Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Facebook Admits It Was Used to Incite Violence in Myanmar (2018)

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 262 posts

Re: Facebook Admits It Was Used to Incite Violence in Myanmar (2018)

#11

Post by flowerlad »

On the internet everything can appear equally legitimate. Breitbart looks as legit as the BBC. Sacha Baron Cohen https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ymaWq5yZIYM

Excerpts:

Voltaire was right when he said "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities." And social media lets authoritarians push absurdities to millions of people. President Trump using Twitter has spread conspiracy theories more than 1700 times to his 67 million followers.

Freedom of speech is not freedom of reach. Sadly There will always be racists, misogynists, anti-Semites, and child abusers. We should not be giving bigots and pedophiles a free platform to amplify their views and target their victims.

Zuckerberg says people should decide what's credible, not tech companies. When 2/3rds of millennials have not heard of Auschwitz how are they supposed to know what's true? There is such a thing as objective truth. Facts do exist.

Re: Facebook Admits It Was Used to Incite Violence in Myanmar (2018)

#12

Post by MrMan »

sschueller wrote: post #6

I guess you could argue Facebook should be shutdown as parlor was. Although parlor was only used for hate, Facebook didn't do anything to stop it either. I think a big issue is how facebooks algo (and others) are built for maximum profit which at the same time also radicalizes people in their filter bubble.

I think Facebook should be broken up but I havent heard any good ideas yet regarding how to somehow regulate social networks.

Beyond hate speech, I dont see any reason to limit what people can say. Somehow limiting how the network connects people, or how content propagates, seems like the key. Only FB has done the social experiments at scale to know how to engineer this, which is faintly ironic.

Re: Facebook Admits It Was Used to Incite Violence in Myanmar (2018)

#14

Post by mcphage »

fairity wrote: post #7

I'd love Facebook to do more to prevent misuse of its platform, but I don't see why I should blame Facebook for Myanmar violence. Facebook at its core is a tool that helps people spread information and opinions - not too different from the telephone or email. The blame for Myanmar violence should be placed squarely on the people that are spreading misinformation that incites violence. Even if Facebook does a better j…

> not too different from the telephone or email

Facebook is a broadcast medium, so very different than the telephone. Email is somewhere in between—it works fine 1-to-many, but not so well many-to-many.

> don't you think these perpetrators will find an equally effective technology to spread their propaganda?

Maybe they will, but that's hardly a reason to ignore these atrocities. Maybe they won't. Maybe future technologies will be more careful about encouraging people to join extreme groups because it increases engagement.

> it seems like the media want to convince me to hate Facebook

Nobody's asking you to hate Facebook, but you should be aware of the power they posses, and how irresponsible they are being with that power. You don't need to bring your personal feelings into this at all.

Re: Facebook Admits It Was Used to Incite Violence in Myanmar (2018)

#15

Post by Fellshard »

jeromegv wrote: post #10
fairity wrote: post #7

I'd love Facebook to do more to prevent misuse of its platform, but I don't see why I should blame Facebook for Myanmar violence. Facebook at its core is a tool that helps people spread information and opinions - not too different from the telephone or email. The blame for Myanmar violence should be placed squarely on the people that are spreading misinformation that incites violence. Even if Facebook does a better j…

Those arguments always forget 1 thing. Facebook recommend users to join groups, follow pages, and even shows content that is not from people you follow. So it isn't just a telephone company that allows you to make phone calls, it's a service that makes an editorial choice about what they show you. If they show you posts that incite violence in Myanmar and show you fake news that make you outraged about a certain ethn…

I fall on the side of 'curation and modification of feeds represents creative work and therefore makes the platform responsible' for this very reason.

Re: Facebook Admits It Was Used to Incite Violence in Myanmar (2018)

#16

Post by cm2012 »

From my understanding the Myanmar atrocities were mostly planned in private groups and chats by non notable figures, with private chain messages playing a big part.

It's one thing to ban a politician inciting violence. Do you all want FB to monitor all your private messages for keywords, then block those messages?

Re: Facebook Admits It Was Used to Incite Violence in Myanmar (2018)

#18

Post by jenwkejnwjkef »

jeromegv wrote: post #10
fairity wrote: post #7

I'd love Facebook to do more to prevent misuse of its platform, but I don't see why I should blame Facebook for Myanmar violence. Facebook at its core is a tool that helps people spread information and opinions - not too different from the telephone or email. The blame for Myanmar violence should be placed squarely on the people that are spreading misinformation that incites violence. Even if Facebook does a better j…

Those arguments always forget 1 thing. Facebook recommend users to join groups, follow pages, and even shows content that is not from people you follow. So it isn't just a telephone company that allows you to make phone calls, it's a service that makes an editorial choice about what they show you. If they show you posts that incite violence in Myanmar and show you fake news that make you outraged about a certain ethn…

I'm not sure why anybody falls for the frankly absurd idea that social media sites are platforms and not publishers. They choose what to show you, just like the NYT or any other traditional publisher. The only difference is who does the choosing---algorithms or humans. But that, to me, is just a logistical detail and shouldn't have an effect on the distinction between publisher and platform. To think that Facebook and other companies act as merely connectors between viewpoints and are really just platforms for free speech is ridiculous.

From the article, no, Facebook did not "fail to prevent its platform from being used to foment division and incite offline violence;" they published content which foments division and incites offline violence. The distinction is important.

Re: Facebook Admits It Was Used to Incite Violence in Myanmar (2018)

#19

Post by fairity »

jeromegv wrote: post #10
fairity wrote: post #7

I'd love Facebook to do more to prevent misuse of its platform, but I don't see why I should blame Facebook for Myanmar violence. Facebook at its core is a tool that helps people spread information and opinions - not too different from the telephone or email. The blame for Myanmar violence should be placed squarely on the people that are spreading misinformation that incites violence. Even if Facebook does a better j…

Those arguments always forget 1 thing. Facebook recommend users to join groups, follow pages, and even shows content that is not from people you follow. So it isn't just a telephone company that allows you to make phone calls, it's a service that makes an editorial choice about what they show you. If they show you posts that incite violence in Myanmar and show you fake news that make you outraged about a certain ethn…

> So it isn't just a telephone company that allows you to make phone calls, it's a service that makes an editorial choice about what they show you.

Understood. Perhaps there's a more apt analogy. Let's say there exists a gun manufacturer who's developed a new type of gun that's particularly effective. The problem is the guns are in limited supply. The manufacturer ultimately cares about profit, so it decides to sell the guns to the highest bidder.

Most of the guns sold end up providing value to society in the form of protection. But, in a handful of cases, the highest bidder happens to be a violent regime that uses the guns for ethnic cleansing.

Do we blame the gun manufacturer or the violent regime?

From this perspective, I agree that a small part of the blame falls on the gun manufacturer for not vetting buyers.

Re: Facebook Admits It Was Used to Incite Violence in Myanmar (2018)

#20

Post by rvz »

sschueller wrote: post #6

I guess you could argue Facebook should be shutdown as parlor was. Although parlor was only used for hate, Facebook didn't do anything to stop it either. I think a big issue is how facebooks algo (and others) are built for maximum profit which at the same time also radicalizes people in their filter bubble.

Even if you wanted to, Facebook can't be de-platformed. They are entrenched in the internet and own their own data centres, are also themselves domain registrars and members part of the ICANN.
Post reply on HN