> Isn't the problem in myanmar that we are trying to overthrow their government?

What a ridiculous comment. Mynammar is in a civil war because their own people are trying to overthrow their government, which is oppressive and autocratic.

You're using a lot of words and terms you think make a point, and they aren't. There is no point in logically engaging with you. As you know, there is an actual genocide against Burmese Muslims by the Burmese government and large segments of its society. It's ongoing. You are pro-genocide.

I don't even think you have anything against Burmese Muslims. I think people like you are moved to anger by others seeking to pursue good. Whoever the victim is, you have a disease of personality and spirit that causes you to attack attempts at sympathy or help towards them. Whatever the broader society or group values, you instinctively tear down.

You think whenever someone wants to shed light on an injustice, you should shit on such an attempt mindlessly. Whenever someone wants to act altruistically, you want to make it seem like they aren't really being altruistic, that they must have some ulterior motive. Because you yourself aren't altruistic, and have no good, and don't care about the suffering of others.

Why are you calling it propaganda? It's a well-documented article, whereas you spew stupidity. Who are you trying to fool by acting like the Burmese government is legitimate? Are a government like the North Korean one and the government that allows you to post the drivel you post freely alike?

The rest of us needn't do anything but down vote you and avoid people like you in real life. It's not even a matter of understanding or misunderstanding something logically; you know that the government of Burma is genocidal and oppressive, you know that the government of Iran is oppressive and rising to ever new heights of brutality, etc, and you know that normal people rightly find that all wrong. But something inside you causes you to want to launch pathetic half-baked defenses of such evil in online posts. Something inside you is rotten and causes you to call a detailed post documenting a pretty evil paper trail from a major corporation--pretty stereotypically what we think good journalism should be, and which we get little of from most major publications--"propaganda".

I think you're mixing up "people in Myanmar" and "the Myanmar government". The post is primarily talking about the first one, and Facebook has had an effect on the first one.

> Is it hate speech when we dehumanize nazis, communists, etc?

Yes it is

> So what erin wants is meta to serve as an anti-myanmar propaganda machine?

What the author wants is that facebook doesn't propagate hate speech by putting it up in front just because it makes clicks and money. What the author wants is that when people report hate speech, facebook acts on it. What the author wants is to take on its responsibility as a facilitator to the genocide.

> If she wants less suffering why doesn't she advocate that the UK, EU, US, etc stop trying to overthrow the government of myanmar?

That's not the topic of the article. Please remain on topic.

> It's funny because her article could be classified as hate speech by the people of myanmar. And why is this propaganda on HN?

Everything is sourced. Not a single word in the articles calls for the hate of any people, not even Mark Zuckerberg. Please elaborate where you find hateful content.

This article is well sourced, transparent about definitions and data. It’s a post child for high quality content.

And you are rambling about propaganda, trying to move the question of the quality of reporting and data to “who is the author”, some casual whataboutism about “why don’t they do something else” and outright miss the point where the definition for hatespeech used is clearly the one Meta themselves defined.

Then again your overall comment profile is just that, so if you want to make it about who is the author, you probably have to accept a “who are you”

This article uses Meta’s own definition, next question

>Is it hate speech when we dehumanize nazis, communists, etc?

What a wild take. "Nazism", "communism", and what is happening in Myanmar are three things with nothing in common whatsoever. What an absurd oversimplification.

>Also, why is it always 'hate speech' when one side does it.

It's not, my friend.