I don’t see how Facebook is liable for the actions of other adults.maybe evidence comes out that Facebook actively encouraged it. But seems unlikely.
Facebook doesn't show content chronologically. Their algorithm decides what people see. They may not have purposefully pushed pro genocide content, but that doesn't mean they aren't liable if the court finds they were negligent in building the algorithm.
I don’t doubt the algorithm prioritizes popular content. But how you go from that to saying the algorithm prioritizes genocidal content I don’t know.
Will there be actual personal responsibility for management and engineers involved?
Software Engineers aren't really engineers IMHO. In the US, Professional Engineers are often licensed and can be punished for malpractice. Maybe licensing and enforcing standards of practice wouldn't be such a bad idea for software engineers.
During both of your options, how do you think China reacts to a massive US military invasion literally on its border? Option 1, likely results in the government of Myanmar suddenly possessing dozens of previously unknown SAM batteries that just appeared as well as tens of thousands of troops that just materialized overnight wearing brand new Myanmar uniforms. The US loses thousands of troops and hundreds of billions…
> During both of your options, how do you think China reacts to a massive US military invasion literally on its border? Very nasty, it will scare them beyond all heavens. And this is why you do it. You make enemies afraid of you, so they don't attack you, and your allies. > The us has a logistical nightmare where it has to move troops and resources halfway across the world. 1. US has just got a nuclear ally in Asia.…
Sorry friend, I was willing to engage with you in good natured debate but if you think that China's response will be cowering in fear then you are very much not versed in what's going on in the world, especially regarding China's capabilities and government. China is a military power very close to the US in capability. China commands and enforces absolute loyalty from its citizens, and is more than happy to turn to genocide to do so. They would have the advantage logistically as the conflict is taking place right outside their doorstep. The US appetite for war would probably fade very quickly once deaths start pouring in while the Chinese would just be forced to trudge on. A war with China does not stay in China, China is very capable of hitting the US mainland. China has a surplus of young men, the US does not. What you think would be China just cowering in fear would quickly devolve into WWIII.
"Wiped out clean" means what? I'm going to be very generous and your phrasing which sounds like you mean the US should commit ethnic cleansing. I guess you mean the US should invade, occupy the country, impose new laws and police them. I guess you believe this because that has gone so well in the past.
> "Wiped out clean" means what? Which means nothing remaining standing of the fixed infrastructure of Burmese army, and nothing moving remaining of its vehicles. Burma has a strong, nation-wide oppositionary movement, which is now trampled by an even more powerful, and cutthroat Burmese army. Without two things aforementioned, the balance will change. An aid of small arms supplies will be enough for the opposition to…
> Burma has a strong, nation-wide oppositionary movement, which is now trampled by an even more powerful, and cutthroat Burmese army.
>Without two things aforementioned, the balance will change. An aid of small arms supplies will be enough for the opposition to win, and unite the country.
This sounds a lot like what I remember hearing about the Iraq invasion, how we would be hailed as liberators.
> Sure, and then how long do we leave troops there for? another 20 years and then we leave and everything goes back to the way it was? 1 option. Just destroy fixed assets, and most armour. US can do it in a few months of logistical preparations, and 1 week high intensity campaign. 2 option. Yes, but now build proper military hardpoint bases, and a proper government
The amount of hubris involved here is staggering — and exactly why the neocons failed at their goals of reshaping the Middle East. Our idea of a “proper government” may not align with the local population. This was certainly the case in Afghanistan; while yes, the Taliban are bad dudes with really regressive ideas about women, the country largely does support the Taliban for reasons that are missed by outside observe…
> the country largely does support the Taliban.
It did not support Taliban. It has done so after 2 decades of Karzai, Ghani, and complete incompetence of US at building a political system, and the government from scam artists, and then doing god knows what with them.
Facebook doesn't show content chronologically. Their algorithm decides what people see. They may not have purposefully pushed pro genocide content, but that doesn't mean they aren't liable if the court finds they were negligent in building the algorithm.
I don’t doubt the algorithm prioritizes popular content. But how you go from that to saying the algorithm prioritizes genocidal content I don’t know.
It might not be intentional, but there's a pretty good chance that it does lead to extremism. I haven't read it, but perhaps the UN report has more information.
I believe it could be true because it doesn't seem that different from reports[1] a few years ago talking about how YouTube would push more and more extreme suggestions.
IIRC YouTube made changes pushing people towards more mainstream content and away from small producers in part to avoid extremism.
I don’t see how Facebook is liable for the actions of other adults.maybe evidence comes out that Facebook actively encouraged it. But seems unlikely.
What if they just passively or inadvertently encouraged it? It’s entirely possible that the algorithms Facebook has used to prioritize content highlight inflammatory or violent content. Maybe in the process of maximizing attention they simultaneously optimized for showing violent or hateful content. YouTube has been shown to have done almost exactly that.
For better or worse, passively encouraging genocide isn't illegal under US law.