3 ms·

The majority of the time the terrorists are our own citizens. This story is obviously an abuse of the system, but if this stopped natural born citizens who wer

The majority of the time the terrorists are our own citizens. This story is obviously an abuse of the system, but if this stopped natural born citizens who were planning to lock the doors of a busy nightclub and set it on fire it would be doing its job. But even the system is only partially to blame here. It's really the corrupt employee and lack of oversight that is to blame. The system did allow the corruption to spread to other companies, but even if it was confined to Meta that would still be a lot of damage.

chaps 4y ago
So the issue here is that anybody can contribute without oversight. Sounds a lot like the issue with that Tay bot, whose contributions led to it being anti-Semitic and all that. I'd argue that its lack of oversight to prevent that sort of abuse is a fundamental problem with the system and not a partial point of fault.
- jandrese 4y ago
  This wasn't a case of "anybody contributing", they literally bought off a Meta employee to do this. Well, I guess anybody can commit a crime, but that's not a fundamental weakness of the law.
  - chaps 4y ago
    Good point, but I think my overall point stands, since the "system" is still inclusive of the processes on top of the submission or in this case, the lack of process. Lots of red flags going on here when thousands of people can be added without notification within gov and really speaks to the capabilities of a company's "extra judicial" tooling.
pessimizer 4y ago
> lock the doors of a busy nightclub and set it on fire Has it ever? Is there a terrorist watchlist at the doors of nightclubs now? It would also be great if it cured cancer or replaced crumbling infrastructure, but why talk about nonsense?
- jandrese 4y ago
  Stopping radicalization is entirely about situations like this. The people who commit crimes like this don't appear out of nowhere. They were talking about it for months or years ahead of time, usually with like minded people and sometimes with people who are actively trying to destabilize the US.
CodeWriter23 4y ago
Bullcrap. The majority of the time, the terrorists are those who legitimately dissent.
- thephyber 4y ago
  Your statement is vague. Are you saying that legitimate dissenters are being illegitimately accused of terrorism? Or that terrorists are legitimate dissenters (despite the fact that terrorism is by definition using violence and not working within the legal framework? Or did you mean to say something else?
  - CodeWriter23 4y ago
    Yes. For but one example, parents raising disputes to school policies during School Board Meetings are being labeled and investigated as terrorists. I could see it if there were threats of violence; the only threats being made is to displace board members at the next election, aka standard democratic process in a free society.
    - thephyber 4y ago
      > the only threats being made is to displace board members Really? Have you seen every single threat being made, either public or private? I don’t believe it. When I worked at a large social media website, users would scream bloody murder about unfair moderation. But when I asked customer support, they always had good evidence that the user had terrible behavior in private but pretend to be virtuous in public to gather sympathy. This is an asymmetric information space. The DOJ/FBI won’t release the actual evidence they have which triggered the opening of an investigation. The people who show up at board meetings are humans and had lives before they showed up. They posted on social media. They met with other people. They have political affiliations. I am fairly certain we will find out that these people made legit threats outside of the public forum that earned further investigation.

chaps 4y ago

So the issue here is that anybody can contribute without oversight. Sounds a lot like the issue with that Tay bot, whose contributions led to it being anti-Semitic and all that. I'd argue that its lack of oversight to prevent that sort of abuse is a fundamental problem with the system and not a partial point of fault.

jandrese 4y ago
This wasn't a case of "anybody contributing", they literally bought off a Meta employee to do this. Well, I guess anybody can commit a crime, but that's not a fundamental weakness of the law.
- chaps 4y ago
  Good point, but I think my overall point stands, since the "system" is still inclusive of the processes on top of the submission or in this case, the lack of process. Lots of red flags going on here when thousands of people can be added without notification within gov and really speaks to the capabilities of a company's "extra judicial" tooling.

pessimizer 4y ago

> lock the doors of a busy nightclub and set it on fire Has it ever? Is there a terrorist watchlist at the doors of nightclubs now? It would also be great if it cured cancer or replaced crumbling infrastructure, but why talk about nonsense?

jandrese 4y ago
Stopping radicalization is entirely about situations like this. The people who commit crimes like this don't appear out of nowhere. They were talking about it for months or years ahead of time, usually with like minded people and sometimes with people who are actively trying to destabilize the US.

CodeWriter23 4y ago

Bullcrap. The majority of the time, the terrorists are those who legitimately dissent.

thephyber 4y ago
Your statement is vague. Are you saying that legitimate dissenters are being illegitimately accused of terrorism? Or that terrorists are legitimate dissenters (despite the fact that terrorism is by definition using violence and not working within the legal framework? Or did you mean to say something else?
- CodeWriter23 4y ago
  Yes. For but one example, parents raising disputes to school policies during School Board Meetings are being labeled and investigated as terrorists. I could see it if there were threats of violence; the only threats being made is to displace board members at the next election, aka standard democratic process in a free society.
  - thephyber 4y ago
    > the only threats being made is to displace board members Really? Have you seen every single threat being made, either public or private? I don’t believe it. When I worked at a large social media website, users would scream bloody murder about unfair moderation. But when I asked customer support, they always had good evidence that the user had terrible behavior in private but pretend to be virtuous in public to gather sympathy. This is an asymmetric information space. The DOJ/FBI won’t release the actual evidence they have which triggered the opening of an investigation. The people who show up at board meetings are humans and had lives before they showed up. They posted on social media. They met with other people. They have political affiliations. I am fairly certain we will find out that these people made legit threats outside of the public forum that earned further investigation.