

    14. Re: It's NOT ethnic cleansing! by yfeefy · · Score: 1
      Sweet honey in the rock, what the hell are you talking about? Strawman much?? Noone is condoning that, and this article isn't talking about that.

      We are talking about the RAPE ARSON and KILLINGS done by bhuddist govt supported reaver gangs in rakine province.

      In the face of all that Myanmar has closed off the region to anyone who wants to see, which proves they are doing all of this and more. Time to meet your demon, min aung hliang

    15. Re: It's NOT ethnic cleansing! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, that's too bad. Like the North American Indian and the Palestinian terrorists, they should shut the fuck up and accept their conquered status, or face the consequences. We shouldn't let public relations stop us from dealing with these people the proper way until they unconditionally submit. We have the power.. We must use it!

  9. Re:The Zuck needs to follow the adivce of his lawy by Comrade+Ogilvy · · Score: 1

    Much as I dislike Zuck, I do sympathize with him insofar as he is between a rock and a hard place. Keep his mouth shut, and someone else can take control of the narrative and successfully smear him as dangerously uncaring on top of that. Open his mouth, and the issue gets more complicated and stays in the news.

  10. Re:"protecting the integrity of civil discussions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I can't wait until I get a thought filter!

    I wouldn't want to say the wrong thing.

    Social Justice Hoooooooooooo!

  11. Re:The Zuck needs to follow the adivce of his lawy by gweihir · · Score: 4, Interesting

    He is probably getting a bit desperate there. Obviously this is one more attempt at distracting people from the extreme political mess he just had a part in. But selecting something this stupid as a distraction is impressive. Well, in the end, the harder he falls, the better for everybody.

    --
    Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
  12. Facebook's business model... by VeryFluffyBunny · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ...is to encourage behaviour from its users that is as divisive as possible. Or what Facebook calls "engagement.' Inciting indignant outrage and creating conflict between users and groups of users keeps them on the platform so that they see more adverts and so the money rolls into Facebook's coffers. Facebook's business model is the opposite of the Silicon Valley mantra "Making the world a better place."

    The famous philosopher of science who gave us the modern scientific method, Karl Popper, had a great insight into intolerance, i.e. that we should be intolerant of intolerance: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... I think we can arguably view Facebook's business model as just one gigantic "meta-troll" that cultivates troll-like behaviour in its users (Not everyone becomes a troll but everyone is exposed to extreme, divisive troll-like episodes).

    If we want to have more constructive public discourse in areas of conflict, it's probably better to ban Facebook in them. And if we want to make the world a better place, how about banning Facebook altogether. Let's be intolerant of a platform that breeds intolerance.

    --
    Debate is a form of harassment. Do not question my truth.
    1. Re:Facebook's business model... by dgatwood · · Score: 0

      If we want to have more constructive public discourse in areas of conflict, it's probably better to ban Facebook in them. And if we want to make the world a better place, how about banning Facebook altogether. Let's be intolerant of a platform that breeds intolerance.

      And your proposed replacement is?

      There are good reasons to not like Facebook, but failing to completely block intolerance is not one of them. Your "solution" to this relatively hard problem is to get rid of a company that has already spent significant resources trying to solve it, and replace it with some other service by someone that no doubt has not even started trying to solve it yet.

      The best-case result of that approach is a temporary reprieve, followed quickly by even worse problems than before, because the new company will have to start by re-learning everything that Facebook has already learned. The worst-case result of that approach is an immediate descent into the sorts of language that would make a sailor blush, followed by the site owner scrapping the whole thing as a failed experiment.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    2. Re:Facebook's business model... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Exactly. In other to be tolerant, you must be intolerant. It's the same with free speech. You have to severely limit it, or you do not have it.

    3. Re:Facebook's business model... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Speech motivating violence isn't free, it is subject to laws due to the violence it creates. Telling someone to kill others is a conspiracy, telling others as a group to go kill others is also a crime.

    4. Re:Facebook's business model... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And your proposed replacement is?

      The idea of 'replacement' requires the assumption that social media in general is good. I think that is a big assumption. Maybe we should start by answering that question first. Lets make sure we consider more than the money making factors and also consider carefully who or what benefits most and in what ways from social media. We might find out that social media is indeed bad which means it should be removed like a tumor rather than replaced with different tumor.

    5. Re:Facebook's business model... by VeryFluffyBunny · · Score: 2

      May argument is not that Facebook have failed to block intolerance. It's that they are modulators of intolerance. Their business model is predicated on inserting itself into sensitive issues and making things worse. That's what drives user "engagement" and therefore Facebook's advertising revenue. There is no realistic incentive for Facebook to do anything to reduce or prevent intolerance.

      --
      Debate is a form of harassment. Do not question my truth.
    6. Re:Facebook's business model... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Either you believe in free will or not. "Telling someone to ... " is just like "bewitching someone to ... ", nonsense in both cases!

    7. Re:Facebook's business model... by Hognoxious · · Score: 2

      And your proposed replacement is?

      You: Do you want some tea?
      Me: I'm not thirsty.
      You: How about coffee?
      Me: I'm not thirsty.
      You: There's some lemonade in the fridge.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    8. Re:Facebook's business model... by dgatwood · · Score: 1

      The idea of 'replacement' requires the assumption that social media in general is good. I think that is a big assumption.

      You misunderstood me. The post I replied to said:

      If we want to have more constructive public discourse in areas of conflict, it's probably better to ban Facebook in them.

      Public discourse inherently requires a venue for public discourse. So that much is assumed by the post I was replying to. Whether that venue is social media or something else is completely irrelevant. As soon as you have a venue for public discourse, you have all the problems that the GGP was complaining about Facebook failing to solve.

      There are only two ways to handle that: human moderation and machine moderation. The former is completely impractical in a highly connected world unless you're willing to drop 99.99% of the comments for lack of time to even look at them, which leaves the latter.

      And if you're going to go with machine moderation, your choices are an established player that has already spent a great deal of time learning how to categorize comments to filter out abuse or a non-established player that hasn't. So again, if you remove Facebook, who do you replace them with, and will they be starting over from scratch, relearning everything Facebook has already learned?

      Now if you'd like to ban all public discourse, there's always that option, though it probably won't work out the way you might hope.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    9. Re:Facebook's business model... by dgatwood · · Score: 1

      Their business model is predicated on inserting itself into sensitive issues and making things worse.

      So is the business model of the entire news industry. Folks were complaining about "if it bleeds, it leads" way back in the 1990s. There is no realistic incentive for them to do anything to reduce or prevent the cycle of escalating anger between both sides of political situations, either, other than perhaps "... because if we don't do this, we'll help bring about the end of the world."

      But that should be reason enough. If it isn't, we have much bigger problems than Facebook.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    10. Re:Facebook's business model... by VeryFluffyBunny · · Score: 1

      Yes, there is an additional argument that news agencies nowadays are chasing reduced revenue because of the web. Headlines are being carefully crafted to attract clicks and the more sensational the headline the more clicks they're likely to get. It also shapes what news is reported and how. But at least professional journalists and their publishers can be held to account for publishing stuff that's not true. Journalists' credibility often rests on the principle of accountability, although we could also argue that standards in things like fact-checking and depth of coverage are slipping.

      But, in the cases of Facebook, and social media in general, the discourse is handed over to poorly informed individuals with no journalistic background or training. Some are deliberate trolls while others may just unconsciously pick up on the tone of discourse, norms, values, etc. that are implicit in inflammatory rhetoric and fall into those ways of interacting with others online (aligning ourselves with each other is a natural, instinctive, thing we do). People can remain (more or less) anonymous and avoid accountability for what they say and/or how they treat others online. I think it's a special kind of problem, unique to social media.

      --
      Debate is a form of harassment. Do not question my truth.
    11. Re:Facebook's business model... by Jzanu · · Score: 1

      Do you realize that the language you are using is romanticing murders that are actually occuring? No theory, no debate. People have already been killed, and more will be killed unless Facebook puts a stop to the messaging commanding it. Expressly, as in banning the communications of the ultra-violent "monk" and banning communications by the military campaigners creating astroturf hatred for an actively oppressed minority group. Let that reality sink in and go learn something about this actual incidence, not the theory in your head.

    12. Re:Facebook's business model... by dgatwood · · Score: 1

      The language I am using is romanticizing murders? What are you smoking, and where can we get some?

      Okay, here's a reality check for you, since you obviously need one. In the real world, people are killed every day, and for the foreseeable future, people will continue to be killed every day. To the extent that companies like Facebook are inadvertently playing a role in that, it is their responsibility to take steps to minimize that role. HOWEVER — and this is a BIG however — it is not possible to completely prevent bad people from using any publishing platform (social or otherwise) to cause harm. This is equally true whether you're talking about Facebook, other social media, public comment areas at the end of news stories, or even the bulletin board down in front of city hall (though admittedly that last one is likely to cause less harm before it gets noticed, thanks to scale).

      The other thing you're critically missing is that for every a**hole who has used social media to rile people up against various ethnic and religious groups like the Rohingya, there are tens of thousands of people who learned about the ethnic cleansing via social media and have written their government representatives in an effort to pressure their governments to intervene in Myanmar. Eventually someone will, and social media will be the hero of that story, not the villain.

      So your choices are either A. ban all speech, or B. give communication-based companies time to find ways to minimize the damage caused by the most heinous forms of speech. If you choose A., remember that this has been tried many times before, and it has never ended well. And remember that social media, like any tool, can be used for good or evil, and if you focus only on the bad things that happen in the world, you will always be sad, because you'll miss out on all the good in the world.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    13. Re:Facebook's business model... by Jzanu · · Score: 1

      You are a fucking retard trying to access like a hard ass. I did more than a decade of military services de and your piss ant bs is just that. People are the only valuable thing and imagined fantasy does nothing. This is a clear cut cas where human rights experts have identified the actions of Facebook that were responsible. I bet you have no clue dear why Facebook is big in Burma or how it has expanded audience and been able we’d by the military government to kill. Seriously you need to shut the fuck in!

    14. Re:Facebook's business model... by dgatwood · · Score: 1

      You are a fucking retard trying to access like a hard ass.

      Ad hominem fallacy

      I did more than a decade of military services de and your piss ant bs is just that.

      Appeal to authority fallacy

      People are the only valuable thing and imagined fantasy does nothing.

      Black-or-white fallacy

      This is a clear cut cas where human rights experts have identified the actions of Facebook that were responsible.

      Appeal to authority fallacy

      I bet you have no clue dear why Facebook is big in Burma or how it has expanded audience and been able we’d by the military government to kill.

      Ad hominem fallacy

      Seriously you need to shut the fuck in!

      Argumentum ab malis verbis fallacy

      And of course, your core argument is a giant post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. Congrats. You've hit all the major logical fallacies and several minor ones, too. Your debate teacher must be very proud.

      Or, to put it another way, the debate is over; you have lost.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    15. Re:Facebook's business model... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Real life isn't fucking debate club for kiddies like your dumb ass, and decisions must be made that you can't understand. Fuck off, you stupid god damn faggot!

  13. Isn't Messenger end-to-end encrypted? by grcumb · · Score: 2

    He recalled one incident where Facebook detected that people were trying to spread "sensational messages" through Facebook Messenger to incite violence on both sides of the conflict. He acknowledged that in such instances, it's clear that people are using Facebook "to incite real-world harm." But in this case, at least, the messages were detected and stopped from going through.

    Hang on there, I thought that Messenger was end-to-end encrypted. Someone help me out here—I can see how FB could become aware of these messages (abuse reports), but how could messages in an end-to-end encryption setup be 'detected and stopped from going through'?

    --
    Crumb's Corollary: Never bring a knife to a bun fight.
    1. Re:Isn't Messenger end-to-end encrypted? by iamhassi · · Score: 2

      That's what I was wondering. And it's one thing to filter fake news, it's quite another to stop people's messages to each other from being received. Even if they're fake and horrible, Facebook has no right to stop someone's messages from reaching intended receiptant unless said receiptant has complained or blocked sender. Yes yes I know, Facebook private company blah blah, but so is Verizon, Att and Sprint, and if they suddenly interrupted your phone call saying "you have violated our good behavior policy, this call has been terminated" I'm pretty sure govt would step in and say "lol no you don't private company"

      --
      my karma will be here long after I'm gone
    2. Re: Isn't Messenger end-to-end encrypted? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You thought it was ebd to end. In reality messsges have been part of shared data.

    3. Re:Isn't Messenger end-to-end encrypted? by johanw · · Score: 2

      It is only e2e encrypted when you specifically select a secret chat, just like Telegram but unlike WhatsApp. The normal mode of operation for Messenger and Telegram is that the operater can read everything.

  14. Disinformation the modern way by Rosco+P.+Coltrane · · Score: 0

    Facebook spreads hates and help militias

    Zuckerberg gets richer by the day

    As Muslims oppress the Rohingyas

    Burma-Shave

    --
    "A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
    1. Re:Disinformation the modern way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Retard, the Rohingyas ARE Muslim!

    2. Re: Disinformation the modern way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good. They are finally receiving the push-back they deserve. Fuck Islam, it is a cancer unto this world!

    3. Re: Disinformation the modern way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      go get professional help you fucking psycho

    4. Re: Disinformation the modern way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're right, he could spew hate so much more effectively if he studied under a more experienced asshole. I recommend 4chan /pol/ for a master class in hating entire swathes of the world population at once. And then, once he's ready for the big leagues, he'll want to sit in on meetings at the DNC, which has elevated the art of shitting on white people to its raison d'etre.

  15. Re:"protecting the integrity of civil discussions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

    Protection of speech means allowing everything and letting us decide for ourselves

    Go ahead and cull the outright incitements

    Contradicted yourself within 3 sentences. Good job.

    Captcha: connect. lol facebook.

  16. Re:"protecting the integrity of civil discussions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    What a joke. You can't police so called 'hate speech' whatever that is and also protect anything, the more they stick their fingers into things the worse it gets.

    Protection of speech means allowing everything and letting us decide for ourselves, we are fully capable of telling the wingnuts and assholes from reasoned discussion.

    They are so desperate to control the narrative 'for your protection', its scary. Go ahead and cull the outright incitements to immediate violence but leave the rest and let us decide.

    We have a natural right to make use of our pens as of our tongue, at our peril, risk and hazard. - Voltaire
    Pretty sure "Here's a pen, some letterhead with my name on it, and borrow my soapbox too." was said by no one, ever.

    Until the Internet Entitlement Age it was also not expected.

  17. So, people HAVE died... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Awesome memo, dude!

  18. Re:The Zuck needs to follow the adivce of his lawy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    God damn you are an idiot! Death squads motivated by facebook fueled messaging are still fucking death squads!

  19. Re:The Zuck needs to follow the adivce of his lawy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Karma, and such...

  20. Re:The Zuck needs to follow the adivce of his lawy by Comrade+Ogilvy · · Score: 2

    Boz says that death squads shooting and raping and torturing is a small price to pay for the De Facto Good of connecting the world under the caring wings of FB. In fact, it is so good that FB will cheerfully swindle users out of their personal data with purposefully confusing language around permissions and authorization. FB lies to us for our own good. We should be grateful...

  21. Good Management by Jzanu · · Score: 1

    This is just one example of the actual impact of enabling the spread of hate to a ready-made audience. Terrorism groups use marketing techniques the same as Apple, and due to the crimes committed as result that marketing must be subject to controls. Moral leadership of a large company requires recognizing these issues and treating them in a way that keeps the core business intact. If they are the core business then the firm itself is illegal, immoral, and deserves destruction. Facebook isn't evil though, and this is a sign that the firm recognizes its influence and limits it to prevent hate-fueled murders. These techniques must be developed, implemented, and used to keep Facebook a tool for communication not murder and violence.

  22. Another left agenda ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Rather then take the position that social media had nothing to do with ethnic cleansing, this douche not only acknowledged his role in it but the need for further control to prevent such speech. The two are not related. Curtailing speech would NOT have changed this.

    Guy is a virtue signaling asshat.

  23. Double standards by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Ethnic cleansing in Myanmar: oh no!
    Ethnic cleansing in South Africa: ?????

    1. Re:Double standards by Jzanu · · Score: 0

      You could try to find actual verified evidence of that occurring now, rather than the mass refugee crisis were the white upper class can still leave in hours while the majority must take months to walk to water.

  24. Cleanliness is next to Godliness by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    All you bleeding hearts getting but hurt about genocide need to pull the logs out of your eyeballs. You probably have a clean house. A clean house means you just waged a genocidal war against germs. If you can so glibly kill billions of germs with you industrials strength genocidal disinfectant, why are turnuou being so hard on people that want to cl3anse the world of undesirable people (such as people that look different than you)

    Germ lives matter explanation point.

    1. Re:Cleanliness is next to Godliness by Jzanu · · Score: 1

      You mean people taking a position against mass murder of people is somehow not the correct choice? We destroy pestilence all the time for good of people, that is the imperative. That is why the Nazi scum deserved death the first time, and they will face it again every other time they rise and in any form in any place.

    2. Re: Cleanliness is next to Godliness by stdarg · · Score: 1

      You sound an awful lot like a Nazi. Do you deserve death?

    3. Re: Cleanliness is next to Godliness by Jzanu · · Score: 1

      No, the Nazis want to kill everyone they blame which means everyone else. Nazis deserve to be killed by everyone else for the same reason. Your grandfather understood that, and would spit at you for being so stupid as to shirk that duty. Humanity requires fighters to eliminate diseases plaguing it, and Nazis are cancerous.

    4. Re: Cleanliness is next to Godliness by stdarg · · Score: 1

      You literally sound like a Nazi when you talk like that. Your grandfather would spit on you! Eliminate the diseases plaguing humanity!

      You can't actually be this stupid, right?

  25. Moral Agenda by Jzanu · · Score: 0

    God damn you idiots need to get some actual education or at least a desire to search for information rather than support for preexisting biases. You could, easily, click on the damn link for the article! There were instances of specific messaging found using Facebook services to commit crimes, violating terms of use even before the moral impact is observed. Facebook as a company doesn't exist it enable murder, and you need to remember that you exist as part of a society subject to self-preservation such that enabling murder is universally immoral.

    1. Re:Moral Agenda by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And you completely missed the point. They are no more an "enabler" then any other service provider or business. Tech companies want you to believe the only way to prevent , is through censorship and thought control. It isn't.

      Get your head out of your ass.

    2. Re:Moral Agenda by Jzanu · · Score: 0

      In Myanmar terrorists and the military state both post rhetoric and there is no independent media. Restriction of messaging to prevent violence is the only solution. You overly isolated fools really need to learn about the world outside of your niche suburbs!

    3. Re:Moral Agenda by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      God damn you idiots need to get some actual education or at least a desire to search for information rather than support for preexisting biases.

      Name calling won't get you anywhere. It won't win you friends. It won't attract anyone to your position. You'll just be ignored or at best mocked regardless of merit of your argument.

      You could, easily, click on the damn link for the article! There were instances of specific messaging found using Facebook services to commit crimes, violating terms of use even before the moral impact is observed. Facebook as a company doesn't exist it enable murder, and you need to remember that you exist as part of a society subject to self-preservation such that enabling murder is universally immoral.

      In MZ's own words "It's a real issue, and we want to make sure that all of the tools that we're bringing to bear on eliminating hate speech"

      There is more going on than simply going after people committing crimes and inciting violence.

      "Eliminating hate speech" is censorship.

      Censorship is universally immoral and deleterious to the "preservation" of society.

    4. Re:Moral Agenda by Jzanu · · Score: 0

      Identifying the problems that prevent people from investigating issues is core to forcing them to address it. The problem here is that isolated overly protected fools think their perspective determines the reality of people and environments they have no knowledge about. That is inherently wrong, as is reducing this actual issue of people being murdered due to messaging explicitly spread on Facebook due growth from 2 to 30 million users in 3 years in Myanmar. Your obsessions based on the previously addressed isolation do not apply.

    5. Re:Moral Agenda by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Identifying the problems that prevent people from investigating issues is core to forcing them to address it. The problem here is that isolated overly protected fools think their perspective determines the reality of people and environments they have no knowledge about.

      Are you saying you're not a fool?

      That is inherently wrong, as is reducing this actual issue of people being murdered due to messaging explicitly spread on Facebook due growth from 2 to 30 million users in 3 years in Myanmar

      Do you believe Twitter and Facebook were responsible for Syrian civil war? The destruction of Libya? Do you think Internet use is contributing to civil war in Burma?

      Do you think the world was any better in the past when none of this shit existed? Do you know anything at all about history?

      It would be easier just to shut down all the cell towers being used to spread murder and death or whatever injury you think mass communications is responsible for.

      Your obsessions based on the previously addressed isolation do not apply.

      We must all come to terms with the fact you're a certified genius. It takes a LOT of brain power to see when x is being used for y that stopping x from being used for y is always the solution.

    6. Re:Moral Agenda by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, and you really need to learn about Myanmar and the influence of technology on its culture as well as its recent distribution due to changes in law.

  26. South Africa by NicknameUnavailable · · Score: 2, Informative

    Is conveniently ignored, guess it's because the people being cleansed are white.

    1. Re:South Africa by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      there is no genocide of "white people" in south africa

    2. Re:South Africa by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Reality disagrees.

      "We are not calling for the slaughtering of white people, at least for now."
      - Julius Malema, leader of the Economic Freedom Fighters party of South Africa

      It's also worth noting that the president of South Africa has approved the seizure of white-owned land. Also the daily murders, by blacks, of white farmers there.

      As an aside, since this is about "rightful owners" of places... exactly what claim do the 10+ million strong migrants over the past 5 years have to be in Europe? If it's okay for South Africa to be cleansed of white people (or to deny it's happening, either way conveying the notion that they are not welcome), why is it NOT okay to say the same for the non-white hoards flooding into Europe?

      catpcha: invades

    3. Re:South Africa by Jzanu · · Score: 1

      Not really. Who has been killed then, this month, where are the bodies? Wait, you mean that was just a speech by a rabid nationist without larger influence and nobody has been murdered, and no army units have been mobilized to kill families or communiites? There is a huge difference here, and what you are complaining about isn't genocide by a long shot.

    4. Re:South Africa by NicknameUnavailable · · Score: 1

      They are literally burning farms and killing white people in them in South Africa to claim their land. It's not even illegal to do so there anymore.

    5. Re:South Africa by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Where is the documentation? What human rights groups have received reports or sent investigators? Any?

    6. Re:South Africa by NicknameUnavailable · · Score: 1

      Human rights groups don't help white people.

  27. In a nutshell by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Short of Facebook withholding all posted content from view until it's reviewed and approved by staff, they can't prevent this misuse of their service.

    Mark Zuckerberg never imagined that his creation would or even could be used in this way. It was never a consideration. The reason Facebook has no plan is because there's no plan to be had.

    1. Re: In a nutshell by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In another nutshell. U have more money than God. U don't care about anything in creation except 'ride the gravy train..'

  28. Must-See TV by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think the violence against Muslims in Myanmar needs to be covered much more thoroughly in world media. I mean, we've got cameras rigged to give you the same view of a professional football game as the players, but I can't get a highlight reel of Rohingya women and children getting 360 no-scoped by Buddhist monks on the nightly news? I thought we were still operating under "if it bleeds, it leads", how am I supposed to watch things die from a good, safe distance if the news won't cover it?

    1. Re:Must-See TV by yfeefy · · Score: 1
      your terrible poor taste nonwithstanding, the reason is: because there is a government controlled media blackout while they do their ethnic cleansing and simultaneously issue blase big-lie denials.

      While satellite footage and tales from the many thousands of people rushing over each other to get the hell away, provide the obvious truth, they simply say, "no, we didnt"

  29. Phones? by BrianMarshall · · Score: 1
    How about phone calls? Or roads?

    Bad guys use infrastructure.

    --
    "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro" -- HST
    1. Re:Phones? by Jzanu · · Score: 0

      Try to study some details of this situation. You are either a stupid troll or an idiot, Ivan. Not everything in the world is like you basement bedroom/cubicle in Moscow.

    2. Re:Phones? by BrianMarshall · · Score: 1
      So, you are saying that the people that should fix this can't possibly fix it, so they must fix it.

      By restricting communication. And I'm "Ivan"?

      --
      "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro" -- HST
    3. Re:Phones? by BrianMarshall · · Score: 1

      Sorry, man - replied to wrong comment - should be one down.

      --
      "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro" -- HST
    4. Re:Phones? by Jzanu · · Score: 1

      Try that again as coherent sentences with explicit subject, verb, and object in some order.

  30. Re:The Zuck needs to follow the adivce of his lawy by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

    Keep your damn mouth shut!

    Zuckerberg's mouth is like on of those gigantic backhoes in strip mines that you see on EXtreme TV documentaries . . .

    . . . he keeps digging himself deeper, and deeper . . . and deeper . . .

    Zuck called me a minute ago. He says that's a real issue.

    --
    The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
  31. Re:The Zuck needs to follow the adivce of his lawy by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Much as I dislike Zuck, I do sympathize with him insofar as he is between a rock and a hard place. Keep his mouth shut, and someone else can take control of the narrative and successfully smear him as dangerously uncaring on top of that. Open his mouth, and the issue gets more complicated and stays in the news.

    Poor lad. He took the worst of both. He is dangerously uncaring, has lost control of the narrative, and isn't going to be out of the news for a long time. If he hasn't spoken to Mueller's team yet, I'm sure he will be summoned soon. He's probably a bit frightened, and he almost certainly has a damn good reason to be.

    --
    The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
  32. Re:"protecting the integrity of civil discussions by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 0

    What a joke. You can't police so called 'hate speech' whatever that is and also protect anything, the more they stick their fingers into things the worse it gets.

    Protection of speech means allowing everything and letting us decide for ourselves, we are fully capable of telling the wingnuts and assholes from reasoned discussion.

    They are so desperate to control the narrative 'for your protection', its scary. Go ahead and cull the outright incitements to immediate violence but leave the rest and let us decide.

    Doesn't work that way laddie. That nasty accessory to a crime is kinda a sticky point. Remember that free speech allows you to say anything you want. But people have free speech to react, and free speech is not an insulation for breaking laws. Or extradition to a country where you enabled it. Has very little to do with protecting "us"

    Bummer that, but hey, he took the money for the news and ads.

    --
    The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
  33. Next raised issues will be by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... those data provided to a FB game called Serialkiller.com which correlate to actual murders.
    Yes Zuck, what next ?

  34. Re:"protecting the integrity of civil discussions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Doesn't work that way laddie. That nasty accessory to a crime is kinda a sticky point.

    What does this mean? How specifically is "hate speech" an "accessory to a crime"? What crime?

    and free speech is not an insulation for breaking laws

    What laws?

  35. Not just Myanmar by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Meanwhile, Facebook provides a ready-made toolkit with staff support, to anyone who wants to harass and silence LGBT people: Report an innocuous photo of two gay men, or a homoerotic drawing, and Farcebook's often-homophobic censors will respond by blocking the user who posted it, for "nudity" or "sexual content". Each subsequent report silences the targeted user for an increasing period of time: 1 day, 3 days, 7 days, 30 days. And since these blocks cannot be appealed by anything less than a personal Act of Zuck, there's no way to get them overturned or the reporting accounts reprimanded, let alone to get the complicit censors – who are violating official FB policies – fired.

    1. Re:Not just Myanmar by johanw · · Score: 1

      So?

  36. Re: The Zuck needs to follow the adivce of his law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Does he though?

    It's literally all in the terms and conditions that the idiot's accept so that they can share cat photos and talk about what they had for lunch.

    It's kind of tiring to see fads make such impact because lol farmville like omg.

  37. Re:The Zuck needs to follow the adivce of his lawy by rtb61 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    There is not escaping the reality. It was a plan to push the truthiness of Facebook, a reality social media forum, pushing it's users to accept Facebook content as real and true, so the users accept the idea and put more of the real lives onto Facebook, so that the content could be data mined and to hook people into keeping logged in as much as possible to keep up with what is going on in their digital lives. They pushed hard to make Facebook reality based for datamining and to create a real sense of consequence and risk of loss in not keeping up to data and continually posting, a pretty sick plan.

    Even Facebook had chosen to go more fun, more make believe, more pleasantly social, social media, the hooks would not have dug as deep, the reaction to content would mostly be humour and they would have had a whole lot less to data mine. Facebook was made as dangerous as it is, on purpose as a business model, to sell the mind control of it's users to advertisers. Now it is trying to whine about how what it set up on purpose to do, was abused by others, yeah, they were not meant to do that, by design only Facebook executives and the advertising department were meant to do that.

    Facebook ain't a social media company, it is a psychopath media company, a company run as psychopath alternate reality media company, an extremely dangerous and disruptive media company. Remember MySpace, that was just ugly on the outside, horrible to look at, clearly Facebook is ugly on the inside, looks pretty but seriously socially ugly on the inside. A closet supporter of terrorism because it generates huge numbers of page views, likely a criminal closet supporter of terrorism, I wonder if they have numbers for how much profit, what kind of terrorist attacks generate, so many died, so many views, so many ads served, most profitable attack locations, most profitable methods of attack.

    --
    Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
  38. Re:The Zuck needs to follow the adivce of his lawy by spitzak · · Score: 1

    I don't like Trump much, but as far as I can tell this is far worse. Whatever happened in the US did not cause the military and para-military death squads to start killing all the Mexicans or force them back over the border and burn their neighborhoods.

  39. Re: The Zuck needs to follow the adivce of his law by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

    Does he though?

    It's literally all in the terms and conditions that the idiot's accept so that they can share cat photos and talk about what they had for lunch.

    It's kind of tiring to see fads make such impact because lol farmville like omg.

    It's what people do with the data. Let's say I'm a Typical Youtube user. So I've given them my age, where I went to school, my address, my interests. Now this is probably not too good, but it is what it is.

    So now Facebook has that data. They sell the data to people. So let's say they sell data to Cambridge Analytica. The issue was that the 2016 election wasn't the first time FB and CA were in bed together. And CA was supposed to wipe the data. They didn't. And they targeted ads to specific places and people.

    So now we have two things going on here. Unlees you believe in the opposite of Occams razor, Cambridge Analytica has been caught red handed in bragging about their tactics wiht a plant hwo was posing as a potential customer. So now the evidence is pretty clear that Ukrainian hookers are a part of the package, and that's pretty sleazy, along with their other tactics.

    So here in the US, Betty Q Public and her neighbor Joe Wedgie might have not cared if their data was used to let Proctor and Gamble know what type of soap, Oil companies what kind of oil, and even sex toys, start to feel really uncomfortable. Some of the rest of us start to feel uncomfortable about an English company working to influence elections, and companies not wanting any part of that crap. When some outfit leaves a turd in th punchbowl, it kinda screws up all the punch.

    So yeah, There are some thorny legal questions here in the US that have to be settled. In addition, there is an investigation that has only trickled out just wht it knows. That's part 1

    Next, remember that not every country is the Us of A. So If some country finds that he's the provider and enabler of fomenting discord, they might just want to talk to him with great vigor.

    --
    The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
  40. Re: The Zuck needs to follow the adivce of his la by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Does the ToS mention genocide?

  41. Re: "protecting the integrity of civil discussions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Go look up incitement to violence and conspiracy to crime.

  42. Re:The Zuck needs to follow the adivce of his lawy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    fuck off ivan

  43. Re: "protecting the integrity of civil discussions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In theology, there allegedly is an agent of incitement to sin. However, the $Deity doesn't persecute the agent, nor the agent bears any guilt. The potential (or actual) sinner has full responsibility, having an independent free will.

    Criminalizing incitement is just an attempt to get back to annoying and malicious people, as well as to cut some slack to criminals deemed unlikely, to remove some burden of responsibility from their shoulder. Or maybe the lawmakers just don't want people to become more weary of manipulation and distrustful of influencers, so instead they choose to go after opportunists, wolves, who take advantage of that trait nourished in the sheepish by the shepherds.

  44. Re:We are not so far off.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    There is no actual evidence that diversity is a strength(or positive) and in fact many examples of just the reverse..

    Diversity is toughness against tailored attacks. Nothing more, nothing less. However, there has to be at least a minimal common base of cohesive attitudes among all elements of diversity for it to show the benefit. Intolerance, and attempts to segregate and purge, damages those cohesive attitudes if they existed. However, in some cases it is doubtful and subject to controversies if that minimum was there to start with, or if it is possible to build it. Most everyone, knowing nothing in advance, assumes that others are essentially, or mostly, having same core values as themselves. However, some discrepancies are insurmountable. And I am not talking about cultures here. We can witness here on this forum that among people of the same culture there are major differences.

  45. Re:"protecting the integrity of civil discussions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    > we are fully capable of telling the wingnuts and assholes from reasoned discussion.

    Evidence on the ground refute this observation. But I suppose you are in that group that does not care about anything other that your right to be a windbag.

  46. Re:The Zuck needs to follow the adivce of his lawy by gweihir · · Score: 1

    No doubt this is bad. But FB did not cause it, it had a small part in some of the propaganda that was used to start it and purely as a communications platform. You are missing the point here.

    --
    Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
  47. Re:The Zuck needs to follow the adivce of his lawy by gweihir · · Score: 1

    And if that were true, it would be really bad. But the idiot here is you: FB had a very small part in this thing and it did not really play an active role. Hence it is fundamentally different.

    --
    Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
  48. Re: The Zuck needs to follow the adivce of his law by Maritz · · Score: 1

    the idiot's accept

    Oh dear.

    --
    I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
  49. Re: "protecting the integrity of civil discussions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And of course, most "hate speech" laws just turn out to be used against those the government just does not like, by redefining its meaning at their convenience.

    At the end, it's not worth the risk. Let the devil talk, and I'll just ignore him.

  50. fuck this bullshit by AndyKron · · Score: 1

    If someone writes a threat on a piece of paper, is it that paper manufacturer who is to blame? Or the store that sold the paper? Of the company that made the pen? No, it is not.

    1. Re:fuck this bullshit by Jzanu · · Score: 1

      No, this is more like setting up armed military operations to suppress a targeted minority and using every possible media platform to direct their violence. In Burma/Myanmar there is no independent media, the military state is a dictatorship that has (again) replaced all elected figures, and Facebook is the main method used near exclusively by by 30 million people for news. Then, it was used to spread misinformation and blatant lies aimed at making directed attacks causing death on large scale.

    2. Re:fuck this bullshit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Paper is passive. It doesn't post itself anywhere. It's more like 'write your threat on this piece of paper and I'll deliver copies of that piece of paper to 2 billion people for you'.. the paper isn't to blame, nor the store who sold it, nor the company who made the pen.. but the company that shipped copies to everybody played some part in pushing or distributing your message. It used to be called publishing and there were regulations around it, for better or worse.

  51. Re:The Zuck needs to follow the adivce of his lawy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I for one welcome our new I.T. closet cleaner overlord.

  52. Re: The Zuck needs to follow the adivce of his law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Free speech is free speech. People just need to grow smarter.

    If someone is swindled by fake news itâ(TM)s just their own dumb fault. Donâ(TM)t blame Facebook the day you lose your freedom. Donâ(TM)t blame Russians.... blame your own stupidity.

  53. Re: "protecting the integrity of civil discussions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Question.... would you sacrifice Free Speech to Stop Fake News?

    Is Facebook doing the right thing by implementing censorship?

    If Facebook is now the primary way we communicate then doesnâ(TM)t censoring Facebook violate our rights?

  54. Re: The Zuck needs to follow the adivce of his law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "t's say I'm a Typical Youtube user. So I've given them my age, where I went to school, my address, my interests"
    I am an idiot, please help me nanny state. I stubbed my little toe.

  55. Re:"protecting the integrity of civil discussions by infuriatedweasel · · Score: 1

    By their new standards, it seems like the Declaration of Independence, the Federalist Papers, or the Lincoln - Douglas debates would need to be censored for our protection.

  56. Re:"protecting the integrity of civil discussions by hey! · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Well, I don't know who you are, so I can't judge the truth of the statement that "we" are able to tell the difference between reason and hate-mongering propaganda, but if by "we" you mean "people in general", your argument doesn't hold up.

    When I was a teenager I had dinner at the house of an older Jewish couple; the other guests were an elderly German couple who knew my Jewish friends through classical music circles. The German couple was old enough to remember living under the Nazis, and when the conversation turned that way these very nice people made it very clear that in the 1940s they'd have turned in any Jews they'd known were hiding. They wanted me to understand that even respectable, cultured, intelligent people can be brainwashed.

    Look around you. People are perfectly willing to go along with stupid, vicious, even incoherent ideas as long as there are a lot of other people doing it. Most people's behavior isn't governed by religion, or their professed philosophical principles; it's governed by what appears normal to them.

    The reason that government censorship doesn't work isn't because people are wise and thoughtful; it's because government censorship spitting into the wind of perceived normalcy. However, shaming racist bullshit and shunning the people repeating it is very effective.

    --
    Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
  57. Re:The Zuck needs to follow the adivce of his lawy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Salty Hillshill is salty. It was #HERTURN!!!!!11111

  58. Re:The Zuck needs to follow the adivce of his lawy by mario6915 · · Score: 0

    The problem in this case is not that he spoke... the problem is that he's shit at it.

  59. Re:The Zuck needs to follow the adivce of his lawy by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

    Frightened of what? He isn't going to get dragged away in handcuffs, that doesn't happen to C-level people.

    And if Basefuck went tits-up tomorrow he's probably got more money down the back of the couch than most people make in a lifetime.

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  60. Re:"protecting the integrity of civil discussions by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

            (a) Whoever aids, abets, counsels, commands, induces or procures the commission of an offense, is punishable as a principal.

            (b) Whoever willfully causes an act to be done which if directly performed by him or another would be an offense, is punishable as a principal.

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  61. LOL"Russian trolls interfering in U.S. elections." by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How utterly pathetic. What "elections" were those? (Plural). What does "interfering" mean?
    Why has none of the news media ever posted pictures of these "interfering" Facebook posts? Strange that, isn't it...

    What "ethnic cleansing" in Myanmar are they talking about? Do they mean "millions of muslims forced themselves into Myanmar and committed endless crimes against the indigenous population, who eventually got fed up and started fighting back"?

    'The Rohingya Psyops: Waging Covert War on Myanmar':
    https://off-guardian.org/2017/09/19/the-rohingya-psyops-waging-covert-war-on-myanmar/