Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

A Look at Facebook's Presence in Myanmar Where Despite Public Outcries, Facebook is Still Struggling To Contain Hate Speech (reuters.com)

Posted by msmash on from the closer-look dept.

More than 1,000 anti-Rohingya posts featuring calls for their murder among other hate speech were live on Facebook last week, Reuters reported Wednesday. A probe by the news agency indicates that the network is still being used to encourage violence against the Muslim group in Myanmar despite the tech firm promising to tackle the issue. Reuters reports some of the material had been online for six years. Facebook's rules prohibit "violent or dehumanizing" attacks on ethnic groups. However, the US-based firm mostly relies on users to flag related offending posts rather than hunting them out itself, in part because its software has not had enough training to reliably interpret Burmese text.

Vice reports that Facebook has hired an outside company to look into its role in spreading hate speech and enabling ethnic cleansing in Myanmar.

43 of 110 comments (clear)

  1. Simple solution: Pull Facebook out of Myanmar by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 3, Insightful

    If Facebook is basically fighting a flood with a broom then perhaps they should just not allow anyone in Myanmar to use Facebook for a while. Assuming, that is, that Facebook is actually serious about prohibiting "violent or dehumanizing" attacks on ethnic groups, as they say.

    1. Re:Simple solution: Pull Facebook out of Myanmar by rsborg · · Score: 1

      If Facebook is basically fighting a flood with a broom then perhaps they should just not allow anyone in Myanmar to use Facebook for a while. Assuming, that is, that Facebook is actually serious about prohibiting "violent or dehumanizing" attacks on ethnic groups, as they say.

      Or at least, just start suspending accounts. Of course, that would mean "reduced engagement" and FB can't get off that drug.

      --
      Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting
    2. Re:Simple solution: Pull Facebook out of Myanmar by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      Assuming, that is, that Facebook is actually serious about prohibiting "violent or dehumanizing" attacks on ethnic groups, as they say.

      If Facebook turned every server off today and nobody could access, much less post, anything on Facebook, it would not be adding one thing to prohibiting attacks on anyone. Facebook can no more prohibit "violent or dehumanizing" attacks than they can prohibit the sun from rising in the morning.

      All they can do is remove speech from their forums. Ethnic cleansing activities will continue without noticing the "disturbance in the force" that Facebook shutting down would cause. (Note that "the disturbance in the force" is a reference to science fiction, which is how real the disturbance to ethnic cleansing a shutdown of Facebook would be.)

      If people in Myanmar are not reporting these posts so that Facebook can follow their existing policies, then the fault lays with those who expect others to act for them instead of using the tools they have been given. I.e., with those who read these posts and say "gosh, that's awful, I wish someone would do something about those."

    3. Re:Simple solution: Pull Facebook out of Myanmar by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 1

      The only way to stop hate speech is to eliminate internet anonymity and to generally forbid all speech on the internet that is not preemptively cleared by censors before publication.

      ..okay buddy, stopped reading right there.
      Not suggesting that. What I am suggesting is that since Myanmar apparently can't follow Facebook policies, and the problem is rampant, that perhaps they should just disable Myanmar access to Facebook for a while, until the problem is 'handled'. I mean for fuck's sake they're essentially using Facebook as a C&C server for attacking and killing these Rohingans, and the Myanmar government doesn't give a fuck about it. Wouldn't you make an exception in an extreme case like this?

    4. Re:Simple solution: Pull Facebook out of Myanmar by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 1

      Listen, buddy: if your Very Large Social Media Website was being used to not only promote violence against an ethnic group, but more or less being used as a C&C server for people to organize their attacks, wouldn't you think about pulling their access entirely if you couldn't stem the flow of site-policy-violating content? They're essentially using Facebook to commit murder and the Myanmar government is all for it. You can't stop the killing in Myanmar but you can stop them using YOUR WEBSITE to help them do it. Does that put things in perspective for you a little better, or at least give you a better idea where I'm coming from?

    5. Re:Simple solution: Pull Facebook out of Myanmar by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      Listen, buddy:

      Listen yourself. I am not your "buddy", and the arrogant and insulting tone of your use of that term is not acceptable.

      if your Very Large Social Media Website was being used to not only promote violence against an ethnic group, but more or less being used as a C&C server for people to organize their attacks, wouldn't you think about pulling their access entirely if you couldn't stem the flow of site-policy-violating content?

      Of course I would. And if that content was in a language that I was not able to read myself and had limited resources in my employ that could, I'd put in place a system where the people WHO CAN read it could report problems so I'd know what to look at for removal. JUST LIKE FACEBOOK ALREADY DID.

      Read that again: Facebook already has a system in place that people were not using.

      But I didn't reply to any statement that Facebook should disable accounts, I replied to one that talked about Facebook being serious about prohibiting "violent or dehumanizing" attacks. Did you read what I quoted AT ALL? Did you consider what you wrote AT ALL?

      You can't stop the killing in Myanmar but you can stop them using YOUR WEBSITE to help them do it.

      So you read my statement that they can stop people from using their system to spread their speech and didn't realize that it meant they could stop the people making the threats from using their website to spread their speech? Here, see for yourself:

      All they can do is remove speech from their forums.

      Hint: how can they stop people from using their system to promote hate acts? Clue: removing the material that calls for such acts from the forums.

      or at least give you a better idea where I'm coming from?

      I've read quite a few of your postings here, and this one in particular. I know where you are "coming from". You called Facebook out for not being serious about prohibiting attacks when there is nothing they can do to prohibit them. I called out the people who are crying about the hate speech but failing to help Facebook remove it by reporting it. Do you get a better idea where I'm "coming from"?

    6. Re:Simple solution: Pull Facebook out of Myanmar by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 1

      Listen yourself. I am not your "buddy", and the arrogant and insulting tone of your use of that term is not acceptable.

      Tough. Welcome to the Internet, buddy. You think you can waggle your virtual finger at me and have any effect at all? Think again. Hell, I doubt you could do that in person and have any effect except to get laughed at by me.

    7. Re:Simple solution: Pull Facebook out of Myanmar by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      Tough. Welcome to the Internet, buddy. You think you can waggle your virtual finger at me and have any effect at all?

      I pointed out your rude form of address; what you do with that information is up to you. And no, I've read enough of your stuff to know that you simply don't care about being civil, so I expected a rude and arrogant response.

      I also expected you to use that one side issue to glibly ignore the point I was making about your "virtual finger waggling" at Facebook. You did not disappoint.

    8. Re: Simple solution: Pull Facebook out of Myanmar by GLMDesigns · · Score: 1

      And - you don't associate pomo with socialism? Really?

      If a skeptical system (their is no truth, nor reason, no logic) all skews in one direction then ... what are to think about it?

      A truly skeptical system would have some promoting, feudalism, some promoting monarchy, some promoting a meritocracy, some capitalism, some ... but that's not we see. We see close to a 100% association with socialism,

      Now, that is strange. Millions of people all generally selecting one option ... and all of them deny the validity of reason and logic.

      --
      If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
      Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
  2. It's like they don't care that they don't care. by mmmVenison · · Score: 1

    This is mainly done through a secretive operation in Kuala Lumpur that’s outsourced to Accenture, the professional services firm, and codenamed “Project Honey Badger.”

    We all know Honey Badger don't give a shit.

    --
    Offended? Find a safe space and cry yourself to sleep.
  3. Re:If Reuters can find it, why can't Facebook? by jellomizer · · Score: 1

    Hate speech vs free speech is like porn vs art you know the the difference when you see it. That doesn't make a good computer algorithm. Routers has people looking at this and they can make the judgement call. While an algorithm still doesn't quite figure out the difference.

    --
    If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
  4. Re:If Reuters can find it, why can't Facebook? by Nidi62 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If Reuters can find it, why can't Facebook?

    The number of Burmese-speaking Reuters employees (that the Myanmar government hasn't arrested yet) is greater than the number of Burmese-speaking Facebook employees? Hence why Facebook is hiring an outside firm.

    --
    The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
  5. +1 by gDLL · · Score: 1

    true.

    Either speech is free, or it's not.

  6. At least... by sheph · · Score: 1

    At least we got rid of Alex Jones though.

    --
    I don't believe in karma, I just call it like I see it.
  7. Muslims always claim they are the victims . . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    When actually, the Muslim are usually the aggressors.

    Leftist media will always side with the Muslims - because all white Christian males are pure evil - Just ask Sarah Jeong.

    “Moderate” Indonesia: Woman who complained about noise from a mosque’s loudspeakers charged with blasphemy, faces prison sentence. 14 Buddhist temples ransacked and burned in retaliation. It’s lucky Islam is so peaceful. Imagine the carnage if it wasn’t.

    https://uk.news.yahoo.com/indonesia-woman-irked-mosque-noise-073024215.html

    1. Re:Muslims always claim they are the victims . . . by unixisc · · Score: 1

      Precisely! The same people who are willing to believe Christians or Jews in the West - be it America, Europe or Israel - are somehow willing to believe that the Muslims are the victims in places like ex-Yugoslavia (Bosnia & Kosovo), Burma and India.

      On Twitter, Burmese posters have posted pictures of Burmese citizens - both Buddhist and Hindu, not Muslim - who had been beheaded by Muslim rebels in Rankhine. Nobody in the West bothers about that. They're only interested in the Muslim propaganda about Burma from Pakistan, Bangladesh and other international Islamic ambulance chasers

  8. Funny how we never get Slashdot stories... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    ...about hate speech by Muslim groups in the Middle East and ethnic cleansing against Christians.

    Why is that?

    1. Re:Funny how we never get Slashdot stories... by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 1

      ...about hate speech by Muslim groups in the Middle East and ethnic cleansing against Christians.

      Why is that?

      Probably because Muslims are more often the victim than the perpetrator. There's a lot of countries in Africa too where xians are performing ethnic cleansing on Muslim populations. Of course, that doesn't go along with the mindset some people have of "xian good" "Muslim bad".

      Xianity has a long history of ethnic cleansing, slavery and persecution of others. That doesn't make Christians or Christianity necessarily bad... it just means there are bad people of all religions.

      --
      "That's the way to do it" - Punch
    2. Re:Funny how we never get Slashdot stories... by harrkev · · Score: 4, Informative

      Probably because Muslims are more often the victim than the perpetrator. There's a lot of countries in Africa too where xians are performing ethnic cleansing on Muslim populations.

      You might want to research. The west practices tolerance, but in areas that are majority Muslim, not so much.

      Here, you can find a list of countries that allow the DEATH PENALTY for apostasy and blasphemy. You will never guess the dominant religion for most of them... http://www.pewresearch.org/fac...

      Well, "blasphemy" laws can be applied to pretty much anybody that you disagree with. In Pakistan, a Christian woman was pretty much railroaded and sentenced to death, despite the lack of any actual evidence. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      One telling quote (from the article):

      In December 2010, a month after Noreen's conviction, a Muslim cleric announced a 500,000 Pakistani rupee award (the equivalent of $10,000)[7] to anyone who would kill her. One survey reported that around 10 million Pakistanis had said that they would be willing to personally kill her out of either religious conviction or for the reward.

      Also, even if you DON'T actually commit blasphemy, here is a list of 13 countries where begin an Atheist can get you killed. You get three guesses about the dominant religion for 12 of these countries (the 13th country, Nigeria, is evenly divided between Christian and Islam). Yes, being the wrong religion (or lack thereof) is LEGAL grounds for execution. https://www.theatlantic.com/in...

      Another page with a similar map: https://www.indy100.com/articl...

      But as to who is the VICTIM of persecution, I will leave this article (cliff notes: Christians). The source data appears to be Pew (who is generally regarded as unbiased), but you can analyze the data for skew yourself.

      https://www.express.co.uk/news...

      --
      "-1 Troll" is the apparently the same as "-1 I disagree with you."
    3. Re:Funny how we never get Slashdot stories... by harrkev · · Score: 1

      And in the United States, police can execute you without a trial just for being black.

      And am I supposed to just believe some stranger on the Intertubes? Sorry, but I need a bit more proof.

      But, to actually address your claim, false. We have LAWS. The "execution" of an unarmed person is completely illegal if they are not attacking anybody. While it is true that some people may have gotten away with this, the increasing use of cameras worn by police officers should be reducing this type of activity. If a truly non-threatening person is shot (of any color) then the citizens have a right to demand criminal prosecution against the officer in question.

      --
      "-1 Troll" is the apparently the same as "-1 I disagree with you."
    4. Re:Funny how we never get Slashdot stories... by harrkev · · Score: 1

      I must admit that I know nothing about "The Express." However, I did a little "Google" magic and found this...

      http://www.pewresearch.org/fac...

      Please don't try to tell me that Pew is "right wing."

      However, this IS a thorny issue. "Persecution" has many levels, from simple name-calling all the way to death. So a person who is shunned for their religion is not the same as a person killed for their religion. As I mentioned in the grandparent post, Islam is most likely to kill you for religious violations. Unfortunately, hard, unbiased numbers for actual death an imprisonment for religious reasons is hard to find.

      But from the pew article that I linked above, it says:

      Among the 25 most populous countries in the world, Egypt, Russia, India, Indonesia and Turkey had the highest overall levels of religious restrictions.

      I should like to point out that of these five worst countries, three are Islamic. None have a Christian majority.

      Another example of religious "tolerance" is where the movie "Wonder Woman" was banned in Lebanon -- simply because the lead actress is Israeli... https://www.aljazeera.com/news...

      But, in all fairness to Islam, some countries are becoming more tolerant. Saudi Arabia just started allowing women to vote in the past few years. Let's all welcome Saudi Arabia to the 20th century. https://www.bbc.com/news/world...

      --
      "-1 Troll" is the apparently the same as "-1 I disagree with you."
    5. Re:Funny how we never get Slashdot stories... by Cederic · · Score: 1

      The Express is right wing in the same way that half the country is right wing: in favour of good fiscal management and kind of likes British values.

      In the last 100 years christians have faced persecution in Russia, Aermenia, Serbia, Romania, Bulgaria, Turkey, Alabania, Algeria, Libya, Lebanon and all over Africa too. Maybe the issue is the political systems in those countries during that period?

      Perhaps all religions are shitty and people should stop believing in invisible pink unicorns.

      But what is a xian? Is that pronounced zeeanne?

    6. Re:Funny how we never get Slashdot stories... by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 1

      Religions are neither good nor bad in my opinion. They are religions.

      People use their religions for good reasons or bad reasons. Doesn't matter the religion, there is good and bad in both. People are evil and people are good. Religions are just beliefs, and most are ambiguous enough to be applied to either side of many arguments.

      "X" is an abbreviation widely used for over a thousand years as a shorthand for the word "Christ"- first use was by Christian monks who presumably got tired of writing out the full word. Most commonly you see it as part of an abbreviation of "Christmas" to "Xmas" but often for Christian "Xian" or "Christianity" "Xianity" too.

      --
      "That's the way to do it" - Punch
    7. Re:Funny how we never get Slashdot stories... by walterbyrd · · Score: 1

      > And in the United States, police can execute you without a trial just for being black.

      Are you lying or just amazingly ignorant?

      Blacks kill other blacks *far* more than police kill blacks. When police kill blacks, it's usually justified, if it's not justified, the police are prosecuted.

  9. First: by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Define "hate speech".

    --
    Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    1. Re:First: by Koreantoast · · Score: 1
      From the article:

      “Cut off those necks of the sons of the dog and kick them into the water”... One Buddhist nationalist group set up a page called the “Kalar Beheading Gang.”

      A third user shared a blog item that pictures a boatload of Rohingya refugees landing in Indonesia. “Pour fuel and set fire so that they can meet Allah faster,” a commenter wrote.

      One user posted a restaurant advertisement featuring Rohingya-style food. “We must fight them the way Hitler did the Jews, damn kalars!” the person wrote, using a pejorative for the Rohingya.

      Direct calls for beheading people, immolating refugees of a particular race, and genocide against a specific people group would be considered hate speech and incitement by most people. We're not simply talking about expelling them, people are calling for the outright deaths of an entire people group within their borders.

    2. Re:First: by Type44Q · · Score: 1

      Damn; well said.

      If this keeps up, we may even have to take you off "broken clock" status...

    3. Re:First: by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      So everyone that has called for the assassination of President Trump has committed hate speech? Someone should warn PopeRatzo around here that his statements about punching and beating Nazis is hate speech.

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
  10. Re:There is no such thing as hate speech. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    While not hate speech per se, speech can have a clear threat of action and inherent chilling effect based on specificity.

    "I hate all gays" is fine, it is a bad opinion but whatever.
    "All gays can die in a fire, and I would be the first to light a match" is shitty to say but cool legally, because it isn't specific.
    "Let's all go to Washington DC and hang gays in front of the White House on the first of the month" is clearly a threat.
    "I hope their are no gays in my neighborhood *picture of a shotgun*" is clearly a threat as well.

    There needs to be better definitions in certain cases though. Calling someone gay when in the middle of a fight? Probably not hate speech, though many lawyers would go that route. Saying "this is what happens to gay people" when beating someone up probably is.

  11. Why not... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    ...mention the Rohingya massacre of Hindus in Myanmar? The dhimmitude is disgusting.

  12. You're wrong - both legally and morally by rsborg · · Score: 1

    The only thing which can be criminal is action.

    That is a fundamental requirement of a Free Society.

    Of course you realize that almost every nation has laws against certain types of speech. A great example is threats of violence - that's considered illegal in almost any jurisdiction.

    --
    Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting
  13. Re:Alright then... by Scroatzilla · · Score: 1

    In the "real world," you probably would not survive longer than a day or two, regardless of the content of your speech, because you would be stalking and abusing a school-aged girl, which would not be looked upon kindly by any parent. Stop trying to make an anti-free-speech argument with such a stupid example.

    Words are not equal to violence; and abhorrent *behavior* should not be tolerated in civilized society. This applies to your comment, the larger context of the article, and comments in this thread of people who are way more concerned with hurting feelings than actual events in the world.

  14. What bugs me the most . . . by sgt_doom · · Score: 4, Informative

    Not that I am unsympathetic to the slaughter of muslims in Myanmar and the destruction of their homes their, but there has been a lengthy genocide against the (mostly Christian) Kachin people in that country, and there is little reporting about it, most definitely NOT in Amerika.

    https://www.theguardian.com/wo...

  15. Media difference. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Christians: conservatives liberals hate

    Muslims: conservatives liberals love

  16. Facebook can do it... by DogDude · · Score: 2

    ... they just can't do it profitably. If they had to pay people with brains to scour their network to keep it shit-free, they wouldn't be profitable. They can only be wildly profitable by not actively managing their network.

    --
    I don't respond to AC's.
  17. Re:If Reuters can find it, why can't Facebook? by UnknownSoldier · · Score: 3, Informative

    Hate speech vs free speech ...

    *facepalm*

    Censored Speech vs Free Speech ...

    FTFY.

    There is NO such thing as "hate speech". As soon as you start censoring contrary opinion based on artificial labels you no longer have free speech -- you have censored speech which is one step removed from fascism. Ignoring a problem doesn't make it go away!

    As George Carlin summarized:

    Political Correctness is fascism pretending to be Manners" -- George Carlin

    Jordan Peterson points out the same thing -- Facebook censoring SOME speech and not others is a very bad idea.

    "@0:29 Now they have decided that they are ethically responsible for the content on their platforms. So good luck with that decision. Because they have an awful lot of content and drawing the lines is going to be extraordinary difficult thing to do.
    @0:45 Basically, the way these companies were setup up to begin with is that people could post content and then other people could watch it, and basically decide by their viewing, they could value the content by their proclivity to view.
    And now they have decided as a consequence of this decision that they are going to be in the business of arbitrarily determining what should and shouldn't be presented for public viewing and they'll never run out of decisions to make."

    Liberals wanting "tolerance" have swung so far around that they have now become conservatives -- intolerant of anything they disagree with.

    As Francois-Marie Arouet famously said:

    I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.

    Without the ability to communicate about a subject there is no opportunity to learn about it.

    Without an opportunity to comment and criticize there is no growth.

    Why is this an issue? Because censorship is a slippery slope.

    As Martin Niemoller famously said:

    First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out -- Because I was not a Socialist.

    Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out -- Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

    Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out -- Because I was not a Jew.

    Then they came for me -- and there was no one left to speak for me.

    History has shown this time and time again.

    Paraphrasing another YouTuber who summarized philosopher John Stuart Mill:

    If we censor hate speech our fundamental beliefs of what is right and wrong are not tested.

    If our beliefs are aren't argued against then we don't attempt to rationalize what we believe to be true.

    We don't think about why our beliefs are right.

    When we don't question our beliefs we don't think about them.

    And when we don't think about our beliefs we don't learn new things. We don't advance and improve our thoughts about what is right and wrong.

    He argued that even if someone's argument is wrong it still serves a purpose of making us rationalize and check our beliefs and even improve them.

    Being able to listen to an argument that is wrong lets us understand what makes an argument wrong and improve our own beliefs from learning from someone else's failure.

    People have forgotten:

    What you resists, persists

    The truth is:

    Only children censor.
    Adults communicate and even laugh at taboo subjects.

    Censorship is NOT the solution -- it is precisely the problem.

  18. Re:If Reuters can find it, why can't Facebook? by Gravis+Zero · · Score: 1

    If Reuters can find it, why can't Facebook?

    The number of Burmese-speaking Reuters employees (that the Myanmar government hasn't arrested yet) is greater than the number of Burmese-speaking Facebook employees? Hence why Facebook is hiring an outside firm.

    Obviously, the answer is to require all hate speech be written in English so that Facebook moderators can identify it as hate speech. ;)

    --
    Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
  19. Re:Action, or who cares. by nitehawk214 · · Score: 1

    I bet you change your tune when someone calls for your murder.

    --
    I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
  20. Re: Muslims always claim they are the victims . . by unixisc · · Score: 1

    Actually, no! They are Bangladeshi Muslims who live in Burma, but want to run an insurrection against the Burmese government. Which is why not just the ex junta, but even Ahn San Su Ki has resisted international attempts to condemn them. Ahn San could have gone along w/ the Islamic propaganda if she wanted, but she didn't, b'cos she saw what Muslims were doing to her country

  21. Re:If Reuters can find it, why can't Facebook? by mrwireless · · Score: 1

    I believe you conflate unpopular opinion and hate speech.

    Have a look at the Paradox of Tolerance.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

    Free speech is not linear ( the more the better), it follows a bell curve. You can have too little (chilling effects, censorship), but you can also have too much (hate). Tolerating unconstructive hate speech limits how inclusive your public sphere can be.

    What you describe sounds like impopular opinion, which sits in between those extremes, and should indeed be protected.

  22. Re: Muslims always claim they are the victims . . by Cederic · · Score: 1

    The correct response to people unhappy with your government is not to kill them all.

    Condemning genocide is just fine by me.

  23. Re: If Reuters can find it, why can't Facebook? by pezezin · · Score: 1

    Spoken like someone who doesn't know what fascism is.

  24. Re:If Reuters can find it, why can't Facebook? by GLMDesigns · · Score: 1

    Hate Speech is still free speech, There is no constitutional or moral distinction.

    Courts have struggled to find what cannot be permissible and it boils down to:

    1. Directly inciting violence. "Kill now."
    2. Deliberately causing a panic. Example: Falsely crying fire.
    3. And, it was, for a long while, extended to pornography.

    Hate speech means what? Saying that supporters of capitalism and the free market are fascist and therefore should be ostracized and beaten. I think ANTIFA are, at best, ignorant fools and at worst evil fuks alongside the Maoist Cultural Revolutionaries and the Khmer Rouge fanatics. *I* think they're hateful. Should ANTIFA be deplatformed? No?

    One cannot eliminate "hate speech" and still have free speech.

    --
    If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
    Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond