[mratzloff]

Pick a point and draw a line in the sand. Then enforce it.

So many HN replies amount to "we all agree this is a problem, but we can't fix the entire problem perfectly, and it has some hypothetical drawbacks, so we shouldn't even try."

(Never mind that as a result of inaction in the face of disinformation and hate speech our societies are rotting from the inside, and many, many real-world atrocities are being carried out as a direct result.)

This is, by the way, a fundamentally conservative viewpoint. Cf. gun violence, homelessness, living wage, etc. Just because something is a complex issue with imperfect solutions doesn't mean we have permission to do nothing.

[notahacker]

I tend to agree with this, but given we're discussing Myanmar here I think it's worth adding that knowing where to draw the line can get a lot more complex than deciding 'Hang Mike Pence' crosses it.

Myanmar's language and culture are completely alien to people drafting Facebook policies, driving forces behind intercommunity violence include things like [likely at least partially true] news reports of other intercommunity violence and official government statements, and then there's nuances like Burmese people seemingly accepting the false claim the ethnically-cleansed Rohingya actually were Bangladeshi regardless of where they stand on other things, and the outpouring of support for Aung Sung Suu Kyi after Western criticism that might have been signals that they believed the conflict was the generals' doing rather than hers or might have been mass endorsement of the government's violence. I suspect my Myanmar-based Facebook friends' one or two allusions to burning villages and politicians are probably calls for peace and meditation, but honestly, I don't know.

[wolco5]

The other side is facebook shouldn't offer a service to a country/people it can't support.

[PurpleFoxy]

Agreed. There would be a lot of benefit in countries having their own local services that understand their culture better.

[naim08]

> Burmese people seemingly accepting the false claim the ethnically-cleansed Rohingya actually were Bangladeshi regardless of where they stand on other things

That was largely a result of campaigning against giving rights to the Rohingya.

> the outpouring of support for Aung Sung Suu Kyi after Western criticism that might have been signals that they believed the conflict was the generals' doing rather than hers or might have been mass endorsement of the government's violence

Yeah, because Aung Sung Suu Kyi keeps denying, on live TV, that any problem exist other than the insurrectionists are responsible for everything thats happened thus far. The insurrectionists/terrorist according to her are composed of muslim Rohingya that are financed by foreign "Muslim" powers.

The matter of the fact is that most power is held by the military, NOT Aung Sung Suu Kyi. Thus, Aung Sung Suu Kyi stance on this issue is probably a result of the military's position. At any moment, the army can choose to remove her from power. Her position is that fragile.

[bedhead]

But now you're back to square one - who defines "hate"? That's the line you're talking about. Keep in mind mind that in many cases, some speech you consider "hate" is totally vague, and opinions will inevitably just fall along convenient ideological lines. SO, outside of some really explicit cases, it's really not definable at all.

[garden_hermit]

Ideally, the definition of hate will result from a complex negotiation between stakeholders in society, just as we draw a line on who counts as an "adult", what counts as "self defense", and what counts as "libel".

The definition will be less than ideal, open to abuse, and problematic, but having it is better than not, just as having a definition of "adult", "self defense", and "libel" are better than not having them.

[bedhead]

Why do we even need to define this at all???? We're never going to. Again, the US functioned just fine allowing "hate speech" to be legal. Would there be consequences to such speech? Sure, and deservedly. But the government couldn't do anything to you, that's the point. And I would strongly argue that Facebook, Twitter, et al have de facto replaced the government - they are a new governance for society whether we like it or not.

And why would we engage in a "complex negotiation" (that sounds to me like a euphemism for right/left extremists and massive unprecedented violence) to reach a "less than ideal" outcome over an issue that 250 years of history prove is not only unnecessary but in all likelihood extraordinarily dangerous??? Again, why was free speech the first one???? It f-ing works, that's why. It's the foundation for the best governance human beings have ever achieved. To have people now in 2021 just kinda shrug about its importance is mind-blowing to me.

[mratzloff]

Unnecessary? I think non-whites would take issue with that. Race hatred and violence certainly resulted in "extraordinarily dangerous" outcomes for them over the last 250 years.

In any event, the Internet changed things. Before, it was very difficult to light the entire country on fire.

With the Internet, and social networks in particular, that has changed. The reach is unprecedented; it is a difference of kind, not just magnitude. Anyone can reach very specific groups of people and incite hatred and violence through targeted propaganda campaigns. There's more than one reason rhetoric and mass violence has increased since the late '90s (on a national scale), but I believe this is one of the biggest contributors.

[yibg]

Why does there need to be a single definition? You can have a different definition of what hate is compared to me. For example, you can choose not to associate with someone because you think they're hateful, where as I find them just find and we're buddies.

Facebook is influential yes, but they are still one private organization of many. Why do we need a consistent definition of hate speech between facebook, twitter, reddit etc?

[colejohnson66]

The big problem is that if you draw a line, everyone is going to toe it and try to push past it. Trump has shown that he is willing to push the boundaries of what is acceptable his entire presidency.

That’s the “slippery slope” argument. If you define what’s allowed, people will ask for more, and others will push past it saying it’s not much different than previous.

And besides that, the line has been drawn many times by the Supreme Court. Hate speech is allowed by the First Amendment, but inciting violence may not be. There’s “tests” for these sorts of issues that lower courts are supposed to apply.