I am from Bangladesh. I know this for a fact that FB has been used (and still being used) to incite religious extremism and hatred against religious minorities in my country. Social media has been one of the biggest cause behind the rise of religious extremism in South Asia in general. For more reference please see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Ramu_violence.
Facebook Admits It Was Used to Incite Violence in Myanmar (2018)
51–60 of 262 posts
Re: Facebook Admits It Was Used to Incite Violence in Myanmar (2018)
#52I 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.
> Although parlor was only used for hate
I encourage everyone to keep an eye out for these casual little calumnies, presented without evidence.
Re: Facebook Admits It Was Used to Incite Violence in Myanmar (2018)
#53I 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.
Maybe "parlor was only used for hate" but Parler, no. There is questionable content on Parler as much as is on Twitter, Facebook, etc.
Parlor was created in response to hate moderation on other platforms.
It's not too far off to say "Parlor was created as a space for hate". Only used for hate is obviously wrong, but that doesn't change much.
Re: Facebook Admits It Was Used to Incite Violence in Myanmar (2018)
#54Earlier quoted context omitted.
>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. But these all are algorithmic isn't it ? Its not like facebook decided to manually show certain content to some people, unlike the the silencing done to trump.
People develop algorithms. They aren't some neutral force of nature, like a tornado. These are choices.
yes but is the algorithms include : spread only bad content ?
I doubt so, the algorithms may be : spread content that increase engagement, without making explicit judgement whether the content is 'good' or 'bad'.
Re: Facebook Admits It Was Used to Incite Violence in Myanmar (2018)
#55I 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.
Should we shut down radio too, since radio is frequently used in guerilla warfare? The technology isn’t the problem - the people feeling violent is. How very American is it that we want to immediately stamp out dissenting voices rather than actually solving the problem that these people disagree with (whatever it may be).
I don't really care to try to "solve the problem" that white supremacists have.
Re: Facebook Admits It Was Used to Incite Violence in Myanmar (2018)
#56I volunteered at the Rohingya camps in Bangladesh while this was happening. Most of them were aware of this and attempted to stay ahead of the raids by monitoring some of the groups. Their stories are horrific and to this day I have bad dreams about what I saw / heard in those camps. One of my coworkers escaped through the jungle to Thailand where I now live. He lost his brother and father to a group with machetes. H…
Do you have any recommendations for charity groups working to lessen the plight of these people?
Re: Facebook Admits It Was Used to Incite Violence in Myanmar (2018)
#57Earlier quoted context omitted.
Maybe "parlor was only used for hate" but Parler, no. There is questionable content on Parler as much as is on Twitter, Facebook, etc.
Parlor was created in response to hate moderation on other platforms. It's not too far off to say "Parlor was created as a space for hate". Only used for hate is obviously wrong, but that doesn't change much.
unfortunately, "hate speech" seems to be defined as "whatever makes me upset" where "me" is a group accepted by tge platform
e.g. there are prolife groups that say nothing negative against any people, but get banned for explaining the facts behind abortion and who does it
Re: Facebook Admits It Was Used to Incite Violence in Myanmar (2018)
#58Earlier quoted context omitted.
People develop algorithms. They aren't some neutral force of nature, like a tornado. These are choices.
yes but is the algorithms include : spread only bad content ? I doubt so, the algorithms may be : spread content that increase engagement, without making explicit judgement whether the content is 'good' or 'bad'.
Intention is besides the point. The only thing that matters is impact. For example, in US case law, there is the concept of Involuntary manslaughter: killing as the result of negligent or reckless actions.
Re: Facebook Admits It Was Used to Incite Violence in Myanmar (2018)
#59Earlier quoted context omitted.
Maybe "parlor was only used for hate" but Parler, no. There is questionable content on Parler as much as is on Twitter, Facebook, etc.
Parlor was created in response to hate moderation on other platforms. It's not too far off to say "Parlor was created as a space for hate". Only used for hate is obviously wrong, but that doesn't change much.
> Parlor was created in response to hate moderation on other platforms.
Actually most people there seem to perceive it as an alternative to the biased nature of Twitter. They didn't want to get banned on Twitter for something that's being tolerated when done by left-leaning groups.
Re: Facebook Admits It Was Used to Incite Violence in Myanmar (2018)
#60Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
> I havent heard any good ideas yet regarding how to somehow regulate social networks. * Break them up, and keep them small enough so that no one site can do that much damage. * Remove safe harbor provisions on algorithmic content feeds. * Pass a transaction tax on ad auctions to discourage free-for-attention business models.
I recall when I was going through a bout of insomnia in college, being upset by the quality of the ads on late night TV. I had been taught about what was then known as targeted advertising, and I thought that meant that all those inane ads were being specifically targeted at insomniacs. Like they had decided I was some sort of moron who would fall for this stuff. Didn't take me too long to realize the low quality ads were simply targeting the low-quality time slots. Nothing more sinister than cheap people being cheap.
But with real-time auctions, though, there are whole swaths of people whom the quality ads have decided are a waste of time, and now the hyenas can circle in to prey on everything that is left.
There are some ad networks out there that try to avoid the real time auction and cross-site tracking aspects of these conventional ad networks. I don't know how successful they're being, but maybe they're on to something. Something that should be encourage by public policy.