Israel attacks Facebook, claims FB allows terrorists to incite terrorism

[Misanthrope]

2 minutes ago, thekeemo said:

The hadiths and phrases from the quran are usually given without the context that goes along with them

That is a fault of the education system which is terrible due to them being underfunded and unstable due to things like being bombed or the politicians being bought out by oil companies

I have been to every single mosque in both the cities I live in (this takes years) and I have not once heard this that being said it is still anecdotal but at minimum should make you realize it is not as widespread as you may think. That being said I do realize there are those who do preach violence but they are often ignored and if they are not then there are external factors that cause this like war

What's the context for Kill anyone who abandons their religion? What's the context for `I shall cast terror into the hearts of those who are bent on denying the truth; strike, then, their necks, [O believers,] and strike off every one of their finger-tips!" http://www.islamawakened.com/quran/8/12/

 

How is education going to basically undo what the motherfucking book says? By teaching people not to believe in their religion? I agree, too bad there's a death sentence attached to apostasy.

 

This concepts are as widespread as the copies of the Quran are widespread. You're just making excuses for defying and disobeing the holy book just like Cristians make all sort of excuses to not obey Leviticus 20:13 and kill homosexuals.

 

Stop making excuses for Islam, stop making excuses for Religion in general. It's not "education" is not "economic hardships" and it's not "The US wants our oil and invade us". It's the fact that people listen to this fucking nonsense thousands of years after it was written and want to adhere, to varying degrees, to it's nonsense and contradictions. All religions are useless fucking shit.

[SurvivorNVL]

17 minutes ago, Misanthrope said:

What's the context for Kill anyone who abandons their religion? What's the context for `I shall cast terror into the hearts of those who are bent on denying the truth; strike, then, their necks, [O believers,] and strike off every one of their finger-tips!" http://www.islamawakened.com/quran/8/12/

 

How is education going to basically undo what the motherfucking book says? By teaching people not to believe in their religion? I agree, too bad there's a death sentence attached to apostasy.

 

This concepts are as widespread as the copies of the Quran are widespread. You're just making excuses for defying and disobeing the holy book just like Cristians make all sort of excuses to not obey Leviticus 20:13 and kill homosexuals.

 

Stop making excuses for Islam, stop making excuses for Religion in general. It's not "education" is not "economic hardships" and it's not "The US wants our oil and invade us". It's the fact that people listen to this fucking nonsense thousands of years after it was written and want to adhere, to varying degrees, to it's nonsense and contradictions. All religions are useless fucking shit.

Philosophy is a much better alternative.  I don't know where I'd be in my life without Nietzsche and Darwin, though Darwin wasn't as much philosophy, but you get it.  

[Tech_Dreamer]

One country's Hero is another's Terrorist , Not as long as you are feeling like a hero in every shit you do

[Guest Kloaked]

37 minutes ago, Misanthrope said:

1) The Quran and the Hadith give this specific instructions

2) Individuals choose to carry out this specific instructions without listening to reason or logic at all, cause Mohammad said Allah commands this

3) We show you evidence of the very things that the Quran and the Hadith say and Muslim preachers call for becoming law and actually happening

 

What is the other side to this? That Islam has nothing to do with Islam?

Not disagreeing with what you're saying, because I firmly believe Islam is cancer for the most part. I just want to add a couple of things.

 

Being a Christian for about 10 years myself, I have changed dramatically since I was first indoctrinated. For the longest time, I was lead to believe I was in some kind of spiritual war with people of the evil world and we have to defend our faith - a lot of people took that as a license to be a dick to everyone if they believe differently and still do. It was embedded in me that I was on a mission to make America Christian again, so to speak.

 

Ended up changing my mind about all of that mess once I started interning in churches and started seeing that eventually people in churches will at some point start eating other people alive, even their own. Just like fucking SJWs. I got out of that and haven't looked back. I still consider myself a Christian, though. 

 

But I said all of that to imply that religion isn't the sole problem, it's how people react to it that's the main issue. Islam being more of a political ideology than a religion makes it much worse than any other religious practice currently. It will turn many of their followers into religious sheep who will do whatever they believe is correct without drawing on any form of logic, because they know no logic as they were indoctrinated with the bullshit from birth. It sucks for the people who get sucked into that, but it fucking sucks even more to the actual victims who are hurt by this, which is why I am firm on my belief that Islam just needs to go away.

[Guest Kloaked]

16 minutes ago, Fooshi said:

Cry more, Israel.

Edgy

[Shahnewaz]

6 hours ago, ace_cheaply said:

Yeah, the Muslim countries that want to wipe them off the map are the real moral champions.  The ones that worship a war mongering pedophile.

Is this an excuse for Israel attacking Facebook? Cause I don't see where you're going with this. Or that it's relevant to the thread.

 

Back on topic, I agree with Facebook sticking to manual flagging before removing posts. It would be pretty difficult to determine what kind of post promotes "terrorism" and what does not, and then create a bot which removes posts based on specific words said. I'm not even sure a system like that would even work properly.

 

If Israeli officials detects a "terrorist" group or a "terrorist" post, then all they need to do, and should be able to do is to flag it. Then it would be under the discretion of (a neutral body called) Facebook to remove it or not.

 

I don't see anything wrong with what Facebook is doing atm. Rather, I think it's the only "neutral" and agreeable way to decide on dealing with threatening posts.

 

7 hours ago, Master Disaster said:

Come on Facebook, it's really not that hard to create a database of suspicious words that when x amount are contained in a single post the post is denied or has to be reviewed by a human before it goes live. The fact they require manual flagging of posts inciting terrorism is ridiculous imo. 

Yeah, like Facebook knows what post is suspicious and what is not.

And what is your "database" of suspicious words? How do you guarantee that would not block harmless posts or posts related to criticism? Oh, and what language of words do you want blocked? What about other languages written in English characters?

[Citadelen]

20 hours ago, Misanthrope said:

Generals using Facebook for military operations?

 

I am affraid I'm gonna need a citation for that.

*shadowy whispers* sarrrcasssemmmm

[Bouzoo]

21 hours ago, patrickjp93 said:

It's incorporated through the dublin office for tax purposes.

I absolutely agree. I was stating where their main HQ was, never said they weren't avoiding taxes through Ireland. 

[spartaman64]

i side with facebook on this one an automatic censor system will probably catch a lot of people who are discussing how bad isis is and then people will look at that and be like omg facebook supports isis because its censoring people speaking out against isis

[Mitrailleuse]

On 7/4/2016 at 5:13 PM, thekeemo said:

Real reason is FB is allowing people to write about how shitty israel is as a country and their violations against human rights

Dam this thread is full savage...

oh well,no real reason to start debating with ignorant people on the interwebz.

[thekeemo]

6 minutes ago, Mitrailleuse said:

Dam this thread is full savage...

oh well,no real reason to start debating with ignorant people on the interwebz.

No one would learn if no one decided to teach.

[c00face]

I've seen it all... who would of thought facebook will be the cause of World War III.

[Mitrailleuse]

2 minutes ago, thekeemo said:

No one would learn if no one decided to teach.

Isis are willing to teach,you can find them easily through facebook,no reason not to learn from them,right?

[thekeemo]

2 minutes ago, Mitrailleuse said:

Isis are willing to teach,you can find them easily through facebook,no reason not to learn from them,right?

If I was not previously taught not to listen to those who promote violence I would.

I have to be taught to choose my sources of information carefully. I believe I have.

[spartaman64]

7 minutes ago, Mitrailleuse said:

Isis are willing to teach,you can find them easily through facebook,no reason not to learn from them,right?

i dont think they can teach what i want to learn. do they have a particle physics wing

[Mitrailleuse]

3 minutes ago, spartaman64 said:

i dont think they can teach what i want to learn. do they have a particle physics wing

You never know....

[Misanthrope]

On ‎04‎/‎07‎/‎2016 at 4:54 PM, Shahnewaz said:

sIs this an excuse for Israel attacking Facebook? Cause I don't see where you're going with this. Or that it's relevant to the thread.

 

Back on topic, I agree with Facebook sticking to manual flagging before removing posts. It would be pretty difficult to determine what kind of post promotes "terrorism" and what does not, and then create a bot which removes posts based on specific words said. I'm not even sure a system like that would even work properly.

 

If Israeli officials detects a "terrorist" group or a "terrorist" post, then all they need to do, and should be able to do is to flag it. Then it would be under the discretion of (a neutral body called) Facebook to remove it or not.

 

I don't see anything wrong with what Facebook is doing atm. Rather, I think it's the only "neutral" and agreeable way to decide on dealing with threatening posts.

 

Yeah, like Facebook knows what post is suspicious and what is not.

And what is your "database" of suspicious words? How do you guarantee that would not block harmless posts or posts related to criticism? Oh, and what language of words do you want blocked? What about other languages written in English characters?

Actually I believe this might be more related to known Isis accounts because for example, up until fairly recently Twitter refused to ban known Isis accounts. That's far beyond political correctness or free speech and crossing the line into aiding and abetting.

 

I am not sure this is the case on Facebook though so don't quote me on that.

[Energycore]

Not going to comment on terrorism or Islam.

 

Instead going to take this as an opportunity to spit at Mark Zuckerberg.

[Shahnewaz]

4 hours ago, Misanthrope said:

Actually I believe this might be more related to known Isis accounts because for example, up until fairly recently Twitter refused to ban known Isis accounts. That's far beyond political correctness or free speech and crossing the line into aiding and abetting.

 

I am not sure this is the case on Facebook though so don't quote me on that.

That is irrelevant to this topic... unless Facebook themselves are now refusing to ban known terrorist accounts.

Regardless, there is no possible way one can set up an automated blocker based on some combinations of words said, which would correctly remove "inciteful" posts. No two posts are the same, and a program cannot magically determine whether a post is actually threatening or not. You need a human to judge that.

 

As far as I can understand, Facebook is doing nothing wrong atm. It complied to takedown orders before, and it should, if the content is threatening. The (apparently high) bar is necessary for protecting Facebook's own principles and peoples' freedom of speech in social media.

[Kamina]

Funny, because Zuckerberg is a Jew.

[Misanthrope]

40 minutes ago, Shahnewaz said:

That is irrelevant to this topic... unless Facebook themselves are now refusing to ban known terrorist accounts..

1) Direct quote from the article:

 

Quote

"We want the companies... to remove posts by terrorist groups and incitement to terrorism without us having to flag each individual post, in just the same manner, for example, that they today do not allow posts and pages with child pornography," she told Israel's Army Radio.

Relevance officially established. Moving on:

 

Spoiler

Regardless, there is no possible way one can set up an automated blocker based on some combinations of words said, which would correctly remove "inciteful" posts. No two posts are the same, and a program cannot magically determine whether a post is actually threatening or not. You need a human to judge that.

 

As far as I can understand, Facebook is doing nothing wrong atm. It complied to takedown orders before, and it should, if the content is threatening. The (apparently high) bar is necessary for protecting Facebook's own principles and peoples' freedom of speech in social media

Again the same quote really:

 

Quote

"We want the companies... to remove posts by terrorist groups and incitement to terrorism without us having to flag each individual post, in just the same manner, for example, that they today do not allow posts and pages with child pornography," she told Israel's Army Radio.

 

He is clearly not talking just about individual posts, but if you create a group named "Kill all infidels, Allahu Akbar!" then obviously that should be picked up. If a group constantly posts images of Isis and their acts and statements, yeah you can detect that. Facebook already can detect that for porn (child porn or otherwise) and such.

 

Is he going too far in what he is asking for? To be clear: ABSOLUTELY.  There is no doubt in my mind he basically wants censorship. However we don't have to listen to the most extremes of the argument to determine there is a very clear bias on reporting "hate speech" and removal of posts related to "Islamophobia" vs removing Isis supporters and their lunacy.