Meta narrows guidance to prohibit calls for death of a head of state | Hacker News Reader

Meta narrows guidance to prohibit calls for death of a head of state

reuters.com

11 pointsawb8 comments

> said on Sunday that it is further narrowing its content moderation policy for Ukraine

When your moderation policies are specific to regions and world events, you may want to reevaluate why your policies are so brittle.

Section 18, Page 34, 192th minor amendment to the `harm clause` provides guidance what to do in this case. Therefore this post does not constitute harm on January 32nd, unless you live in a MetaZone(TM) defined in the MetaZone(TM) guidance section.

There is an idea - not one I hold in high regard as it goes - of "stochastic terrorism" [1][2].

At this point, given the very specific nature of Meta's comments it seems tantamount to incitement. If "stochastic terror" exists, then it surely exists by dint of such specific omission/exclusion.

Not that this is necessary. I suspect those close to Putin are already trying to decide between Polonium, Novichok and a bizarre equestrian accident with a randy stallion in season.

[1] https://www.wired.com/story/jargon-watch-rising-danger-stoch... [2] https://stochasticterrorism.blogspot.com/

I heavily disagree with this data interpretation. There certainly was an internet with much more prevalent death threats and it did not affect the real world at all. On the contrary, putting people uttering them on a terror list makes it a self-fulfilling prophecy. A common mistake that is often repeated with similar problems.

That is why even an accusations can have a negative effect. Compare that to accusations of racism and sexism for example.

There are a few steps between an accusation and an action, namely the agency of the person being accused.

I certainly haven’t become every word I’ve been accused of.

I agree there is certainly harm in false accusations though. I just don’t think it’s a self-fulfilling prophecy.

this seemed like something that was a given

Yes, so are other death threats OK I wonder?

Calls for someone's deaths are a bit broader than just death threats I think. Something like

> <Head of state> must die so <Contested Area> can be at peace!

is not a death threat, but would fall under the new guideline. I think.

Frankly I'm not a big fan of Facebook deciding what discourse is and isn't acceptable, but here we are.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com