12 ms·
Instructions from Facebook not to touch the posts of the cabinet minister
- nhanq 8y agoWhat does the video say and why do they want it removed so bad?
- stockerta 8y agoLazar, who was a minister back then went out to Vienna and made a video that said the city is flooded with migrants, it isn't safe and Budapest is much better, safer and such. Oh, also he didn't feel safe in it too.
- nhanq 8y agoI see. I have a female friend in Vienna, she's said similar stuff to me. Things are getting bad there.
- casiotone 8y agoIt really is. Fascists like yourself are on the rise everywhere in Europe.
- TimMurnaghan 8y agoFunny how it's just become the first european city to top the economist liveability index. https://www.bbc.com/news/business-45174600 https://www.bbc.com/news/business-45174600
- the-dude 8y agoThe migrants are very satisfied, thank you.
- TimMurnaghan 8y agonhanq is a one day old account posting fake news. Let's hope that the trolls don't take hold here on HN too. There are many valid criticisms of these kind of surveys, but crime, which is the hook that the anti-migrant posters like to use, is one of the criteria - so the idea that "It's getting bad there" is the one that needs rapid rebuttal.
- darpa_escapee 8y ago> Let's hope that the trolls don't take hold here on HN too. They're already here. If you step back you can see how they've shifted discussion in a lot of threads with young or barely active accounts.
- the-dude 8y agoDon't worry, we don't have to rely on experiences from Vienna. It is obvious in NL too.
- watwat1 8y agoFunny how the stories from citizens and your fake news differ so much.
- nebolo 8y agoI live very close to Vienna, visit often, and things are perfectly fine. Safer than any US city I've been to.
- nhanq 8y agoThe US is a very, very low bar to clear. Things here in Europe are getting worse every year. Of course, not getting-shot-by-a-gang bad, but bad. They are not horribly bad, but they don't have to be this bad.
- 80386 8y agoThat's not saying much. In the 2000s, Glasgow was known as one of the most violent cities in Europe. The average homicide rate from 2000 to 2002 was 62.9 per million people.[1] The homicide rate for San Francisco in 2014 was 45 per 100k people.[2] Glasgow at its worst was comparable to Oklahoma or Indiana today.[3] Compared to Europe, the US just isn't safe. (Homicide rates aren't a perfect metric, especially for comparisons over large periods of time, since social decline can be masked by medical advances. But they're good enough for back-of-the-envelope comparisons of similar areas.) [1] https://www.gov.scot/Publications/2005/12/13133031/30384 https://www.gov.scot/Publications/2005/12/13133031/30384 [2] http://www.city-data.com/crime/crime-San-Francisco-California.html http://www.city-data.com/crime/crime-San-Francisco-Californi... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_homicide_rate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_homicid...
- crumbshot 8y agoSorry to hear about your friend's racism. I hope she gets well soon.
- the_mitsuhiko 8y agoI think the video is fine but it’s ridiculously wrong. They were trying to paint Vienna as some immigration caused hellhole and why Budapest is so much better. As someone living in Vienna I found it mostly amusing considering how many Hungarians immigrate here.
- gonmf 8y agoAnd rightly so. I'm surprised more countries haven't enforced rules on Facebook, like China does. Saying like "only things that are illegal are to be prohibited". It's insane to leave it arbitrarily to the opinion of a foreign company.
- danijelb 8y agoWhy would Facebook have any content moderation obligations towards any government? It is their private platform, their rules. A community they built = their community standards. They can decide what content they allow on the platform. Governments imposing content rules upon private companies is a form of censorship. China is not a democracy. If a country doesn't like their citizens having free and unlimited access to the internet, they can come up with their own versions of "Great Firewall"
- tomp 8y agoThey don't have any obligation, but then again neither has the government any obligation to permit/not penalize the business. If Facebook wants to operate in the EU, it will have to follow EU rules.
- 21 8y agoI agree. And in muslim countries, if someone posts LGBT or atheist positive posts, they should immediately be moderated and the poster reported to authorities. Facebook should also prevent users from these countries seeing such content posted from more liberal places.
- Eochei5h 8y agoThe whole concept of "community standards" for a worldwide communication channel strikes me as newspeak for centralized moral policing. Imagine the leading social network weren't facebook but vkontakte or weibo and they imposed their own standards on billions of people communicating with each other. Filtering should be a tool available to individuals and delegatable to groups that are aligned with their own standards. As long as we don't get that there should be zero surprise about strain between differing standards.
- danijelb 8y agoBut Facebook is not a worldwide communication channel. It's a social network/community owned by a single company and its shareholders. Internet is the worldwide communication channel. You can "filter" it and make sure it aligns with your own standards by simply choosing to visit and use websites, communities and services which do align with your standards, and by avoiding those which don't align.
- gt_ 8y agoWhat if your own government uses Facebook to communicate with it’s populace? (For example, this) Are you recommending everyone just stop participating in politics? I can’t imagine a more sheltered perspective. I’m guessing you’re an American. If so, please, stop following this advice! The rest of the world is begging you.
- samstave 8y agoLook at the tweets in the last days from Trump regarding Omarosa... Personally, I'm disgusted that twitter is the official medium of the POTUS.
- briandear 8y agoIt seems like Twitter is a good thing. It’s great that politicians and leaders and communicate directly with the public. In the old days, it got filtered through anointed gatekeepers that have the ability to filter and interpret based on their “angle.”
- r3bl 8y agoThe Facebook video in question is linked in the very first sentence, but the yellow highlighting doesn't distinguish the link from the rest of the text. So here's the link for the curious (in Hungarian of course): https://www.facebook.com/lazarjanosfidesz/videos/195661767832624/ https://www.facebook.com/lazarjanosfidesz/videos/19566176783...
- asimpletune 8y agoI don’t speak Hungarians and so I have no idea why this video would be offensive. Can you try to explain?
- bonoboTP 8y agoHere it is with subtitles (you may need to turn them on): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0wEiXUanPfg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0wEiXUanPfg
- corerius 8y agoI watched it with subtitles and I'm mystified why it would be offensive enough to censor. Anyone with the opposite POV, that mass immigration from the Third World is desirable for the First World, could make their own video (and do, no doubt).
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- megous 8y ago"When asked, Facebook officials told us only immutable characteristics and traits that people are born with warrant special protection. Being a migrant is not such a trait, therefore freedom of speech takes priority." What about forced displacement? There are 10s of milions of forcibly displaced people around the world. It's not a small group compared to some other mentioned protected groups. If the basic idea is that you can't attack people for things they didn't choose, this would match too. Anyway why it's ok to attack someone for something he chose and not ok for something he didn't choose? Choice is often based on intellect and education, and many people don't really choose that either, even if you accept the basic premise of choice being the main differentiator.
- tomp 8y agoAlmost noone in Europe is “forced displaced” as they would need to cross many fairly safe countries to get to the EU. So that’s their choice (a logical one, of course, as they’re pursuing a better standard of living, but a choice nevertheless). The quote by Facebook is a big fat lie anyways. Protection of religion is a generally supported concept, even though it’s very much a choice, not fixed from birth.
- megous 8y ago> Almost noone in Europe is “forced displaced” You are wrong. http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Asylum_statistics http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/... "538 000 asylum seekers were granted protection status in the Member States of the EU in 2017" These have gained refugee status, which is a subset for the forcibly displaced persons category. That's quite a bit more than noone. Fairly safe "closer" countries may not accept you, or be much safer to the particular individual. It may still be too close so that people affiliated with your tormentor may be able tro track you down there and harm you. So it may make sense to try to get as far as possible. Also "farther" countries may have offered to accept you, so while you're crossing many coutries you may be doing it on the offer of a remoter country.
- ryandrake 8y ago> “When asked, Facebook officials told us only immutable characteristics and traits that people are born with warrant special protection. Being a migrant is not such a trait, therefore freedom of speech takes priority." Oddly, to illustrate this, the article compared the words “Muslim” with “Migrant” noting one word is protected and one not. How is someone’s religious choice considered an immutable and “born with” trait? EDIT This is the trouble when you start to try to “moderate” content according to some moral, as opposed to legal, standard: you inevitably end up creating this huge, complicated tree of rules that are often inconsistent and conflict with themselves, need to be interpreted and argued about, and frequently require escalation to more senior people when there is disagreement. I’d love to see the financial justification for all this expensive moderation.
- Larrikin 8y ago>Imagine the leading social network weren't facebook but vkontakte or weibo and they imposed their own standards on billions of people communicating with each other. I would argue that their standards vs Facebook (which isn't that great) are exactly why they aren't the leading global social networks with billions of users.
- ashelmire 8y agoThe trouble lies in two places: "When there is false information but the the poster is not trying to mislead anyone, that's just someone on the internet being wrong, and there is no Facebook policy against it." In and of itself, being wrong is not a problem. You can be thwarted by debate and evidence. However, it's much easier to spread a lie than to effectively repute one, so this gets out of hand very quickly. "This is why Facebook concentrates most of its efforts on the last category, when someone spreads lies with the explicit intention to mislead." The trouble is that most of the second category is actually the third category. Just because the lies are coming from random people, your uncle Joe, or some innocent organization sowing dissent in the US and secretly run by a Russian, and just because they don't say, "This is what you should believe so that the world can be run by neofascist forces", doesn't mean that the intent isn't to mislead. Any attempt to spread lies and falsehoods via the common viral video or meme styles IS an attempt to willfully spread lies. To assume that much of this isn't willful is naive. Leaving it to Facebook to decide what's intended to mislead has not been working. The solution is not to trust anything you see on Facebook or to leave the platform entirely.
- macintux 8y ago> The solution is not to trust anything you see on Facebook or to leave the platform entirely. Unfortunately neither does much good individually, because the real harm comes from the widespread acceptance of the lies.
- Someguywhatever 8y agoWho gets to decide what are lies? Makes me think of this saying: "In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king."
- JacobJans 8y ago> "In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king." And yet, there are so many instances where their is no ambiguity about the lies. They are simply bald-faced lies, and there is no doubt that they are indeed lies. And Facebook is quite aware that they are lies. And those lies get very widespread distribution on their platform. And those lies have real political consequences. In the land of the deceived, Facebook is king. (And those who are good at spreading lies on their platform.)
- paulsutter 8y agoIs it really that hard to unfollow? Worked for me. I’ve unfollowed people for sportsball and I’ve unfollowed people for racism. Worked for both.
- darpa_escapee 8y agoYou're conflating outright lies with liking sportsball.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- empath75 8y agobeing a racist and enjoying baseball -- basically morally equivalent, right.
- maym86 8y agoRight. If you ban racists openly spouting hate speech and inciting violence it's clearly a very fine line between that and banning baseball. Slippery slope. How can we possibly draw that line.
- maym86 8y agoIn some case there is direct harm caused by the posts. Pizzagate was an example which led to a man turning up to a pizza shop with a gun based on the fake story and the business owners received death threats. Not everything is as easy as just unfollowing. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pizzagate_conspiracy_theory https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pizzagate_conspiracy_theory When it comes to hate speech, incitment to do harm or lies about elections a subset of people unfollowing doesn't mean there still won't be harmful consequences.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- paulsutter 8y ago
- hunthrowaway 8y agoThe comments here are mostly focused on the Vienna video so it seems the article failed to properly explain to foreigners the other (imho more serious) part: the whitelisting of origo.hu It's difficult to explain in a few lines just how awful that site is. Used to be the biggest, well respected hungarian news site until it was bought by Orban's friends a few years ago. Since then the political columns are literal fake news and smear campaigns against political opponents. The kind of thing that would be (rightfully) censored by Facebook if it was posted by anybody else. Letting the government (and only the government!) peddle this kind of rhetoric with oversight explicitly lifted is a very dangerous and morally questionable practice.
- chaosite 8y agoWhat's the difference between this and a verified account?