[HN Gopher] OnlyFans bribed Meta to put porn stars on terror wat...
___________________________________________________________________
OnlyFans bribed Meta to put porn stars on terror watchlist:
lawsuits
Author : wishfish
Score : 237 points
Date : 2022-08-10 18:27 UTC (4 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (nypost.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (nypost.com)
| thepasswordis wrote:
| Human traffickers engage in shitty behavior. Shocking.
| ajsnigrutin wrote:
| Meta obliged... that's more interesting.
| demarq wrote:
| This is some next level of evil
| twawaaay wrote:
| Nah, it is just regular greed combined with lack of scrupules
| and slightly larger than average budget.
| tomuli38 wrote:
| This kind of implies you do not find greed and a lack of
| scruples to be evil.
| twawaaay wrote:
| No, it does not. I just don't find it to be "next level" of
| evil.
| tomuli38 wrote:
| Getting people put on terror watch lists is not
| introductory level evil. We are talking about destroying
| lives, not ruining someone's day.
| [deleted]
| twawaaay wrote:
| So we have Facebook destroying lives on a massive scale
| by knowingly wasting people away glued to the screen.
| They also knowingly exploit base emotions of literally
| billions of people to antagonise them just to keep them
| "engaged" and sell some ad space.
|
| I call this "next level" evil.
|
| Regular evil is, where I live, a small developer
| (housing) went bankrupt and wasted life savings of
| hundreds of people. They did a lot of absolutely mind
| boggling stupid stuff and they knew they are running out
| of cash and still accepted payments from more people.
| Given history of these cases here, they are unlikely to
| ever spend even a day in jail and the most it ever gets
| is couple of mentions in local news.
| skinnymuch wrote:
| Whoa what? Wasting away life savings of hundreds of
| people is way worse than regular evil. Why is that on a
| different level than Facebook or any major corp who are
| worse because of more power and scope, but still??
| zimpenfish wrote:
| > So we have Facebook destroying lives on a massive scale
| by knowingly wasting people away glued to the screen
|
| If you want a proper "Facebook is evil" point, there's
| always the Rohingya genocide[1] -- "Facebook has admitted
| that it played a role in inciting violence during the
| genocidal campaign against the Rohingya Muslim minority
| in Myanmar"
|
| [1] https://www.globalwitness.org/en/campaigns/digital-
| threats/r...
| tomuli38 wrote:
| I feel like I am taking crazy pills having this
| conversation. Regular evil is letting the air out of
| someone's tires or lying to your spouse, not wasting away
| the life savings of hundreds of people.
| heavyset_go wrote:
| Banality of evil and all that.
| bhaney wrote:
| > greed combined with lack of scrupules and slightly larger
| than average budget
|
| Sounds like evil to me
| twawaaay wrote:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z0NgUhEs1R4
| phkahler wrote:
| This seems like a surprisingly specific allegation:
|
| >> They claim the bribes were routed from OnlyFans' parent
| company, Fenix International, through a secret Hong Kong
| subsidiary into offshore Philippines bank accounts set up by the
| crooked Meta employees, potentially including at least one
| unnamed senior executive.
|
| If that's true, how would they know? And if not, why would they
| think they know it?
| [deleted]
| yieldcrv wrote:
| a secret Hong Kong subsidiary would have a non-secret name, do
| any of the court filings name it? if so, why not the
| journalist?
|
| kickbacks to big tech employees isn't new or novel, just
| curious about why the omission of details
| AtNightWeCode wrote:
| And this is in an essence why demoting content is difficult.
| aquanext wrote:
| Well this sounds incredibly horrible in every conceivable way.
| mccorrinall wrote:
| And there is no evidence to prove this as the article shows.
| The headline is clickbait.
| sophacles wrote:
| If only there existed some sort of legal tool to determine
| the evidence. We could use it to get real evidence based on
| the claims of the lawsuit. That tool could be used to
| discover the validity or not of such claims. I call this idea
| "discovery" and think we should implement it a couple hundred
| years ago.
| commandlinefan wrote:
| The only way to avoid having censorship lists be abused is to
| stop having censorship lists.
| cmeacham98 wrote:
| Unless you're a fan of spam/scams/etc running rampant on every
| platform we're going to need "censorship lists". So inject some
| nuance and talk about what types are ok and what types aren't.
| sneak wrote:
| The only way to stop having society-wide censorship lists is to
| stop using centralized media and centralized social networks.
|
| So long as there is only one chokepoint for widespread
| automated censorship, the state will illegally censor things it
| doesn't like.
| azinman2 wrote:
| Yes having ISIS propaganda decentralized for sure makes for a
| better world. /s
|
| There are bad people who do bad things, and to say let's just
| ignore this because things I don't want to happen are is
| ignoring the realities and difficulties of the world. It's
| not black and white, and bad things will be done in the name
| of action.
| maltalex wrote:
| Right, throw the baby out with the bathwater. "The only to
| avoid having laws be abused is to stop having laws".
|
| Listen, I don't like censorship as much as the next guy. But in
| the real world, lists and platforms without some sort of
| moderation become of cesspool of the worst that society has to
| offer.
| mjfl wrote:
| How is this a civil matter and not criminal?
| ElonsNightmare wrote:
| shut that psyop down yesterday.
| [deleted]
| marcinzm wrote:
| For anyone interested, this seems to be the lawsuit in questions
| and it has all the details people are asking for but the
| journalists don't include:
| https://digitalcommons.law.scu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?artic...
| alchemyromcom wrote:
| This must be one of the most awful sentences I've ever read.
| There is so much stink crammed into so few words, that I'm
| actually slightly in awe of how terrible it is. There are so many
| ways its bad that it feels like a rich knot of bad actions that
| you could unravel for a whole day and never be bored. At the same
| time, one of the biggest headlines today is about how Zuckerberg
| thinks WFH is wrong. I'll tell you something: this is is what's
| wrong. The people involved in whatever this was should be the
| ones to be fired most of all.
| dang wrote:
| Ok, but please don't fulminate on HN. We're trying for
| something else here.
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
| rootsudo wrote:
| Once again, the NYpost posts about this first and it will be
| attacked again.
|
| Makes you wonder, what sort of world we live in when all the
| "big" companies will not announce a story like this. Or the
| hunter biden laptop, or the initial corona virus stuff with
| trump.
| nr2x wrote:
| You've read the ny post before?
| ryneandal wrote:
| First? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32417448
| rmatt2000 wrote:
| If a private individual can do this, imagine how easy it is for
| the U.S. government to suppress content that it doesn't like on
| social media.
| sneak wrote:
| * on _centralized_ censorship-based social media
|
| It is important to self-publish and not be a sharecropper for
| billionaires by donating your content for free to their walled
| gardens.
| worik wrote:
| Harder for the state, in the USA. The constitution has
| something to say about that (IANAL)
| throwaway0a5e wrote:
| Are you implying that the TLAs follow the law?
|
| Because their track record says otherwise.
| cestith wrote:
| Harder does not mean impossible. There's more scrutiny and
| more recourse when the government does it, but you're right
| it doesn't always stop them.
| throwaway0a5e wrote:
| On paper, sure. In practice government doesn't really
| have to worry about government trying to make an example
| out of them though and has access to the kind of violence
| and benefit of the doubt evil corporations could only
| dream of.
|
| Frankly I think it's a bit naive to imply that big
| government organizations aren't just as evil and terrible
| and self serving as big corporate ones. Their error bars
| of evil overlap a lot.
| [deleted]
| madrox wrote:
| I'm curious how they know bribery happened. According to the
| lawsuit details another commenter linked, it outlines a
| suspicious chain of events but no evidence of actual bribery from
| what I skimmed through. Maybe that's just how it works and they
| hope to learn more in discovery though.
| michaelt wrote:
| Presumably you don't bribe the sysadmins in the US making six-
| figure salaries. Instead you bribe the outsourced moderators in
| Kenya who get paid $2/hour to wade through beheading videos to
| just _occasionally_ misclick.
|
| And presumably you don't pay the bribes directly - you hire a
| 'reputation management consultant' who takes care of all the
| dirty work. Then if the news comes out, you can claim you
| thought they were improving your reputation by sponsoring
| orphanages or something.
| gzer0 wrote:
| This is quite concerning, from the lawsuit itself [1]:
|
| _The blacklisting process was accomplished first internally at
| Instagram /Facebook by automated classifiers or filters, which
| were then submitted to a shared industry database of "hashes," or
| unique digital fingerprints.
|
| This database was and is intended to flag and remove content
| produced by terrorists and related "Dangerous Individuals and
| Organizations" to curtail the spread of terrorism and violent
| extremism online._
|
| Where can one learn more about this database? Who decides what
| goes into this database? Is there a governance process? How about
| incorrectly identified items?
|
| We are headed back into the times of "guilty, until proven
| innocent" versus how it should be, "innocent until proven
| guilty". If the scenario was the following: letting 10 criminals
| go free, or having 1 innocent person imprisoned, I would always
| choose the latter.
|
| [1]
| https://digitalcommons.law.scu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?artic...
| sneak wrote:
| The governance process is that content producers (ie you and me
| and our circles) need to stop donating free content to
| centralized automated censorship platforms run by billionaires,
| because they fail-deadly for our society once they become the
| planet default.
| simanyay wrote:
| I believe its managed by the GIFCT: https://gifct.org/
| pessimizer wrote:
| You know that there's a US terrorist watch list with a million
| names on it, no due process necessary to be added to it, and no
| discernible process to be removed from it? That's aside from
| local gang membership lists, which have the same complete lack
| of safeguards.
|
| We're not heading back into anything. We love blacklists.
| leaflets2 wrote:
| Always choose 1 innocent person imprisoned? I guess you meant
| the "former" not the "latter" :-)
|
| Interesting with the hashes. Seems impossible to detect such
| "poisoning of the hashes" i wonder if anyone with access could
| ... Submit a hash of a profile photo of someone, to cause
| him/hey troubles?
| ncmncm wrote:
| Seems like the right response to these blacklists, if they can't
| be curtailed, is to put literally everyone on them. After, the
| lists can't be used for anything.
| gmiller123456 wrote:
| Important to note this is a "terror watchlist" run by a private
| entity, not a government. It's largely just used by social media
| to flag groups and account sharing copies of images flagged by
| them. If the allegations are true, still not a good thing, but
| "terror watchlist" makes it sound a lot worse than it is.
| upupandup wrote:
| Your argument is akin to telling someone who was falsely
| reported to the bank, a private entity, which is then required
| to share it to authorities. All these apologists suddenly
| coming out of the woodwork from inactive accounts is just a
| series of pattern I'm noticing more and more not only on HN but
| in all public discourse platforms.
|
| It's highly likely that corporations and high networth
| individuals have realized the power of astroturfing to skew
| public opinions, especially when most of those audiences do not
| read past the sensationalized titles.
| tailspin2019 wrote:
| "watchlist" seems to be an altogether incorrect term for this
| in the first place.
|
| I guess they probably didn't want to use the term "blacklist"
| but I'm not sure what the correct term should now be.
|
| Watchlist evokes the meaning "this person is being watched by
| [authorities]"
|
| Edit: The BBC article (linked here in comments) did in fact use
| the term "blacklist". GIFCT calls it a "hash-sharing database".
| The use of "terror watchlist" by NY Post seems to be more
| clickbait rather than accuracy driven. (Not that this issue
| isn't pretty terrible).
| [deleted]
| Tyndale wrote:
| They're porn peddlers. Do you expect them to act like boy scouts?
| oliveshell wrote:
| Two things:
|
| 1) Even if I buy into your premise, does it being somehow
| expected make it totally fine and dandy?
|
| 2) The Boy Scouts of America are preparing to spend nearly $3
| billion to settle suits related to almost 100,000 individual
| claims of sexual abuse.
|
| So, y'know, the phrase "act like Boy Scouts" might not carry
| the same connotations as it used to.
| stuaxo wrote:
| Wow, just when you think you've heard the worst thing an internet
| company can do, something like this happens.
| _trampeltier wrote:
| As always. What could go wrong with a such setup.
|
| > The GIFCT was formed by Meta, Microsoft, Twitter, and Google's
| YouTube in 2017 in a joint effort to stop the spread of mass
| shooting videos and other terrorist material online. When a
| member of the group flags a photo, video or post as terrorist-
| related, a digital fingerprint called a "hash" is shared across
| all its members
|
| In effect, that means a bikini pic wrongly flagged as jihadist
| propaganda on Instagram can also be quickly censored on Twitter
| or YouTube, all without the poster or public knowing that it was
| placed on the list -- much less how or why
| riedel wrote:
| We didn't read enough dystopian novels yet to that describe the
| privatisation of law enforcement. We wanted the real thing.
| 93po wrote:
| Law enforcement started out privatized, and has basically
| always existed mainly for the benefit of the privileged
| private class.
| jjoonathan wrote:
| "The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor
| alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to
| steal loaves of bread" -Anatole France
| netsharc wrote:
| There's some nice beach city where people are not allowed
| to have a nice walk on the beach at night because they
| made some law to prevent homeless people sleeping
| there... if only Google was still a proper search engine
| I could post the link..
| [deleted]
| contingencies wrote:
| +1 insightful. Also, _Ancient Egyptian Police Had Trained
| Monkeys_ https://www.ranker.com/list/police-in-ancient-
| societies/mike...
| 93po wrote:
| Having a trained monkey try to chase you down (presumably
| with a weapon) sounds terrifying, yet somehow I'm not
| convinced it would be all together worse than what we
| have now
| m-p-3 wrote:
| Law and order:
|
| Laws are made and signed by the ruling class (not saying
| all laws are bad, we need them), and they (hopefully)
| reflect which values the people wants their justice system
| to protect.
|
| Order can be interpreted in two ways; keeping society
| stable, but also keeping the order (the status quo) of the
| social classes as they are.
| ars wrote:
| I've always felt that "large" providers should not be able to
| ban someone except for something that is illegal in the real
| world.
|
| Every time I post it people hate the idea "it's a private
| service you can't tell them what to do".
|
| And the alternative is what exactly?
|
| (And yes, I know there are some details to work out, what is
| "large", what about Spam, what about offtopic messages. But
| those are details, my post is about the main idea of banning
| someone. Hate speech and harassment are already illegal.)
| ineptech wrote:
| Imagine a restaurant that followed your rules (customers
| are never kicked out unless they do something illegal).
| Would you eat there? How long do you think it would stay in
| business?
| anotherman554 wrote:
| Hate speech isn't necessarily illegal nor do I know what
| you have in mind when you say "harassment" is illegal,
| there are 50 states in the U.S. with 50 sets of laws.
| kube-system wrote:
| The alternative is designation as a public utility.
| [deleted]
| mrtranscendence wrote:
| Let's say I've got a website called Jay's Cool Community
| for Elementary School Kids and their Parents. Steve comes
| in and starts posting nazi symbology, and as soon as I
| delete his content he just posts more. Nazi symbols aren't
| illegal in the country where Steve and I reside, so under
| your regime I can't boot him from my website. Do I, as Jay,
| have no recourse now?
| skissane wrote:
| It is like the difference between a private club and the
| telephone company.
|
| Should your private club be able to expel neo-Nazis?
| Absolutely.
|
| Should the telephone company be allowed to disconnect
| neo-Nazis? That's more iffy. What if they are a monopoly?
| What if there is an oligopoly, and all the oligopoly
| firms make the same decision? Neo-Nazis are terrible
| people, but if we set the precedent that one is allowed
| to deny them telephone services, will less obviously
| terrible groups be next?
|
| Maybe we should also let the telephone company disconnect
| the Islamist violent jihad sympathisers, they are
| obviously terrible people too. But what happens when some
| Islamophobe starts stretching the definition of "Islamist
| violent jihad sympathiser" so that Muslims who have zero
| sympathy for that get labelled with it anyway? (Yes, the
| classic "slippery slope argument" - but some slopes
| really are slippery.)
|
| Some websites, such as "Jay's Cool Community for
| Elementary School Kids and their Parents", are like a
| private club. But facebook.com, google.com, etc, they are
| like the telephone company, not like a private club.
| Different rules should apply to different kinds of
| websites.
| FireBeyond wrote:
| > But facebook.com, google.com, etc, they are like the
| telephone company, not like a private club.
|
| At what point did they become utilities? How do we define
| such?
| skissane wrote:
| It is a matter of scale, of market share, of user counts.
|
| Obviously, a website with a few hundred or few thousand
| regular users is more like a private club. A website with
| tens or hundreds of millions of users is more like the
| telephone company.
|
| There is no clearcut boundary, but there doesn't need to
| be. Competition regulators frequently impose limits on
| market-dominant firms which they don't impose on small
| players - yet there is no clearcut boundary between a
| market-dominant firm and a small player. In practice,
| many individual cases will be obvious, and in the non-
| obvious cases, all we need is someone with the authority
| to make a decision-and if someone else thinks they've
| made the wrong call, there are the usual judicial and
| political processes to address that.
| michaelgrafl wrote:
| You should be able to ban him from your website. But not
| all other websites on the Internet.
| matheusmoreira wrote:
| Agree but the fact is "all other websites on the
| Internet" turned into just Google, Facebook, Amazon,
| Instagram and so on. The web is quite centralized
| nowadays, getting banned from one of these sites can
| significantly harm a person.
| pc86 wrote:
| Can't they also say "Steve is a Nazi" and let other site
| owners ban him as well? That's the same thing happening
| here (albeit with extra steps).
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _GIFCT was formed by Meta, Microsoft, Twitter, and Google's
| YouTube in 2017 in a joint effort to stop the spread of mass
| shooting videos and other terrorist material online_
|
| This information sharing should be investigated as a potential
| breach of competition law. For example, are Snap or TikTok
| disadvantaged because Facebook, Microsoft and Google are
| sharing information [1]?
|
| [1] https://gifct.org/membership/#
| EricE wrote:
| >are Snap or TikTok disadvantaged because Facebook, Microsoft
| and Google are sharing information
|
| While I think it's ridiculous entities like Meta have taken
| it up on themselves to have their own "watch lists", in this
| instant I'd say absolutely not. Indeed I would argue one of
| the significant reasons Tik Tok is continuing to explode in
| popularity is they aren't participating in the overt
| censorship going on in the rest of big tech.
| abeppu wrote:
| TikTok has had some serious issues with censorship, and is
| way more directly political than some of the other
| companies you've named. Like, if you care about this stuff,
| please be careful of who you try to hold up as a good
| example.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_on_TikTok#Politica
| l...
| [deleted]
| koheripbal wrote:
| While some would argue that private companies have the right to
| censor users without exception - when private companies form a
| near-monopoly on artistic expression online, they should
| ethically inherit the government's ethical responsibility to
| protect freedom of expression.
|
| In this case this isn't only a violation of the users' freedom
| of expression - it is also a clear anti-trust violation as they
| are abusing their monopoly position for illegal anti-
| competitive tactics.
| ryandrake wrote:
| What companies have a "near-monopoly on artistic expression
| online?" I can have a web site up and running in an hour
| publishing any art I have the right to publish, with just an
| IP from my ISP and optionally a domain name. I don't need to
| ask any company's permission.
| charcircuit wrote:
| If they didn't work together people would instead complain
| about there being more extremist content. None of these
| companies want the bad PR from "news" articles saying that
| they aren't stopping extremist content from their platform.
|
| >it is also a clear anti-trust violation as they are abusing
| their monopoly position for illegal anti-competitive tactics.
|
| It doesn't look anticompetitive to me considering you can ask
| to join the group.
| humanistbot wrote:
| This is from February, when the BBC reported it [1]. This recent
| article from The NY Post doesn't seem to add much more, other
| than that the judge set the trial for September.
|
| [1] https://www.bbc.com/news/world-60029508
| seydor wrote:
| Little by little , social media companies are replacing the
| functions of the state. When will the beatings begin
| Aunche wrote:
| This isn't a position that social media companies wanted to be
| in. Blame the people who demand that the social media companies
| act as censors. This all started when people stirred outrage at
| a Coca Cola ad appeared before an ISIS video on Youtube and
| demanded that companies boycott Youtube ads.
| upupandup wrote:
| So what I'm hearing is that billionaires who are no longer
| simply satiated by consumption, are not actively trying to
| undermine social order to gain power?
| orwin wrote:
| I'm really sorry about that, but how do you want people to
| act? That's why I don't get the whining on 'cancel culture'.
| Half the baby boomers generation (the middle/upper class
| part) keep telling their kids and others to 'vote but don't
| protest' and then, when told their generation controlled
| every vote target, 'vote with your wallets.
|
| Unless you've never used this phrase or equivalent, you don't
| get to complain about cancel culture. My generation (well,
| the one following mine rather) is just applying the advice.
|
| I grind my teeth everytime I hear middle/upper class people
| complaining at boycotts and 'cancel '. What do you want from
| them? They can't protest, because of violences against
| statues and McDonald's, They can't strike without getting
| teared down by most MSM(and because they need to live and
| nobody's donating to them anymore, except me and a couple
| people who remember where they came from), and they don't
| have representative who look like them and actually did the
| same job. And always, the patronizing 'haha, they can vote
| with their wallets'.
|
| Well, now they do, do you want to prevent that too?
| Aunche wrote:
| > I'm really sorry about that, but how do you want people
| to act?
|
| I want people to think more critically about cause and
| effect rather than spend all their effort on "raising
| awareness", which encompasses several behaviors, but the
| worst of which is spreading exaggerated anger.
|
| > told their generation controlled every vote target,
|
| Boomers control the vote because they're the ones that
| bother to show up, especially for elections that don't
| appear on people's social media feed. Seniors are 15x more
| likely to vote for mayors than those between 18-35 [1].
| Fewer than 20% of people know the names of their state
| legislatures [2]. Meanwhile, there is no shortage of
| outrage on social media on issues that state legislatures
| vote for like gerrymandering and now abortion. Rather than
| research which state representatives are pro-choice,
| activists would rather yell loudly at the Supreme Court to
| resign and whine about being disenfranchised when that
| doesn't work.
|
| > vote with your wallets
|
| Voting with your wallet in this context would be to stop
| watching Youtube videos. However, they don't want to do
| that, and instead would rather making exaggerated claims of
| Youtube supporting ISIS. So social media companies reacted
| with their half-assed solutions that lead to situations
| like what is described in the article. Now, you're seeing
| people making exaggerated claims about Facebook wanting to
| be censors. I seriously doubt that people actually give a
| damn about ISIS videos with a few dozen views or the well-
| being of pornstars. Rather, they really just trying to
| raise awareness about evil corporations, which is the case
| with most of the comments here. However, none of this
| actually contributes to our collective intelligence of how
| to actually regulate tech or enact anti-trusts. At best,
| this anger may cause Facebook to do a little more due
| diligence about adding people to their terrorist watchlist,
| but the real problem people care about isn't solved.
|
| [1] http://whovotesformayor.org/ [2]
| https://hub.jhu.edu/2018/12/14/americans-dont-understand-
| sta...
| [deleted]
| teakettle42 wrote:
| > I'm really sorry about that, but how do you want people
| to act?
|
| Like the resilient adults they should be.
|
| > I grind my teeth everytime I hear middle/upper class
| people complaining at boycotts and 'cancel '. What do you
| want from them?
|
| I want them to present their views, and attempt to convince
| others of the merits of those views.
|
| I don't want them to use bullying, intimidation,
| authoritarianism, or violence to force others to adopt (or
| pretend to adopt) their viewpoint.
|
| > They can't protest, because of violences against statues
| and McDonald's
|
| Why do you treat "protest" and "riot" as synonyms? They're
| not.
|
| > They can't strike without getting teared down by most MSM
|
| So what? You're not owed agreement from anyone.
|
| If they want their strikes to be supported by others, they
| first need to convince others that they _should_ be
| supported.
| sophacles wrote:
| >> I grind my teeth everytime I hear middle/upper class
| people complaining at boycotts and 'cancel '. What do you
| want from them?
|
| > I want them to present their views, and attempt to
| convince others of the merits of those views.
|
| > I don't want them to use bullying, intimidation,
| authoritarianism, or violence to force others to adopt
| (or pretend to adopt) their viewpoint.
|
| Are you really equating "not choosing to buy stuff" and
| "not choosing to watch/attend stuff" with violence?
| Listen, I get it - you think you're entitled to a revenue
| stream, that whatever nonsense you build deserves money.
| Here's the deal though, the free market is also about the
| spender getting to choose what they spend money and time
| on. If you don't like it, too bad - no one owes you
| agreement nor money just because.
| seydor wrote:
| Of course they wanted to , they could have denied such
| requests and let matters go to courts of law, where such
| matters should be resolved anyway. But it would put a slight
| dent on quarterly profits so , in the words of Sheryl
| Sandberg , "I am fine with this"[1]
|
| 1. https://www.propublica.org/article/sheryl-sandberg-and-
| top-f...
| Aunche wrote:
| Not sure how you're disagreeing with me. Your article is
| another example of Facebook not caring about censoring
| except to make more profits.
| sneak wrote:
| Already have.
|
| https://www.aseantoday.com/2021/01/facebooks-complicity-in-v...
| ben_w wrote:
| 1892, if not before:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homestead_strike
| makerofthings wrote:
| Well that wiki page was a wild ride. I don't completely see
| how it relates, but it was worth reading. I will think about
| this next time I see complaining on slack about perks being
| removed :)
| skybrian wrote:
| Because people insist that Something Must Be Done and the
| state's not doing it. Even EU regulators don't want to do
| things, they want to push big tech firms to do it.
|
| Beatings are unlikely though. It's not something you can do
| with a datacenter.
| cwillu wrote:
| Meanwhile, in Meta's robotics division...
| thesuitonym wrote:
| Show HN: My Gaoler as a Service (GaaS) company scaled to $1MM
| revenue overnight.
| jollybean wrote:
| I suggest OF is the bigger bad actor here, this is not really a
| META story.
| [deleted]
| m00x wrote:
| Selling sex content is also disallowed under Meta's platforms.
| This could possibly just be a manual error of the person banning
| the accounts and entering the wrong reason.
|
| Reminder that the suit _alleges_ , and does not prove that
| OnlyFans did this. Wait until the result of the suit to throw
| down criticism of the system.
| tqkxzugoaupvwqr wrote:
| Manual error thousands of times?
| lizardactivist wrote:
| Very peculiar accusations, and it makes no sense that these third
| parties, not directly involved in the alleged payment scheme,
| would have come upon all this information.
|
| False accusations, possibly also made-up charges.
| buscoquadnary wrote:
| It seems like for all the effort we've put into stopping
| terrorism it's primarily being used against our own citizens
| rather than to stop any actual terrorism.
| 2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote:
| Do you have a source to back up that claim?
| ajsnigrutin wrote:
| If this story spreads, they'll be using "children" ("protect
| the", "-porn",...) to act against normal people for some time,
| then back to terrorism.
| dewclin wrote:
| A feature, not a bug.
| jandrese wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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 it's lack of oversight to prevent that
| sort of abuse is a fundamental problem with the system and
| not a partial point of fault.
| pessimizer wrote:
| > 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?
| [deleted]
| [deleted]
| throwaway0a5e wrote:
| There is no incentive to stop terrorists beyond doing the bare
| minimum to cover one's ass. It's not like anything bad happens
| for the government. They just get more power every time.
| nickff wrote:
| The most extreme examples of this are countries like
| Pakistan, which derive a great deal of foreign aid from their
| ongoing 'conflicts' with terror-related groups in outlying
| territory. Pakistan has very little incentive to ever 'win'.
| bhaney wrote:
| It's such a shame that nobody predicted exactly that
| slfnflctd wrote:
| Russ Feingold will always have major points for this in my
| book. Only senator to vote against the 'Patriot Act'.
| dmitrygr wrote:
| That is working as intended. Terrorism and "think of the
| children" fearmongering were never intended to do anything
| about terrorism or child abuse. They simply aren't designed for
| that.
| mbesto wrote:
| I think I agree with you sentiment, but let me ask this:
|
| If terrorism was being stopped, would you even know it? Said
| differently, maybe it _is_ working. If it was, what would be
| the way that you would know that it _is_ working?
| a_techwriter_00 wrote:
| At least in America, the relevant organization would be
| shouting their successes from the rooftops to get more
| budget, get more goodwill, and make careers on the back of
| that casework.
| Karellen wrote:
| The number of successful prosecutions, with guilty verdicts
| and jail time, on offences under whichever anti-terror
| statutes you're measuring for effectiveness.
|
| If individual acts of terror are being prevented, but none of
| the people planning them are put in prison, and are free to
| walk the streets and try another plot, would you say those
| laws are effective? I wouldn't.
| kodah wrote:
| The Heritage Foundation tracks this:
| https://www.heritage.org/terrorism/report/40-terror-plots-
| fo...
|
| As of 2011, the number was 40.
| klyrs wrote:
| > If terrorism was being stopped, would you even know it?
|
| Yes, because the feds brag about it nonstop on the rare
| occasions they actually nab somebody.
| phpisthebest wrote:
| Even when they were the ones that Planned, and started the
| process only to "swoop" in to save the day like an arsonist
| firefighter
| pessimizer wrote:
| No, so the fact that we see those over and over again is
| evidence that they have nothing to brag about.
| feet wrote:
| Exactly. Somehow we know how they use these systems for
| parallel construction yet we don't hear a peep about actual
| terrorists being stopped.
| bhaney wrote:
| > what would be the way that you would know that it _is_
| working?
|
| Probably a decrease in successful terrorism attempts or an
| increase in thwarted terrorism attempts (with neither being
| attributed to something else instead). I don't think there's
| any value to this question though, since it can be used to
| justify literally anything. If a policy needs to prove its
| own value, then it should be constructed in a way that allows
| its value to be tracked.
| ars wrote:
| And used against Trump, and similar. There's a reason people
| were very upset he was kicked off of Twitter - not because they
| care in the slightest about Trump, but because it's starting us
| down a path with a very bad ending.
| otikik wrote:
| He broke the TOS repeatedly, and since the beginning. Twitter
| was in the wrong because he should have been kicked out _way_
| sooner.
| kube-system wrote:
| Trump was not kicked off of Twitter for any reasons remotely
| related to terrorism.
| dalmo3 wrote:
| "Hate speech", "misinformation", "defending democracy" are
| other meaningless umbrella terms just as much as
| "terrorism", weaponised for the same ends.
| FireBeyond wrote:
| Trump has made many concrete incitements to violence.
| Telling his supporters to "rough someone up", "someone
| should punch that person, I'll pay your legal bills",
| "maybe some of you second amendment folk can do something
| about Hillary".
| kube-system wrote:
| That doesn't make them related.
| rubatuga wrote:
| I believe he was kicked off for inciting violence?
| kube-system wrote:
| Yeah, he was. Violence isn't some terrorism related
| construct invented in 2001.
| Nextgrid wrote:
| It wasn't the first time he was breaking the rules
| though. He was kicked not because of that particular
| event but because the virtue-signalling potential of
| kicking him outweighed the benefits of keeping him around
| once he lost the election. The Capitol attack was just a
| convenient excuse for kicking a troublemaker that
| according to their own rules should've been gone long
| ago.
|
| If Twitter truly cared about their rules and acted with
| integrity they would've kicked him way sooner, but they
| didn't because he generated them tons of "growth &
| engagement" while he was President.
| idontpost wrote:
| Pretty sure I watched a terrorist attack that he ordered on
| live television.
| sneak wrote:
| I think this might be the first modern event described as
| a "terrorist attack" conducted almost entirely without
| meaningful weapons or explosives or incendiary devices.
|
| Either that or calling a rioting mob a "terrorist attack"
| is hyperbole.
| kube-system wrote:
| You watched a group of idiots who thought they knew
| something they didn't, cosplaying as characters from
| their 5th grade social studies textbooks. Just plain ol'
| mob violence. There isn't anything about that day that
| would have been viewed differently by Twitter in a
| pre-2001 mindset.
|
| Yes, some things changed after 2001 -- a media company
| declining to publish statements they don't want on their
| platform isn't one of them.
| jjoonathan wrote:
| > plain ol' mob violence
|
| Alternative slates of electors, contingent elections,
| principled opposition from within the party -- you know,
| just plain ol' everyday mob violence things.
| jdhendrickson wrote:
| This is misinformation. Security systems were removed.
| The secret service was deeply compromised. Pipe bombs
| were deployed and fortunately didn't explode. The
| response that should have swept these people out the door
| easily was held back at the highest levels.
|
| This was not a group of yokels. Yes dumb people were
| there, and they were committing mob violence, but that
| was not the only thing happening.
|
| Continue to downplay it if you like but don't expect
| others to be silent while you do so.
| idontpost wrote:
| Terrorism has been around a lot longer than 2001.
|
| It was a terrorist attack, the same as this
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palace_of_Justice_siege
| a_techwriter_00 wrote:
| I must have missed the part where the Jan 6th
| insurrectionists had machine guns and bombs and took
| hostages. Pretty alarming, if true. Do you have sources
| for how these two events are at all similar beyond that
| both involved unlawful entry into a government building?
| telchar wrote:
| There were bombs:
| https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/29/politics/washington-pipe-
| bomb...
| PenguinCoder wrote:
| Terrorism is not defined by having machine guns, bombs or
| taking hostages.
|
| Terrorism:
|
| > the unlawful use of violence and intimidation,
| especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political
| aims.
|
| Seems pretty damn clear cut that Jan 6th insurrectionists
| are Terrorists by that understanding.
| phpisthebest wrote:
| So under that definition there was a ton of Terrorism in
| the summer of 2020 right?
| a_techwriter_00 wrote:
| Do you think that it does justice to the victims of Jan
| 6th and the victims of the siege of the Colombian Palace
| of Justice to say that both of those events are the same
| crime? They're both deserving of the same punishment?
| kevin_thibedeau wrote:
| The idiots were a distraction so those plotting with T's
| cronies could move freely in the Capitol with the
| disruptive cover of an unruly crowd.
| EricE wrote:
| pdntspa wrote:
| Tostino wrote:
| https://january6th.house.gov/
|
| Sorry, this isn't new info at this point.
| okwubodu wrote:
| Americans across the political spectrum are generally very okay
| with invasions of privacy, excessive force, rights violations,
| etc. as long as they're targeted at the "right" people
| (criminals that deserve it). They're incredibly difficult
| issues to advocate for because most people either a) thinks the
| victim deserved it for being a criminal, or b) would eventually
| think the same given a wide enough selection of victims.
| jimbob45 wrote:
| We're okay with it when we see exceptional results.
|
| When, instead, you see a school shooter's search history
| includes "I'm going to shoot up X school" and the FBI claims
| that they couldn't have foreseen it happening, then it starts
| to seem as if the results aren't as exceptional as they
| claim.
| cabirum wrote:
| Is that the same database Apple uses to scan image hashes on
| iPhones without user consent?
| wmf wrote:
| No, terrorism and child porn are separate databases.
| cabirum wrote:
| one always follows another
| akimball wrote:
| Don't forget the money laundering
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| Apple isn't listed as a member.
|
| https://gifct.org/membership/
| jeffwask wrote:
| There was a story that came out of a podcast with a couple adult
| entertainers in the LA/SF area that I think made the rounds here
| as well that connects nicely to this.
|
| She alleged that her account kept getting shadow banned and she
| couldn't get it resolved so she started stalking Facebook/Insta
| mods and sleeping with them to get unbanned.
|
| Good stuff... monopolies are bad.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-08-10 23:00 UTC)