
UN blames Facebook for spreading hatred of Rohingya - IBM
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/mar/13/myanmar-un-blames-facebook-for-spreading-hatred-of-rohingya
======
emiliobumachar
I'll say this again:

We, as a society, across multiple governments and now the UN, with ample
public support, are dragging Google and Facebook into the role of judge and
jury of what is or isn't acceptable speech.

They may well eventually settle into that role, and come to like it.

I understand that the volume of information grew much faster than the
traditional legal avenues for taking down illegal speech. And we're scrambling
for a quick fix. But this fix may prove worse in the long run than the problem
it fixes. These organizations may be relatively enlightened today, but there's
no guarantee they'll continue to be 30 years from now.

~~~
singularity2001
they should NOT moderate discussions themselves but they should offer
mechanisms for people to flag and downvote, and reflect the dissent in the
visualisation of posts. (possibly even with automatic educational links about
values)

Actually I hate how flagged HN items completely disappear. Graying out should
be enough here.

~~~
mikepurvis
I dunno. I mean yes in theory, but we don't need the theory, this has been
tried multiple times and there two basic ways that it ends up:

\- Factual correctness and overall decency loses out to popularity— making a
funny, low-effort post will in many communities get you a lot more magical
internet approval points than doing the work of engaging with an issue,
seeking alternative sources, etc. Yes, there are counter-examples of this, but
the long term trend is always toward a low quality of dialogue. \- At a
certain scale, posts are simply concealed from a user who is likely to
disagree with them— basically pre-moderation. Being challenged on a viewpoint
requires energy, and people don't like to do work.

------
JumpCrisscross
“A couple of hours outside Yangon, the country’s largest city, U Aye Swe, an
administrator for Sin Ma Kaw village, said he was proud to oversee one of
Myanmar’s ‘Muslim-free’ villages, which bar Muslims from spending the night,
among other restrictions.

‘Kalar are not welcome here because they are violent and they multiply like
crazy, with so many wives and children,’ he said.

Mr. Aye Swe admitted he had never met a Muslim before, adding, ‘I have to
thank Facebook because it is giving me the true information in Myanmar.‘“

[https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/10/24/world/asia/myanmar-
roh...](https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/10/24/world/asia/myanmar-rohingya-
ethnic-cleansing.html)

~~~
pjc50
It's amazing and horrifying how easily people can be convinced to murder
someone they've never met based on lies presented as truth. One of the lessons
of the Holocaust that has to be continually re-learned.

------
redcodenl
Facebook doesn't spread hatred, people spread hatred.

Sure, Facebook could crack down on the way people are using their
service/their tool, but I don't think they are responsible for the actions of
users.

What about:

\- Broadband internet is spreading hatred

\- Chrome Browser is spreading hatred

\- ISPs are spreading hatred

(etc)

Don't blame a company, or the service they provide. A crackdown on Facebook
will force the hating people to another tool or communication method. They'll
probably move to a more encrypted method of communication, which will make
finding the wrong-doings and the people much harder.

The only thing they could do is ask Facebook to cooperate and provide details
to find the haters.

~~~
foepys
> Don't blame a company, or the service they provide

Facebook is making billions by exploiting exactly that kind of behavior. The
more one-sided and scandalous a headline is, the more clicks it gets. This
leads to being seen by more poeple.

Also, showing people only what they want to see leads to echo chambers and is
ditremental to society as those groups tend to develop into extremes that
refuse to accept anything outside of their bubble.

~~~
redcodenl
> Also, showing people only what they want to see leads to echo chambers

Not sure I agree with this. The internet made it possbile for the whole world
to see information coming from all kinds of sources. Before, in history, you
had to rely on local news/newspapers, or even less information. Much more
bubbly than this modern age.

Again: I think the reason those bubbles appear have to do with society and the
urge to belong to a group, Facebook is not to blame here. Facebook reflects
people and society, not the other way around.

~~~
foepys
I don't know about the US but at least in Germany newspapers and even tabloids
have certain self-imposed rules regarding fact checking and privacy. All those
rules are out of the window on Facebook and other social media and because
everybody is anonymous (yes, even Facebook), nobody can be held accountable.

------
laurent123456
There were massacres before Facebook, and there will still be after it. As
much as I dislike Facebook, they are just a platform and if they weren't here,
another one will take their place so it's a bit weird the UN investigator
would blame them directly. Ultimately people, not FB, are responsible for what
they do, and for being too easily manipulated by online propaganda.

~~~
JumpCrisscross
> _if they weren 't here, another one will take their place_

This is a cop-out. Hateful false information, with violent consequences, is
being spread by a company profiting from its distribution.

We don’t say, in the event of food poisoning, “we can’t blame the restaurant
because if they weren’t here someone else would be poisoning people.” We fine
the business and send a message to the industry that said behaviour is
unacceptable.

Facebook is contributing to and profiting from atrocities. That rightfully
merits scrutiny, of Facebook and ad-driven social media companies generally.

~~~
yur83838
This isn't a cop out. Anything different and Facebook would be blamed for
censorship. This is a difficult problem to solve. It's practically human
nature to form a mob and group think. It's one of the first things that kids
do in pre-school.

I think the only solution to this problem is education.

~~~
JumpCrisscross
> _Anything different and Facebook would be blamed for censorship_

Facebook isn’t concerned about being “blamed for censorship” when it benefits
their bottom line [1].

> _This is a difficult problem to solve_

The first step is recognising that ad-driven reaction-oriented social media
does not appear to positively self-correct.

[1] [https://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/11/22/technology/facebook-
ce...](https://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/11/22/technology/facebook-censorship-
tool-china.html?referer=https://duckduckgo.com/)

~~~
mmsimanga
I get that social media is bad for you. The question is does the rest of the
world agree? Perhaps I can liken it to sugar. It's is bad for you in large
quantities but it is legal.

------
thisisit
As much as I am concerned about Facebook's reach this story presents a rather
narrow vision of the problem. The region has earlier seen people spreading
hatred and misinformation through plain old SMS and MMS too.

The only way governments tend to control this is by blocking mobile/sms
services. In this case unfortunately the only way around is to block Facebook
or internet services until things calm down.

------
reustle
I went to Myanmar at the beginning of 2015 for a few weeks, and was blown away
at how many people had cell phones. It was only a few years before that phones
were unobtainable due to extremely high sim card prices (only one provider).
Once they allowed in competition (2 other networks), the price flew down to
sub $1 per sim card, and in a flash everyone was online.

What really stood out was how much of the country ran on facebook. Groups for
everything, pages for businesses, messenger for communication, etc. It
resembled being in china and having everything run through wechat.

I guess this is one of those consequences.

------
gressquel
It happened last week in Sri Lanka too. Although the government was quick to
block FB i think 3 muslims died.

~~~
nonamechicken
It happens in India too. Whenever there is a mass movement, government tries
to stop social media. And everyone starts blaming government for curtailing
free speech. But I think there is a really good reason to do it considering
the lack of resources to effectively police the population. One bad example I
came across recently was this news: fake whatsapp/facebook messages led to the
killing of 7 men

[https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/a-whatsapp-
message...](https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/a-whatsapp-message-
claimed-nine-lives-in-jharkhand-in-a-week/story-xZsIlwFawf82o5WTs8nhVL.html)

~~~
philliphaydon
I heard a story in Singapore. I don’t know how much truth there is to it but
basically: there was conflict going on in China, and every time the news told
the story the issue grew worst. China asked singapore for advice and LKY said
to stop posting it the news and no one will know about it, and it won’t grow
and it will die down. So China forced the media to stop talking abou it and
the conflict died down in a few days.

------
joshuajeeson
Amplification of a message is the problem and not being a medium of exchange
of messages.

Facebook can/should only be held responsible for amplifying a message and
should not be accountable for being a medium.

The information on 'Who' paid 'When' and 'How much' to amplify 'What'
message/post to 'Whom' should be publicly accountable. This model should apply
to any AD agency.

------
zelos
>Facebook was a huge part of public, civil and private life, and the
government used it to disseminate information to the public.

Seriously? I know they probably have bigger things to worry about in Myanmar,
but that's pretty crazy.

~~~
salvar
Which part? That the government uses the most effective communication channel
to disseminate information?

------
AllegedAlec
Why is Facebook to blame here exactly? I'm not a fan of the company at all,
but, as I've said in earlier topics on more of less the same thing, I don't
think it's fair to hold them responsible for what people post on there more
than it is to hold internet providers responsible for people using their
connections for the same thing.

~~~
tonypace
Because Facebook already controls what people say and see on their platform.
But they choose to use that power to censor boobs and show you whatever will
provide the strongest response.

~~~
AllegedAlec
> they choose to use that power to censor boobs

Do they, or are they forced to do so?

And as I said: I don't like Facebook. I think they're shifty and probably do
have an agenda. However, it's untenable to attempt to force them to censor
anything that a government doesn't approve of, or hell, society doesn't
approve of. Facebook has 2.2 billion active users which make post 510,000
comments, update 293,000 statuses, and upload 136,000 photos per minute. It is
impossible for a company to go through all of them in order to censor those
which break whatever law of the country it was posted in.

~~~
pjc50
On the one hand you're saying that facebook are effectivly "forced" to censor
nudity (which may actually be legal in some jurisdictions), and then you
immediately say it's "untenable"?

~~~
AllegedAlec
I don't see why stating two facts, namely that governments want facebook to do
something (for example Germany forcing Facebook to censor what they consider
hate speech) and that this situation is untenable is in any way contradictory.

------
singularity2001
yesterday I came across a YouTube video with 1M views where the expulsion of
white farmers from South Africa was demanded. while they might have a point,
the language in the comment section was so harsh that it cried for some form
of moderation.

~~~
mvdwoord
Change white to black, or jews, or... and see if they "might still have a
point".

~~~
shaki-dora
Context matters. South Africa has the largest inequality in the world.
Colonialism created a society where the descendenantd of armed invaders
control 80% of th farmland. Whites generally live a comfortable middle class
life, while the native population often lives in abject poverty.

South Africa is also a glorious example of reconciliation, overcoming a
history of injustice without violence.

But the farming community simply has not used the chance they had in the last
20 years to become part of this historic process: while universities and many
other groups and institutions have de-segregated, that conservative community
has dug in and defended their privileges at all costs. They invited the
government to eventually force their hand.

Expulsion is obviously a bridge to far. And Zimbabwe stands as the obvious
example of what not to do. But some sort of legislative land reform is now
inevitable.

~~~
pjc50
> overcoming a history of injustice without violence

I'm not sure the truth and reconciliation commission would entirely agree with
that.

------
tzahola
Too bad the Rwanda genocide happened in the 90s. If Facebook was around back
then, we could have washed hands and blame them for that too.

~~~
pjc50
As it happened, the "social media" of its day was a pro-genocide radio
station. They were not only blamed (correctly) for it, but the directors were
arrested, charged with crimes against humanity, and sentenced to over 30 years
in prison.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio_T%C3%A9l%C3%A9vision_Lib...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio_T%C3%A9l%C3%A9vision_Libre_des_Mille_Collines)

------
jlebrech
UN is to blame for keeping religion alive.

