
Myanmar group questions Zuckerberg’s claim on Facebook hate speech prevention - abhi3
https://techcrunch.com/2018/04/06/myanmar-group-blasts-zuckerbergs-claim-on-facebook-hate-speech-prevention/
======
734786710934
"In response to critics Facebook vows to do more to monitor its users'
messages" \- future TechCrunch headline. People might want to think about the
unintended consequences of their criticism a bit more.

~~~
tonypace
According to reports, invitations to lynchings of Rohingya are shared on
Messenger. If you say freedom of speech, I say Facebook and all of it's evil
is banned.

I think I have the better case.

~~~
khc
So if it's shared over SMS, we should ban the mobile network?

~~~
pjc50
In most Western countries this would be a crime and the mobile network would
be obliged to provide an intercept.

------
tim333
>Facebook is not equipped to respond to hate speech in international markets
since it relied entirely on information from the ground, where Facebook does
not have an office, in order to learn of the issue.

It seems to me that rather than hire a bunch of people in California to try
and understand local feuds all over the planet they should have a gamified
system a bit more like stackoverflow where if you get enough karma you can
restrict posts, promote peaceful messages and so on.

In fact someone could offer the anti-hate thing as a service. There's a
hackathon/startup project for someone.

------
cryptoz
This is not a non-story. This is Mark Zuckerberg either lying or not knowing
anything about current issues on Facebook. This is not a pile-on or beating a
dead horse like all the comments in other Facebook threads are saying about
this rash of Facebook stories. Mark Zuckerberg's false confidence/lies about
how Facebook is handling the issue of user's private data is sufficient story
in an of itself.

~~~
username223
These people are lying like their jobs depend upon it, because they do. Here's
Sheryl Sandberg today:

> I don’t think that’s true and I don’t think that’s fair. Facebook at its
> core is a sharing service. We are not sweeping up data. People are inputting
> data. People are sharing data with Facebook.

\-- [https://www.marketwatch.com/Story/facebook-coo-sheryl-
sandbe...](https://www.marketwatch.com/Story/facebook-coo-sheryl-sandberg-we-
are-not-sweeping-up-data-2018-04-05)

Where have I heard the word "sharing" before? If they accomplish nothing else,
these companies will have killed a word that used to mean an act of
generosity.

~~~
amirmc
I think ‘the sharing economy’ already did that.

------
feelin_googley
I do not see the issue with this letter to Zuckerberg as suggested by some of
the comments here.

I see the issue as one of Zuckerbergs _choice of words_ , how he is portraying
the facts.

It was _his words in the interview_ that triggered the letter.

FB has now apologised for Zuckerbergs comment:

[https://www.businesslive.co.za/bd/companies/2018-04-06-faceb...](https://www.businesslive.co.za/bd/companies/2018-04-06-facebook-
apologises-after-myanmar-groups-blast-mark-zuckerberg/)

Facebook users and others are paying very careful attention to what Zuckerberg
says.

Here is a piece that discusses why choice of words can be important, for
example when giving testimony before US Congress. There are some provocative
examples from past CEOs who have appeared to testify.

[https://www.thestar.com/business/opinion/2018/04/06/what-
to-...](https://www.thestar.com/business/opinion/2018/04/06/what-to-watch-for-
when-facebooks-zuckerberg-appears-before-us-congress.html)

Whether "trust" matters to FB business (selling ads) is another question.

Poll: Does FB need to have trust to succeed in the future?

~~~
rpvnwnkl
Yes. But people need to understand why trust matters to them, or they won’t
care about it.

------
tonypace
FB people, if this isn't your canary, than what is?

