Why Facebook is losing the war on hate speech in Myanmar

First, because the use of the word can be in a positive or negative sentence, and thus can either agree or disagree with your "censorship rule". You need a deeper NLP analysis to disambiguate.

Second, because - if online fora with this kind of ban has taught us anything - it's pretty easy to work around it by using punctuation, replacement characters, or other style variations to write the word in a way that it won't be caught by the regex.

Third, this method ends up banning legit words. There was a forum where I couldn't write "booby trap". I don't need to explain.

WRT reputation, networks that allow "unlimited registrations" are easy targets for https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sybil_attack - One can use account age to mitigate of course, but given the amount of fake accounts that exist on the market (look at fiverr marketing offers) with long life and activity, I wouldn't expect age to be that big of a helper.

Yes, it is ultimately the state's responsibility to uphold the freedom of speech. That doesn't mean that any private actor is prohibited from providing a platform that upholds freedom of speech, only that they are not obligated to do so. You can do something even if you're not legally obligated to, you know.

> Insofar as people are doing things on Facebook's platform that they themselves disagree with, it's absolutely their responsibility to stop it.

So you mean like, if there were a candidate for US President that Facebook didn't like, then Facebook should refuse to run ads for that candidate. And if people used Facebook to talk about or promote that candidate, then Facebook should delete their posts right? I mean, if Facebook is responsible for stopping everything they disagree with, that should follow then.

I have to disagree with this, especially given that the CPC claims that China is in the "primary stage" of socialism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primary_stage_of_socialism. Communism in its original Marxist form is classless and stateless, which the PRC and the USSR certainly are/were not. Both countries were/are run by communist parties, but said communists recognise/d that a conversion from an agrarian, nominally capitalist society to a communist one would take a long time and require transition through a socialist state, as Marx originally laid out.

> My favorite example of communism implemented in real life is a hermit / monastic retreat, a skete.

The benefit to small communities is that it is easier to police for attitude and morality. Even more so if it's a religious community, though I'm sure Marx is rolling in his grave that you would call a religious community communist given communism's materialist philosophy.

> From the amount of hermits in a society you can estimate how popular this mindset might be, and how realistic is it to involve an entire population into it.

That's putting the cart before the horse somewhat. I know of many people who retreat from society in a hermit-like fashion for reasons other than asceticism or self-actualisation.

> Post-scarcity won't solve it, because it's not going to make people automatically care about the common good as a way of self-actualization.

But it will remove the primary need for an economy: effective distribution of scarce resources. It would also reduce the need for political hierarchy because property rights would become largely unnecessary to enforce.

> This is why the idealist Communist leaders of early Soviets spoke so much about "raising a new man", basically hoping to change the nature of humans.

They spoke about a lot of things that are purely based in ideology and do not gel with how the world works. Lysenkoism and the Four Pests Campaign strike me as good examples.

There were allegedly lots of epicurean communities in the antiquities, many of those in Europe, which became monasteries.

Epicurean communes were, for all effects and purposes, communism.

Could you expand on what you mean by this? If you remove the concept of material wealth (as a distinction between individuals), the cause for conflict is greatly reduced.

> the idea that some of us are more equal than others

I don't see how this would continue to cause conflicts once people's material needs and wants are all met. People tend to hate on exceptional people because they have access to more things.

> There is no Star Trek utopia.

Certainly not now, but it's a good goal to aim for.

That's a great pro-free-speech and privacy argument. Certainly interacting within the framework of a company with different values will mean you have to abide by those values. But the thing is - you aren't forced to. The various peoples of colonies usually didn't have a choice to go back to living how they did before their foreign occupiers landed.

> Well, globalization is a form of imperialism. It's not equal access to the global markets and influence for all countries: it's a few countries dominating.

As far as I'm aware, the living standard of all nations is going up. Nigerians have access to a safer banking system because they can use modern phones. China is dominating the world's manufacturing. Sure, the US and Europe have an outsized impact on the market - do you think that is more the case now than in the 1800s? I'd much rather people in developing nations have access to the international markets, because trade is mutually beneficial. Big companies make money, their customers also gain something. That's not imperialist in any sense, that's just free exchange of goods and services. Or perhaps we should all stick to trading within our own borders? Because that sounds like protectionist nationalism, which certainly isn't going to give people living in poorer nations access to goods and services they may benefit from.