Slashdot Mirror
Evidence is Piling Up That Facebook Can Incite Racial Violence (technologyreview.com)
Higher use of the world's dominant social network has now been strongly linked with more attacks on refugees in Germany. From a report: Greater use, greater violence: Specifically, in towns where "per-person Facebook use rose to one standard deviation above the national average," attacks on refugees "increased by about 50 percent," the New York Times reported today, citing a University of Warwick study. Researchers there carried out a detailed analysis of more than 3,000 incidents in Germany over a two-year period. Crucially, the link held true regardless of the city's size, political leanings, or economic status -- and didn't correlate with general patterns of internet use. Those findings strengthen the case that using Facebook in particular can be a driving mechanism of greater violence.
Greater scrutiny: That's more bad news for the embattled social network, which has long portrayed itself as a benevolent company driven by a mission to draw the world closer together. But researchers recently found that coordinated hate speech and propaganda on the site helped fuel violence in Myanmar. And last year, Facebook itself eventually acknowledged that Russian agents had posted tens of thousands of inflammatory posts -- which reached tens of millions of people -- before and after the 2016 presidential election, in a massive campaign to deepen divisions in the United States.
Greater scrutiny: That's more bad news for the embattled social network, which has long portrayed itself as a benevolent company driven by a mission to draw the world closer together. But researchers recently found that coordinated hate speech and propaganda on the site helped fuel violence in Myanmar. And last year, Facebook itself eventually acknowledged that Russian agents had posted tens of thousands of inflammatory posts -- which reached tens of millions of people -- before and after the 2016 presidential election, in a massive campaign to deepen divisions in the United States.
It doesnt have to be russia to scream fire in a theater.
The entire purpose of Facebook is to monetize having people at each others' throats ... because it increases engagement, and makes Mark Zuckerberg and Facebook's shareholders that much richer. Of course Facebook is inciting racial violence, along with political violence, criminal violence, school violence, and any other violence you can think of. If money can be made from it, Facebook will provide more of it.
I have friends who have stopped speaking to each other because of Facebook. It will only get worse, because Wall Street demands higher returns from the company, which means .... more violence.
Cause, or effect?
I know the conventional wisdom is that we're all supposed to be hating on Facebook now (I mean, they practically GAVE Trump's election to Cambridge Analytica, amirite? It couldn't be that people seriously voted for Trump...they must have been TRICKED by FACEBOOK!), but this explanation is not only terrifically timely for the meme, it's altogether too pat.
I rather suspect that if one could measure the intensity and frequency of gossip pre-Facebook, one would find a "disturbing" correlative uptick in gossip to all sorts of things...that people like to gossip about. If one correlates an uptick in FB postings to hate crimes, one has to evaluate further if the postings are legitimate or false - I sincerely doubt anyone in the media is going to admit that "well maybe those people complaining about those illegals might have been justified"...ever.
Humans have always, generally, hated strangers in their midst. It's a tribal thing. Strangers with different habits, hair, clothes, language, food, and especially SKIN COLOR have always been easier to target for frustrations.
It doesn't help that there seem to be a sadly-not-"fake news" plethora of stories about crime and illegals* like Mollie Tibbetts and Kathryn Steinle - nearly 25% of Federal prisoners are illegal immigrants. Racism is not acceptable, but not wanting criminals in ones' community is a pretty reasonable desire.
*they're not "undocumented" - that's a flat-out lie; "undocumented" implies that they just don't happen to have their papers, or that such papers actually exist - they're illegal immigrants and farcical games with language only makes it clearer to some that there's a collusive effort to hide that.
-Styopa
Evidence is Piling Up That Mark Zuckerberg doesn't realise that he's now wielding, badly, the same power that Rupert Murdoch once enjoyed playing King Maker with.
If election meddling (you decide if it has happened or not) is now done on the FB platform then Zuckerberg is effectively renting out that power.
Easier to strip him of it, or try to get leverage on him, to get a slice of that power yourself.
When ever I read these sensational headlines the single piece of information that I think would be the most useful isn't what I'm being told it's "who's behind it?"
Who started the gossip and the whispers?
There in lies another problem with our media. This Murdoch understood well. It's easy to hide behind your employee journalists, editors and tamper with the world on a grand scale than to do so out in the open.
Zuckerberg is very much out in the open and very exposed.
Always presented as important news? None of this internet stuff is fundamentally new, it's just more efficient. If a pamphlet or a town crier can influence people's minds, facebook can too - because that's all it is.
Same situation as sharing songs on the internet. Nothing different than recording something onto reel to reel from a radio 60 years ago, just more efficient.
...it's Facebook! If it weren't for Facebook these migrants, who claim to be refugees, would have fully integrated into the German society. They would have adopted German values. They would have learned the German language and got job contributing to the German economy. They would have know that you can't go around raping people like you can in the third world. If only it weren't for Facebook, Germany would be a paradise, just like Sweden.
So there you have it, it's nothing to do with the fucking morons in charge trying to destroy their own civilisation. The problem is purely Facebook!
"Can't any longer play off black against old - young against poor. This country cannot house its houseless - feed its foodless. "
Facebook is designed to promote content that grabs people's attention, because that is what generates revenue for them. It turns out that what grabs people's attention best are not thoughtful and reasonable opinions but OMG emotional stuff that triggers people to respond immediately, so that is what Facebook's algorithms emphasize and effectively amplify.
Facebook may be neutral on what people get emotional about, and they may not care that emotions happen to be what is best for generating pageviews, but the effect is that they amplify heated stuff and easily turn it into overheated stuff. In that respect they are not neutral at all.
I personally find Yahoo!'s front page to be far far far more egregious player than FB. FB at one time had their "Trending Stories" component which was a blatantly biased attempt to subvert what was actually trending. As time wore on FB realized people simply were not buying their slanted opinion of what was important. Ultimately FB shuttered the "Trending Stories."
But Yahoo! That's a totally different animal. Maybe, and I mean maybe, one out of twenty headlines presented is not biased. I read their headlines every single day and despite all their trying I still ain't buying.
FB is bad, but Yahoo! is egregiously bad.
Caution: Contents under pressure
Facebook feeds people stuff similar to what they have "liked" before, setting up another echo chamber.
Earlier today I was noticing that if CNN were my primary source of news, I'd really dislike conservatives and Republicans; if Fox were my primary source, I'd have a disdain for liberals and Democrats. It's my understanding that Facebook is even worse, and it is the number one most popular source of "news", as I recall. Certain comedians are also among the top sources people cite as where they get their "news" (apparently confusing jokes mixed with propaganda for news).
On Slashdot, at least I talk to people who have a point of view different from my own. Occasionally they are calm and rational, presenting a cogent argument. What's really great is when they also are adult enough to listen to my opposing viewpoint and discuss where we each may have a good point, and can each learn something from the other point of view. It's great when that happens.
Trump's lawyer just implicated him in felony campaign finance fraud among other crimes for which evidence already exists in Mueller's hand. Checkmate. Rudy Giuliani should be remembered as the world's dumbest attorney.
In fairness, if the murderers find murder entertaining, they weren't really abusing the resources. They're still wrong but, as a supposedly neutral platform, that's not Facebook's fault or problem.
Unpopular opinion, I know, but some of us know a slippery slope when we see one. This is a problem for Thai and Burmese law enforcement to deal with, not Facebook.
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
That comparison is way off the mark. Guns don't do anything on their own. Facebook does a fuck of a lot on it's own. It's designed to feed you whatever propaganda you're most predisposed to believing.
Facebook is pretty much the best brainwashing machine ever built, so yeah, it shares a large chunk of the blame. Obviously the people who engage in violence aren't innocent cherubs, but their individual actions are a much smaller problem.
Maybe people need to look at what's being conveyed on these messenger (social media) services instead of of trying to block it?
You know, if migrants really are stealing and committing sex crimes at a statistically higher rate above the norm then it should be reported.
Same goes for politicians who commit crimes.
If anything, it sounds like certain people don't like it when social media serves up a dish of politically inconvenient news and the plebs rightly get angry. Maybe if journalists were doing their job there would be a more balanced way of reporting such news so that it doesn't inflame the public's violence.
Nah that would all make sense now wouldn't it?
If you claim critique based on research methods, at least skim the paper first. It is free and the main body of the paper is only 42 pages long with the remaining 38 pages providing background information, references, and data summaries. Start reading on page 18, the "Empirical Strategy" section.
The authors make much more than correlation after discussing it in the previous section and then demanding more evidence. They proceed with an explicitly causal model that is verified by statistical evidence. It isn't obvious if you don't have modeling background but "structural evidence" refers to structural equation modeling, which is rigorously designed to determine causality. Controlling for interactions is done to isolate variables and included known differences in demographics between municipalities.
In particular, understanding these results requires some understanding of the actual role of the AfD in German politics, but your point was about research method, which wasn't legitimate given the content of the actual paper.
Remember kids if you are not continuously outraged and afraid money is being left on the table.
No. Your way of thinking is a cancer that humanity needs to remove. You make endless claims without actual knowledge of the situations, and without any peer-reviewed evidence where you imply "scientific" support. Social Darwinism and right-wing identity politics are exactly what fed the second world war. Every country involved had eugenics programs, etc. but it was only Germany with a rabid doctrine developed by disgruntled illiterate veterans with untreated psychological disorders. That doctrine is what you are preaching now, whether you realize it or not. This is not the material to "troll" with, and if you believe it then you need genuine mental health evaluation and treatment so you can live a productive life in our society.
Facebook VP: "The Majority Of Russian Ad Spend Happened AFTER The Election" https://newsroom.fb.com/news/2...
"many of these ads did not violate our content policies. That means that for most of them, if they had been run by authentic individuals, anywhere, they could have remained on the platform."
Shouldn't you stop foreigners from meddling in US social issues?
The right to speak out on global issues that cross borders is an important principle. Organizations such as UNICEF, Oxfam or religious organizations depend on the ability to communicate - and advertise - their views in a wide range of countries. While we may not always agree with the positions of those who would speak on issues here, we believe in their right to do so - just as we believe in the right of Americans to express opinions on issues in other countries.
So, after all the investigations and debunked conspiracy theories, the strongest argument for alleged Russian interference in the 2016 US federal election is $100K of non-political or partisan Facebook ads - more than half of which ran after the election, and a quarter of which never ran at all.
Putting it into perspective: Total election spending: $2.4 billion. Total Clinton/Trump Facebook ad buys: $81 million.
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
Facebook are at acts of violence, when those acts of violence were, planned or incited across Facebook forums. Entirely their fault and an inherent outcome for real name social media, it is entirely a bad idea. Anonymous avatars, tend to restrict violent expression becoming real violence by simply the outlet of an anonymous forum, kept anonymous deny direct access to participants unless the mutually wish it. It only becomes person when they disclose to each other upon a person to person basis.
So any social media that uses real names and real identities across a broad spectrum of the populace with vary attitudes and ability to deal with attitudes at variance, will result in a substantial increase in violence, some people should simply not mix ie you do not fill a room full of misogynists and misandrists and many sharp knives and expect good outcomes, well, maybe for the rest of us but certainly not for them.
So yes, Facebook should either switch to anonymising avatars or be shut down by being held liable for all violence or criminal events plotted and shared across it forums.
Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
Ok, but why stop there?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Facebook, like every social media platform, has one crucial function: It can connect like minded people. Actually, that's its primary function. Now, while this seems quite positive on the surface, it can be quite detrimental to us as a society too. Because it also allows very unsavory and outright crazy people to connect. Which you might notice in the more recent skyrocketing number of conspiracy theories being peddled loudly.
What does this have to do with each other?
Let's say you have an uncommon, unpopular or outright illegal position or opinion. In a "normal" society, you'd feel quite alone with your opinion because nobody shares it. This changes when you're able to connect with like minded individuals who share your twisted world view. Suddenly you're no longer alone, moreover, you feel that your position is verified as true and right, you feel vindicated. And of course you start living in this echo chamber of like minded people who keep telling you that you're right and that your "crazy" opinion is not crazy at all but that everyone else is crazy.
This works for every kind of fringe ideology. It has worked for religion for centuries without the internet, but the internet gives other insane ideas the same level of self perpetuating reinforcement. From religion to third wave feminism, from white supremacy to black lives matters. And yes, from contrails to flat earth.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
This can be used for good or evil, the lesson here should be for reasonable people to use them for good as readily as the anti-social criminal cowards are prepared to use them for evil, something that does happen.
Facebook cannot magically convert idiots into reasonable and rational people. Facebook isn't responsible for this particular problem it is the users causing the problems.
Facebook has its share of responsibilities. Its AI algorithm is optimized to autonomously search for what will keep the users on the site the longest (so that the company has more eyeball time to sell to advertisers / more behaviour data to sell, and thus the company gets richer).
Old studies done since TV is "a thing" have already shown that the human mind will pay more attention to emotion-generating content, even more if these emotions are negative. Eventually, human mind tends to pay most attention to violence and extremes.
(Probably an evolutionary advantage in the distant past, as paying attention to which member of the ape-pack got mauled by a tiger is more likely to provide you useful information to save your ass, than paying attention to how the flowers are beautiful).
Thus, by trying to give to viewer whatever is the most likely to keep their attention focused, the algorithms used by Facebook will independently rediscover the above, and will spontaneously (machine-) learn to provide even more extreme content, until each "echo chamber" one lock oneself in slowly devolves into a giant mess of extremism, violence and crazy conspiracy theories.
All this without the AI even having a clear idea of *what* the content is, only have the statistical notion that it tend to retain attention.
Facebook devs where the one writing these algorithm without taking into account where it can lead, they do share a part of responsibilities.
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
Why look at attacks on refugees which is a tiny percentage of violent crime?
Why not look at attacks by refugees, which is a large percentage of violent crime?
This reminds me of the Black Lives Matter nonsense where they singled out 0.7% of American black deaths and made a stand on it. That is absurd.
This is a hoax story intended to continue stomping out dissent across social media.
We are seeeing the largest censorship campaign in known history. You will be asked where you stood: With the all-censoring, pro-genocide population replacers, or with the free people fighting for their lives.
Complete and utter bullshit.
Facebook is not inciting violence.
Facebook is not inciting violence intentionnally, per-se.
Facebook is just optimizing for profits, and due to their specific market (advertising, data mining, etc.) they need, as the above poster stated, they need to increase engagement (i.e.: keep more eyeballs focused on facebook, for further reselling)
And old studies done in the era of TV have already shown, the thing that increases the most engagement is emotions, more likely negative emotion, thus fear and violence.
Thus even if Facebook hasn't in a "james bond vilain-style" decided to promote violence for pure evil intents, just by having machine learning algorithms that try to feed whatever attract the most user attention, they'll eventually start to automatically promote violence.
What you are seeing is an unintended side effect of people having, for the first time in human history, the ability to instantly communicate with millions of other people, allowing then to speak out against things going on in the world that they are unhappy about,
It's not the "instant communication" part that is main culprit (though it contributes a bit).
It's the filtering going on.
We're not in the beginning of the age of internet anymore.
You're not suddenly exposed directly to the speech of the other millions of people, anymore. That's long past ago (you can't download the whole web on a DVD anymore :-P )
You're not even exposed to a random / representative of the speech of some of that other million of people, neither. Specially not since commercial companies jumped in and they need to profit from their business
You're specifically exposed to that tiny fraction (tiny enough so that it can fit within the limited attention span of our monkey-brains) of the speech of that other million of people, that the companies' machine learning algorithms have determined to be the most likely to attract your attention and provoke you into staying around (further speaking your own idea).
Yes, the increase of content has (somewhat) had some influence on the way we communicate. (We've reached the point where we can't follow everything).
The current data tech giant (Facebook, Google, etc.) are extremely strongly shaping the kind of communication that is going between people. But they need profit, so they focus on whats the most profitable to them even if that fucks everything up.
Basically, the "information highways" have slowly transmorphed into the "kingdom of the few most attention-grabbing filthy tabloids".
such as civilized countries being overrun with third world filth.
Yeah, thank your for this nice demonstration of your opinions.
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
I hadn't looked at the paper beforewriting, I went by the article. Looking at it now, yes, you're right, they used more than simple correlation. But, as Wright himself put it, he "never made the preposterous claim that the theory of path coefficients [=SEMs] provides a general formula for the deduction of causal relations." That is, causal relations are an assumption that goes into the SEM model, not a result that comes out of them. Causal assumptions determine the form of the equations you write down.
In this paper, they just aggregate data weekly. When you look at Figure 3, it suggests that, even aggregated weekly, anti-refugee posts lag (rather than lead) attacks. And when you look at Figure 4, it would imply that nearly all refugee attacks are due to Facebook posts on the AfD page, which is completely implausible. On the other hand, it is almost certain that ever refugee attack generates lots of comments on the AfD page, if not from anybody else than from opponents of the AfD. So, between the two hypothesis (1) posts cause refugee attacks and (2) refugee attacks cause posts, (2) seems far more likely.
How can they apply SEM to this problem? At the very least, they need to write down SEM models for both (1) and (2) and compare them. If they do, they'll almost certainly find that (2) is an even better fit for their data than (1).
And what "role" would that be? Has the AfD ever called for violence against anybody? Or have they asked people to remain calm and use democratic means for achieving their ends? What is the causal mechanism by which the AfD Facebook page alone would account for so many refugee attacks?
The people who have been used to running news monopolies are, like medallion cabdrivers, unaccustomed to competition. Now that raw news about what the unvetted flood of refugees is doing in Europe is getting through around the mellowspeak filtration system of the traditional media, they are blaming...the new sources of information for allowing a diversity of news and opinion through.
Watch for the EU to respond by fining everyone who reports unofficial news or channels unofficial opinions.
Using disease metaphors to describe "undesirable" societal elements...who else did that? Oh right the Nazis. Insisting that people who disagree have mental problems and must be involuntarily committed for their own good...who else did that? Oh right the Communists. What kind of thinking needs to be removed again? Look in the mirror.
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
Is it not just a faster way to get what you want? Violent people will be incited to violence, kind people will be incited to kindness, racist people will be incited to be racist. Run another experiment that looks for evidence of co-operation, that is probably correlated to facebook use as well. If you only look for bad outcomes, you will only get bad outcomes.
Somebody's selling facebook stock short. I haven't seen attacks this blatant since stories about Tazers killing people the week it went public.
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
1 - it's against the law (in my country and his)
2 - he has a substantial security detail that would likely thwart me
3 - he can personally kick my arse, probably even if I start with a gun and he doesn't
4 - it's too much effort
5 - it's too expensive to get to Russia
6 - I don't really have any desire. I mean, I don't like what he's done in Crimea but I kind of leave the responses to that sort of shit to my country's Government
Sorry.
The mainstream media in many countries is heavily biased to the left
Which countries? Name them.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
but I've never seen Facebook at any demonstrations or protests. I do see a point at which Facebook can promote or discount certain stories in the general news feed that can lead to greater or lesser exposure of a viewpoint.
Well, I would imagine that probably no one has seen FB at a demonstration or protest.
I think the point here is that FB, and social media in general have created a sort of digital lynch mob mentality.
We play the game with the bravery of being out of range
I think the whole point is that Facebook is not a neutral platform. They're a polarizing platform. It may be neutral in that they don't push you to one specific side, but it's hard to call it neutral if everyone is pushed toward an extreme and their own personalized echo chamber.
FB, and social media in general have enabled the same tactics and mentality that the radio stations in Rwanda used in 1994. The tribes in Rwanda were incited, "whipped up" into a frenzy of tribal hate, the the point of incredible acts of violence. FB and social media are using the same model, and people like Alex Jones, etc know how to play that game.
We play the game with the bravery of being out of range
Yes. There are plenty of other ways to work out differences than hatred and violence. But you're already using charged words like "invading" so you probably aren't interested in a nuanced discussion.
It may be neutral in that they don't push you to one specific side
Well yes, that's how you define a neutral platform
but it's hard to call it neutral if everyone is pushed toward an extreme and their own personalized echo chamber
You mean when you amplify someone's own thoughts, beliefs, wants, and desires, those things become stronger? This is the danger of showing people what they want in a neutral and nonjudgmental manner; rather, it's the danger of shielding them from what they might not want to see or hear. It doesn't make the platform any less neutral, though.
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
In the US, the number and severity of crimes by white power/neo-fascists is much higher than anything the antifa or left leaning groups do. Now, if you were talking about the 1970s, sure, then the left leaning terrorist groups were the ones to be feared.
Now, I think everyone knows that Trump and his cohorts elsewhere have emboldened fascism/white power.
You yourself are a perfect example.
We play the game with the bravery of being out of range
Without outside influence and censorship, people endorse right-wing ideas
People who isolate themselves are xenophobic? No kidding?
Also, if the outside influencers are people, wouldn't they endorse right-wing ideas too? Or are you just confused?
Instead of standing on a corner, and shouting out the rants of madmen/women. We now use Facebook in the same way. Ban Facebook, people will find another way to rave to the public all of their hatred. I don't get my news from Facebook, unless it comes from a major news source(LA Times, local news paper, Washington Post, ...). Then I go to the actual web site and read the article. And then, I still read it with the mind set that it is probably slanted.
I also try to ignore any of the ravings of my delusional friends. Good for blonde jokes though. Thats about it.
Anonymous comments are as pathetic as the anonymous "sources" that contaminate gutless journalism from the New York Time
It may be neutral in that they don't push you to one specific side
Well yes, that's how you define a neutral platform
You're still being pushed to one side - it's just that each user may be pushed in a different direction.
it's the danger of shielding them from what they might not want to see or hear. It doesn't make the platform any less neutral, though.
Except that's exactly what it does. It's neutral only in aggregate. Every single user has an extremely non-neutral experience on the platform. Also, extremism itself isn't exactly neutral.
Except that's exactly what it does.
Except? I just stated it, you're not excepting anything here.
It's neutral only in aggregate.
First you say it may be neutral, now you agree that it is. We're getting somewhere.
You're still being pushed to one side
Nobody on Facebook is pushed anywhere *; Facebook's users are free to stay put, follow the pack that Facebook makes easy for them, or actively seek other viewpoints. What Facebook does is, in a neutral manner, show you what your "friends" are saying, doing, and thinking; it only appears non-neutral to most people because most people tend to only associate with people who share their own beliefs. Try friending people who challenge you and you suddenly have a much different experience. That human nature's lack of neutrality, not Facebook's. What's being called for in response to Facebook's supposed lack of neutrality is for Facebook to actually not be neutral.
Every single user has an extremely non-neutral experience on the platform.
Indeed, they due, trained by their own biases and lack of neutrality, not that of the platform. That was my point; the platform, in the neutral way in which it amplifies what users want and shields them from any opposing viewpoints, is dangers. But still neutral.
Also, extremism itself isn't exactly neutral.
You're right. You know what else it's not? A trait of the platform. Know what it is? A trait of the users.
*: That's not 100% accurate; some of us are pushed away from the platform because we don't like echo chambers.
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
"follow the pack" should be "follow the path", though I suppose what I actually wrote works as well in context
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
" It's designed to feed you whatever propaganda you're most predisposed to believing."
It's designed to monopolize your attention. That it does so in a way that seems, SEEMS, to also promote its founders and managers' points of view is, for them, a huge benefit.
Make FB politically agnostic, and this isn't such a big deal. But FB ownership and management do not seem to be running it in a politically neutral or agnostic fashion, and eventually there is a real McCain-Feingold violation* to address. Not that we can expect any real action, since the UniParty is deathly afraid of actually addressing the blatant corporate in-kind contributions being made, and I do not include the ostensible 'news' organizations. They are a different issue, as they will rely upon First Amendment protections to avoid even the appearance of criticism.
It's not just FB, either but you can figure that out for yourself.
* - When corporate media owners and officers meet with elected officials to discuss campaign issues, their actions can reasonable be suspected of being in-kind contributions, and there is likely a McCain-Feingold violation in progress. And other violations.
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
If governments can force corporations to disclose location records, communications, and identities for mundane violations such as tax evasion, certainly they can for public incitement to riot or murder.
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
Well, here in the US we have these things called warrants. Usually, bad things happen if you don't comply with one of those. Not sure how things work in Thailand or Burma, but the worst case for law enforcement is that they need a warrant; it may well be that they just need to show up at the office with guns.
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
Yeah, that's the problem; not that dangerous populations are being imported into Germany, but that people are allowed to talk about it.
Here is a summary of the self created thorn position of that party. Their beliefs are contrary to the declaration of human rights, and in truth the are purely opportunistic jabs they claim are aimed at creating a new crusade but really only serve to distract people while they steal everything they can. Fitting since they are supported by funneled moneyfrom Russian thieves i.e. Putin and his band, just like the actual NPD fascists, the National Front in France, and the irredentists in northern Italy. Putin is a frightened little man who canâ(TM)t understand that the opposite position of democracy in peace for trade benefits everyone more.
Fixed effects and mixed model time series analysis with cross sectional elements. Donâ(TM)t try to appeal to a nearly 20 year old paper while the field has advanced continuously.
I am German not American.
Of course when Kanye says, "Bush doesn't like black people" that's awesome!
...
... they get a pass. Because they're so, so cool. They understand how some people's great great grandparent's suffered and how that entitles them to killing people and reparations and all that.
... so eject them from our echo chamber.
And when Jamie Foxx says his movie rocks because a lot of white people get shot that's cool.
And there's Sister Soulja
Yeah
Facebook doesn't get a pass. We're not sure which race they're in favor of
Correct, this is a perfect example of what the parent poster is talking about.
You are the fascist here. It's obvious to everyone but you.
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
The article doesn't even mention "human rights", and all it says is that the AfD is anti-immigration. Where do you see beliefs "contrary to the declaration of human rights"? And what does that have to do with violence?
You need to read more. Try actually reading the Universal Declaration on Human Rights that Germany and every other signatory nation has agreed to uphold. Article 14, "Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution". AfD are explicity rejecting that, despite the well defined premise that it causes suffering and death without justification.
I'm not appealing to a paper at all. I made a couple of mathematical statements. First, I'm saying they aggregated the data incorrectly and hence can't distinguish causality. Second, at the very least, they need to test both causal directions (1) and (2). Now, if you understand my points and have a response, please feel free to make it.
And you're right that the field has advanced continuously over the last 20 years. In particular, we have learned that many applications of SEM are incorrect in just the way in which this paper applies it incorrectly
You know you are being facetious. Read the paper all the way. Recorded internet outages and decreased AfD activity recorded also reduced attacks, to the estimated value of nearly 12%. The timing element (which is what time series mean, since you lack background). Don't try to hide your mistakes.
Yes, that's what it says. But it doesn't say "Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy asylum from persecution in countries of their choice". Asylum seekers are supposed to seek asylum in the first safe country they enter. Now, unless France or Italy have been taken over by North Korea, I can't think of any nation for which Germany would be the first safe country. Furthermore, asylum is a temporary arrangement, not a permanent one.
And to be clear, I have lived as a guest worker in Germany, among other countries. Gerrmany's problem isn't the AfD. As an immigrant, I have no problem with countries telling me that they don't want to let me settle, that's their good right. No, Germany's problem is a deep-seated, nearly universal embrace of authoritarianism and xenophobia, something you find across the political spectrum in Germany.
You need to read my comment all the way. And then you need to explain why they shouldn't test for causality in the other direction.
Yes. This is why "burner phones" are illegal in many countries -- because they have deemed it too dangerous to allow the populace to speak without identifying themselves first. And all it takes to keep a group from meeting is to declare them a criminal organization, at which point merely assembling is itself admitting to a crime (being part of the conspiracy).
How is the Riemann zeta function like Trump rallies? Both have an endless number of trivial zeros.
Asylum is a permanent situation. I have consulted with immigration lawyers (casually, not professionally) to ask if asylum seekers have to go home when the crisis that caused them to leave is resolved -- and the answer is NO. Asylum is not revocable unless they do something to get deported.
How is the Riemann zeta function like Trump rallies? Both have an endless number of trivial zeros.
By your definition we should be censoring books, shutting down libraries and forbidding people from discussions in coffee shops, and book clubs everywhere. I am not suggestion that calling on people to kill one another or openly inciting to riot should be allowed, but those kind of sources need to be identified and pointed out by the legal authorities and then removed by Facebook. Facebook should not be responsible for the determination of what meets that criteria. After all what IS hate speech ? Something you hate to hear ? What is obscenity ? Should Toyota be responsible for the hit and run of pedestrians ?
errr....umm...*whooosh* *whoosh* Is this thing on ?
That may be the legal situation in your country, but it is not an automatic part of international human rights. It is also inadvisable because if asylum automatically implies permanent residency, countries will be far more reluctant to grant it. Note that most people seeking asylum in the west don't even meet the rather loose definition of the UN, let alone the original intent of asylum law.
You get a short reply and then you either need to admit you are unqualified to critique this paper or write your own formal response and get it published in a journal as a response (you should know there are journals for that purpose). Your misinterpretation comes from not realizing the authors already included a triple interaction where the baseline internet usage, facebook activity, internet accessibility, and (because if you understand there are four levels here). Look at section 3.4 on the design and evidence from internet outages. Inclusion of this term in the fixed effects model and still achieving significant results across all spatial levels means exactly that your "need to answer" question about reverse causation has already been answered in the paper if you know enough to even read it properly.
Since you are lazy and refuse to read for comprehension let me point out this excerpt from the paper: "The results reveal a striking pattern. While the Facebook outages only vary by week, the triple interaction term with social media usage and our refugee salience measure attracts a statistically significant negative estimate in all three specifications. Quantitatively, we find that Facebook disruptions fully undo the effect of social media propagation. For example, consider that the coefficient of Nutella Users/Pop. and Refugee Posts is 0.317 in column (5), while that on the triple interaction is 0.337".
The SEM (such as it is, it really is just a simple linear model) is in Equation 2, plus a bit of heuristic reasoning about coefficient magnitudes. I leave it to you to work out for yourself why you can move RefugeePosts to the LHS and Attacks/Refugee to the RHS and still get a strong relationship despite the "triple interaction".
Why? The implication of this paper is that censoring Facebook would reduce refugee attacks. Since I couldn't care less about either Facebook or the civil liberties of Germans, I encourage you to try this and report back to the world!
"My country" is the United States of America. One would imagine that if this policy was a point of contention on whether to admit someone or not, it would be a topic of discussion -- but it isn't. Nobody talks about it. I had to ask as a matter of fact checking for a story I am writing.
How is the Riemann zeta function like Trump rallies? Both have an endless number of trivial zeros.
Seriously? Trump got elected on the promise of restricting the influx of refugees from the Middle East and South America, as did many conservative European leaders. Voters in Western democracies are rebelling against the enormously generous migration and refugee policies. The reason you likely don't realize that this was a "point of contention" is that anybody critical of these generous policies is dismissed as a "white supremacist" or "alt-right troll". But mainstream conservatives in both the US and Europe have asked for a tightening of these laws. The German governing coalition nearly split over it.
Whether or not to let them in at all has been the point of contention -- not how long they get to stay once admitted. Nobody is discussing the latter point on either side.
How is the Riemann zeta function like Trump rallies? Both have an endless number of trivial zeros.
As I was saying: It is also inadvisable because if asylum automatically implies permanent residency, countries will be far more reluctant to grant it. Americans and Europeans, at this point, realize that almost anybody they let in will simply stay, which is why there is such strong opposition to letting so many people in in the first place.
In addition, we have had discussions about how long to let people stay, for example with the temporary protected status and deferred deportations. It makes no sense to let people stay who could return home after conditions have improved in their country of origin.
On the reverse side, putting a time limit on asylum will make it much less likely the locals will pitch in with us in any ground situation, because they know they'll end up back home (and beheaded) eventually. Even if the political situation stabilizes, snitches still get stitches.
How is the Riemann zeta function like Trump rallies? Both have an endless number of trivial zeros.
Where did I say anything about a "time limit"? I simply pointed out that, according to UDHR and international law, asylum per se is not necessarily a permanent condition. In the English language, does that mean a specific time limit? Does it mean sending people back to be beheaded?
Very funny. You have now left the ground of rational, open minded debate and entered the realm of false dichotomies, ridiculous hyperbole, and political advocacy.
Even funnier! Living in Southern California or NYC is apparently now a "ground situation" that requires "pitching in"!
I'm speaking of various Afghanis who have been told they would receive asylum for their help in finding Osama... who were then stonewalled and left to their own devices. If they had thought they'd eventually get tossed back even after GETTING asylum (and I'm sorry they trusted the U.S., our government has a history of leaving foreign collaborators twisting in the wind), then it would have been a dicier prospect at face value. The "ground situation" refers to Afghanistan, not American soil!
How is the Riemann zeta function like Trump rallies? Both have an endless number of trivial zeros.
They were promised permanent residency under a special visa category created for that purpose by Congress, not asylum; asylum isn't granted for "help in finding" anything.
And saying that asylum should not automatically imply permanent residency is different from saying that we should send everybody back to where they came from without exception. What is it with these ridiculous dichotomies with you?
Facebook isn't inciting anything. It is people using Facebook that incite things.
This seems like another version of the 'gun' debate where Facebook is the gun.
"Someone needs to talk to the tree of liberty about its ghoulish drinking problem." by ohnocitizen
When there is no clearly defined policy, things change with the prevailing winds in the Executive branch. That's what worries me.
As for the Afghanis, the news reports called it "asylum". Maybe they oversimplified for the audience, but that's what they called it, and until right now I didn't know there was something in between that and a permanent resident visa.
How is the Riemann zeta function like Trump rallies? Both have an endless number of trivial zeros.
Facebook acts like an 'old gentleman's club' it deliberately gets money from 'members' self selecting to talk to others of the same opinions. This is an electronic form of self selecting like-minded folk and thus those of any opinion can gang up quicker and much more easily than a walk to a coffee shop to meet like minded persons. It is its speed of spread and easy of speed to accumulate folk of same type that makes it dangerous where these folk carry dangerous opinions.
You define your definition of "dangerous".
Regards Eion MacDonald
Congress has clearly defined the policy. The problem is that the executive branch has been ignoring it. There are millions of people in the US who, under our immigration laws, have no right to be in the US and should be removed immediately.
There is nothing "in between". Under current US law, you are temporarily on asylum, then, after a year, you can apply for permanent residency. As I was saying, asylum is not a permanent status; people are supposed to move on to either immigration or resettlement. Afghani translators, however, get immigrant visas in a special category directly. That's also not "in between", it's just another form of immigrant visa.
As for "the news reports", you need to find better news sources.