
Facebook’s secret rules mean that it’s ok to be anti-Islam, but not anti-gay - xbmcuser
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/06/facebooks-opaque-censorship-policy-means-some-attacks-are-ok-others-arent/#p3
======
smt88
In a completely objective, hyper-rational sense, this seems fair to me. Islam
is a choice and a set of beliefs (or many competing sets, since Islam isn't
monolithic). Gay is a biological reality.

There can be a substantive, intellectually justifiable debate about whether
Islam is good, bad, or a mixture. It may be repugnant, or it may be practiced
by repugnant people, but it's not any different from debates about whether
political parties are good, bad, or a mixture.

There cannot be a substantive debate about sexuality the same way because it's
not ideological, nor is it changeable.

~~~
mamon
> Gay is a biological reality.

Actually, there's no definitive proof for that, and it probably never will be
as any research on the topic is now way too risky - if your research produces
a politically incorrect result then you'll be held in contempt as a "hater",
even if your methodology is flawless.

~~~
toomuchtodo
There's no conclusive proof, but the evidence is strong.

[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/2016/03/15/homosexuality-...](http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/2016/03/15/homosexuality-
may-be-triggered-by-environment-after-birth/)

"Researchers identified nine areas in the genome where genes functioned
differently when a twin was homosexual. And the scientists say that they can
predict with 70 per cent accuracy whether a man is gay or straight simply by
looking at those parts of the genome."

~~~
mamon
70% you say? I can do even better, about 98% accuracy by saying "straight"
every single time :)

And what about other 30% of cases, when that genome predictor fails - isn't
that an indicator that there are actually multiple causes of homosexuality?

~~~
toomuchtodo
Genetics of course are not the sole determining factor in expressed traits or
conditions; they contribute heavily though, as do environmental factors.

------
bronzeage
Protecting groups? This is really backwards. Does it matter who i want to kill
? It's ok to say kill all the children, but not OK to say man shouldn't be
invited to a women-only party? Excluding a politician just because he's
politician? This is the result of what happens when you give the job to the
wrong kind of people. It sounds like you've tried to let a mathematician do a
philosopher's job.

There should be clear red lines. You either suggest actual physical harm to a
group or a person, or you don't. Which group is irrelevant. Anything else, as
long as no harm will be done to a person, I don't care how offensive you find
something. If you don't want to read it move along to the next page please.

If people want black segregation or to deny the holocaust (I'm jewish and most
people here see this as a huge red line) - let them. These discussions will
happen, within facebook or ourside it, these opinions will be shared. Let them
say it, and let the people who disagree state their opinion and try to
convince. Stop the bubble, stop the misconception that arguing is bad, if you
really care about something, stop trying to shut mouths and start working hard
on convincing people. When was the last time telling someone to shut up ever
changed something for good. And if you actually let people argue anonymously
it'd be much better.

------
RikNieu
I don't envy Fb for having to try and manage the cesspool that is human
discourse. What a thankless lose-lose endeavour that must be.

There will always be people who want to attack those who are not part of their
preferred race, gender, religion, or age. And they will always try and smear
their opinions on others with all kinds of fancy justifications of outrage.
And Fb will always have to somehow play referee.

Imagine having to have to do that day in and day out. No thanks.

~~~
fbthrow123
Except they aren't playing referee for their user's benefit. It's about not
offending advertising agencies and the brands those dollars represent. Nike
doesn't want their ads next to whatever is considered hate speech at the time.

------
guy12
The title of this post is misleading. Based on the content of the article, it
could have just as easily been titled "Facebook Censorship Protect Black Women
from Hate Speech but Not White Children". But I am guessing that would not
have baited as many clicks.

~~~
dang
Since you're commenting only on the inflammatory title which we explicitly
changed at
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14653304](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14653304),
I moved your comment to this thread instead.

------
cbanek
So we just need to keep building up our own new languages of hate, adding in
new divisive words to get around filters and say "it's not x, it's y". What I
call racist, you call white nationalist. What I call offensive to women, you
call pro-men.

It's not about what is said, but how you said it? I'd almost rather they just
stop trying. Then at least the jerks would be easier to spot.

------
norea-armozel
I think this and Twitter's attempts to police the language of its users is
quite flawed since context is hard to read into a sentence if you're doing the
most naive analysis as it seems both are doing right now. I doubt throwing ML
or NLP at this problem will ever work because the biggest problem with
moderation is that people tend to get into fights without much intention of
getting into one. So for me moderation is a human-level concern that should be
solely done by humans since human moderators despite their own biases are
better judges of misdeeds and outright trolling. Once FB and Twitter get on
board with this idea and stop pretending it's a technology problem the sooner
their parts of the Web might be tolerable.

------
dqv
Facebook's secret rules also mean it's okay to be anti-gay, but not anti-
Islam, no?

[http://reuters.com/article/idUSKBN16Z2GB](http://reuters.com/article/idUSKBN16Z2GB)

