5 ms·

There's several distinct issues intermingled in this reporting, muddying the lessons. First, there's issue of ethnic violence in Myanmar, fueled by hate speech

There's several distinct issues intermingled in this reporting, muddying the lessons. First, there's issue of ethnic violence in Myanmar, fueled by hate speech on and off of Facebook. While the article acknowledges that Facebook's digital distribution allowed hoax stories designed to incite ethnic violence to spread very fast, it says a lot about a society when isolated instances of trolling can lead to real people being killed. It said a lot about the US' fears and anxieties when foreign agents were discovered to have been generating content to amplify sectarian divisions, but it was also remarkable how similar their products were to organic content produced by various factions of true believers within the US. If domestic agents are posting hate speech in Myanmar, the only explanation is that Myanmar is a sharply divided tinderbox with many prejudices and preconceptions, and some people will latch onto a rumour that in their mind provides the necessary justification to commit violence and murder against another ethnicity. It's difficult for me to accept the article's insinuation that in such an environment, Facebook must somehow do more to counteract the undercurrents of society. Then there's the issue of Facebook and certain websites being zero-rated on some phone networks. This is popular in countries where no organized lobby against it exists, and has been withdrawn in some places where activist groups have succeeded in framing it as a foreign company picking winners and losers. Zero-rating is the new frontier in net neutrality that was punted even in the US, where the old FCC never banned it outright, the new FCC is declining it investigate it, and telcos are vertically merging with content providers, which seems to lay the groundwork for more zero-rating to come.

JumpCrisscross 8y ago
> It's difficult for me to accept the article's insinuation that in such an environment, Facebook must somehow do more to counteract the undercurrents of society Facebook went into a troubled situation to make money and made it worse. They don’t have to solve Myanmar’s problems. But if you’re getting paid to throw fuel on a fire, you accept liability for the houses it burns down.
- simplecomplex 8y ago
  They didn’t make it worse. The situation in Myanmar has been happening since before anyone there was using Facebook... Ethnic violence, hatred, military junta, none of it was brought about by Facebook.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
- adventured 8y ago
  They didn't go into Myanmar to make money. That's absurd. The country barely has an economy much less a meaningful online ad market. They went into Myanmar to capture market share. That's paid for by their extraordinarily rich US ad market, as is the case in countless other commercially worthless markets (which may or may not one day be valuable). Every market they ignore, no matter how small or poor, produces a potential social competitor or hands the market to a competitor. The notion they were chasing riches (in Myanmar!) is just a convenient emotional blanket that makes everyone feel better about the Facebook global social network agenda. The fact is, they never have to care about markets like Myanmar financially, it's entirely meaningless and probably always will be to their financials.
  - dxhdr 8y ago
    > They didn't go into Myanmar to make money. That's absurd. ... They went into Myanmar to capture market share I don't understand the point of clarifying that they are earning market share and not dollars. Is the distinction relevant?
- kodablah 8y ago
  One wonders if anyone got value from it. Many realize the ratio of negative articles to positive ones regarding Facebook domestically far outweighs the ratio of negativity to positivity in people's lives (maybe not most here, but in general). I personally feel like I'd be someone unfamiliar with a situation looking down and judging all peoples of a society as too irresponsible for Facebook, so I don't. If anything, I think Facebook would be wise to temper growth as it is guaranteed that no matter what happens, there is no outlet for it to be seen as a positive by anyone whether it is or not. (not completely excusing FB here, just not sure they are more complicit than any other messenger...I see too few articles suggesting action taken against the message senders)
  - bilbo0s 8y ago
    The previous junta in Myanmar would definitely have silenced the message senders. (And the people committing the violence. And likely any people who agreed with the people committing the violence. And probably their families just to be sure. Etc etc etc. It wasn't a fun time to be a hater in Myanmar.) Point is, the previous "government" kept more control over this sort of violence and hatred, BUT... they did so at the barrel of a gun. What was the cost there? (Does the cost even matter in view of the fact that we can now see that they did save tens of thousands of lives? All really tough moral and ethical questions.) What's disheartening to me is the fact that, it seems that humans haven't evolved past that. The only demonstrably effective method of controlling this sort of tribalism, seems to be at the barrel of a gun.
    - JumpCrisscross 8y ago
      > humans haven't evolved past that As long as there is scarcity, it will be game theoretically efficient to form violently competitive in and out groups. That said, cynicism is misplaced. We are in a centuries-long progression of falling per-capita rates of violent death. Perpetuating that virtuous spiral is our tendency to shame, as this article goes, enablers of violence.
glenstein 8y ago
As to the first issue, the problem is deeper than one of Facebook merely mirroring existing cultural fissures. Facebook is functioning as an accelerant that's actively making it worse.
skybrian 8y ago
When you know that society is a tinderbox where spreading rumors can get people killed, it might not be your fault, but it seems like a good idea to think twice before deploying a super-efficient rumor-spreading machine? I'm not saying that there's any easy answer, but the idea that we should think ahead about the consequences of what we do and at least try to mitigate any harms doesn't seem so outlandish.
Sangermaine 8y ago
>It's difficult for me to accept the article's insinuation that in such an environment, Facebook must somehow do more to counteract the undercurrents of society. Your conclusion is fairly bizarre given the explanation preceding it. If a country is "a sharply divided tinderbox with many prejudices and preconceptions, and some people will latch onto a rumour that in their mind provides the necessary justification to commit violence and murder against another ethnicity", isn't that all the more reason for entities like Facebook to take extreme care in how they disseminate information? If you're entering an area filled with flammable material, you should be doubly cautious about starting a fire.
mschuster91 8y ago
> it says a lot about a society when isolated instances of trolling can lead to real people being killed In Bremen (Germany), maybe a week ago, a TV station aired a spot where they accused a man of being a pedophile. Even though they didn't disclose the location, the house where the man lived was identifiable for locals, and up to ten people went to the house, grabbed the man and nearly beat him to death. Later it came out that a) the man the mob identified and beat up wasn't the man from the TV spot and b) even the "real" suspect hadn't done anything illegal [0]. All societies are vulnerable to this kind of shit. [0]: https://www.stuttgarter-nachrichten.de/inhalt.bremen-lynchmob-verpruegelt-nach-tv-bericht-angeblichen-paedophilen.04125136-288a-457b-b632-b24852bbb365.html https://www.stuttgarter-nachrichten.de/inhalt.bremen-lynchmo...

JumpCrisscross 8y ago

> It's difficult for me to accept the article's insinuation that in such an environment, Facebook must somehow do more to counteract the undercurrents of society Facebook went into a troubled situation to make money and made it worse. They don’t have to solve Myanmar’s problems. But if you’re getting paid to throw fuel on a fire, you accept liability for the houses it burns down.

simplecomplex 8y ago
They didn’t make it worse. The situation in Myanmar has been happening since before anyone there was using Facebook... Ethnic violence, hatred, military junta, none of it was brought about by Facebook.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
adventured 8y ago
They didn't go into Myanmar to make money. That's absurd. The country barely has an economy much less a meaningful online ad market. They went into Myanmar to capture market share. That's paid for by their extraordinarily rich US ad market, as is the case in countless other commercially worthless markets (which may or may not one day be valuable). Every market they ignore, no matter how small or poor, produces a potential social competitor or hands the market to a competitor. The notion they were chasing riches (in Myanmar!) is just a convenient emotional blanket that makes everyone feel better about the Facebook global social network agenda. The fact is, they never have to care about markets like Myanmar financially, it's entirely meaningless and probably always will be to their financials.
- dxhdr 8y ago
  > They didn't go into Myanmar to make money. That's absurd. ... They went into Myanmar to capture market share I don't understand the point of clarifying that they are earning market share and not dollars. Is the distinction relevant?
kodablah 8y ago
One wonders if anyone got value from it. Many realize the ratio of negative articles to positive ones regarding Facebook domestically far outweighs the ratio of negativity to positivity in people's lives (maybe not most here, but in general). I personally feel like I'd be someone unfamiliar with a situation looking down and judging all peoples of a society as too irresponsible for Facebook, so I don't. If anything, I think Facebook would be wise to temper growth as it is guaranteed that no matter what happens, there is no outlet for it to be seen as a positive by anyone whether it is or not. (not completely excusing FB here, just not sure they are more complicit than any other messenger...I see too few articles suggesting action taken against the message senders)
- bilbo0s 8y ago
  The previous junta in Myanmar would definitely have silenced the message senders. (And the people committing the violence. And likely any people who agreed with the people committing the violence. And probably their families just to be sure. Etc etc etc. It wasn't a fun time to be a hater in Myanmar.) Point is, the previous "government" kept more control over this sort of violence and hatred, BUT... they did so at the barrel of a gun. What was the cost there? (Does the cost even matter in view of the fact that we can now see that they did save tens of thousands of lives? All really tough moral and ethical questions.) What's disheartening to me is the fact that, it seems that humans haven't evolved past that. The only demonstrably effective method of controlling this sort of tribalism, seems to be at the barrel of a gun.
  - JumpCrisscross 8y ago
    > humans haven't evolved past that As long as there is scarcity, it will be game theoretically efficient to form violently competitive in and out groups. That said, cynicism is misplaced. We are in a centuries-long progression of falling per-capita rates of violent death. Perpetuating that virtuous spiral is our tendency to shame, as this article goes, enablers of violence.

glenstein 8y ago

As to the first issue, the problem is deeper than one of Facebook merely mirroring existing cultural fissures. Facebook is functioning as an accelerant that's actively making it worse.

skybrian 8y ago

When you know that society is a tinderbox where spreading rumors can get people killed, it might not be your fault, but it seems like a good idea to think twice before deploying a super-efficient rumor-spreading machine? I'm not saying that there's any easy answer, but the idea that we should think ahead about the consequences of what we do and at least try to mitigate any harms doesn't seem so outlandish.

Sangermaine 8y ago

>It's difficult for me to accept the article's insinuation that in such an environment, Facebook must somehow do more to counteract the undercurrents of society. Your conclusion is fairly bizarre given the explanation preceding it. If a country is "a sharply divided tinderbox with many prejudices and preconceptions, and some people will latch onto a rumour that in their mind provides the necessary justification to commit violence and murder against another ethnicity", isn't that all the more reason for entities like Facebook to take extreme care in how they disseminate information? If you're entering an area filled with flammable material, you should be doubly cautious about starting a fire.

mschuster91 8y ago

> it says a lot about a society when isolated instances of trolling can lead to real people being killed In Bremen (Germany), maybe a week ago, a TV station aired a spot where they accused a man of being a pedophile. Even though they didn't disclose the location, the house where the man lived was identifiable for locals, and up to ten people went to the house, grabbed the man and nearly beat him to death. Later it came out that a) the man the mob identified and beat up wasn't the man from the TV spot and b) even the "real" suspect hadn't done anything illegal [0]. All societies are vulnerable to this kind of shit. [0]: https://www.stuttgarter-nachrichten.de/inhalt.bremen-lynchmob-verpruegelt-nach-tv-bericht-angeblichen-paedophilen.04125136-288a-457b-b632-b24852bbb365.html https://www.stuttgarter-nachrichten.de/inhalt.bremen-lynchmo...