4 ms·

It's easy to paint this as a black and white issue. If you are Israeli you have one definition and Hamas another. Recently Kashmiri school girls were busying st

by gus77 9y ago

It's easy to paint this as a black and white issue. If you are Israeli you have one definition and Hamas another. Recently Kashmiri school girls were busying stone pelting the Indian Army. You think both sides are capable of sitting down and coming to consensus of what terrorist activity is? Facebook is going to be treading over all kinds of issues that even experienced socialogists find hard to deal with. It's good that they are addressing the issue and are sure to lead a lot. But if you have ever watched a techie de-escalate a hostile situation you shouldn't have high hopes.

19eightyfour 9y ago
I certainly agree with the notion that the current iteration of "tech kings" and their minions are not so ideally adapted to the role of "social guardians" that has been thrust upon them. But...maybe it's like having kids -- you're never ready. You just have to make it work somehow. But I disagree with the invocation of "this is a complex topic" to sort of muddy the waters of what is or is not terrorism. That ambiguity gives wriggle room for terrorists to slip in and justify their acts which can't be allowed. It's pretty clear to me when I switch on the news and see Manchester, or Bataclan, or the south of France or Charlie Hebdo, or Al Shabbab, or basically anyone doing this brutal medieval stuff is terrorism. I don't really want to wade into the Israeli Palestinian thing except to say that, as in Northern Ireland, sometimes there is this financial incentive, to both sides, for conflicts to simmer for a long time at low-temperature -- if peace is declared, the money stops flowing. And in such a situation, it pays to muddy the waters, since both sides want to seem justified to keep the money flowing. I am certainly no expert on this ME issue, this is, IMHO, a factor. But this sort of incentivized conflict is, IMHO, entirely different to the non-state terrorism we are all aware of today.

by gus77 9y ago

19eightyfour 9y ago

I certainly agree with the notion that the current iteration of "tech kings" and their minions are not so ideally adapted to the role of "social guardians" that has been thrust upon them. But...maybe it's like having kids -- you're never ready. You just have to make it work somehow. But I disagree with the invocation of "this is a complex topic" to sort of muddy the waters of what is or is not terrorism. That ambiguity gives wriggle room for terrorists to slip in and justify their acts which can't be allowed. It's pretty clear to me when I switch on the news and see Manchester, or Bataclan, or the south of France or Charlie Hebdo, or Al Shabbab, or basically anyone doing this brutal medieval stuff is terrorism. I don't really want to wade into the Israeli Palestinian thing except to say that, as in Northern Ireland, sometimes there is this financial incentive, to both sides, for conflicts to simmer for a long time at low-temperature -- if peace is declared, the money stops flowing. And in such a situation, it pays to muddy the waters, since both sides want to seem justified to keep the money flowing. I am certainly no expert on this ME issue, this is, IMHO, a factor. But this sort of incentivized conflict is, IMHO, entirely different to the non-state terrorism we are all aware of today.