11 ms·

Why Facebook is losing the war on hate speech in Myanmar

134 points by humantiy 8y ago

annamargot 8y ago
Facebook sees this as a cost center and will therefore do the minimum it can get away with to address this. They have shown no real concern for the negative effects they have on communities and society. Their leadership has displayed a lust for power that would make most politicians blush, IMO.
- ridgeguy 8y ago
  I agree with all but your last point. Facebook leadership's lust for power doesn't make politicians blush. It turns them green with envy.
- duskwuff 8y ago
  "Daily active users in developing countries" is, in all probability, a KPI at Facebook. "People killed as the result of rumors spread on our platform" is probably not. :/
megous 8y ago
Blah title, but article is quite good. Referenced Reuters article is even better.
seanmcdirmid 8y ago
I really don't see why Facebook is blamed for this. That ethnic tension was present way before Facebook even existed. It was kept in check by an authoritarian military dictatorship and then bubbled up in the transition to more democracy, which really shouldn't have been unexpected. Facebook was just there at the wrong time, and happened to be the way people were communicating at that time; Aung San Suu Kyi has also gotten a lot of criticism for being in this even though she has been mostly powerless to do anything about it either. All Facebook can do is stop the propagation on their network. Even with China-level censorship, they would probably need serious manual effort or even a complete network shutdown to stop being a medium. But the same problems will still occur using other channels, maybe the hate won't move as fast, but it will still be fast enough to cause plenty of damage.
- ardy42 8y ago
  > I really don't see why Facebook is blamed for this. That ethnic tension was present way before Facebook even existed. I think it's because they were given ample, clear warnings that their platform was being used to incite ethnic hatred and genocide, but chose to do nothing for years. I don't think they would be getting so nearly so much blame if they hadn't been so utterly negligent about the problem. They didn't even bother to translate their objectionable content reporting tools into Burmese until a few months ago, long after the persecution started. When you are repeatedly notified by human rights groups and the local government that your essentially unmoderated social network is being used to organize lynch mobs, you should either shut it down or hire enough moderators to control the problem.
  - AndrewKemendo 8y ago
    The challenge of course, is multifaceted: 1. It's not a trivial problem to be able to identify what is hate speech in a regional dialect automatically 2. It sets a problematic precedent if Facebook throws 100s of - hard to find, hard to pay and hard to support - native language local reviewers at every place where Facebook could be abused. I'm no Facebook apologist, however I recognize how hard of a technical problem, and how it's equally a personnel management, prioritization and scaling problem. Facebook risks chasing every group that makes a loud enough noise, and then being criticized for it irrespective of what they do. No win situation.
    - ardy42 8y ago
      > It sets a problematic precedent if Facebook throws 100s of - hard to find, hard to pay and hard to support - native language local reviewers at every place where Facebook could be abused. In what way is that a problematic precedent? Their negligence contributed to ethnic cleansing and genocide. If a multi-billion dollar company is too cheap to hire local staff to watch its platform, it shouldn't operate a localized version for that place. They need to act responsibly. Think if it like product safety testing.
      - 8y ago
toomanybeersies 8y ago
There has been a big problem in India with lynch mobs being formed in Whatsapp groups, over various unsubstantiated rumours, including apparent child snatchers travelling through villages [1]. This raises an interesting cross section of moral issues. Obviously end-to-end encryption is good for a lot of reasons. But end-to-end encryption is one of the reasons that these lynchings have been able to happen. These kinds of lynchings have been going on forever, but Whatsapp and mobile phones have allowed these rumours to spread faster than ever before, and for mobs to form so much easier. Does the right to privacy outweigh people's right to travel without fear of being lynched? [1] https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-44856910 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-44856910
- krasin 8y ago
  >But end-to-end encryption is one of the reasons that these lynchings have been able to happen Have all participants of the lynchings being prosecuted? Enforcing civil and criminal codes is enough to stop them. There's no need to blame end-to-end encryption. It's not the tool, it's the people.
  - pjc50 8y ago
    No, because the rule of law has largely collapsed and, like lynchings everywhere, they happen with the complicity of local law enforcement.
- humbledrone 8y ago
  Assuming that you agree that the government should not have the right to install mandatory CCTV cameras in private residences, where do you draw the line between that and eavesdropping on people's digital communications? What is it about digital communications that makes it reasonable for the government to listen in? I don't see any difference between the government CCTV in your bedroom and the Whatsapp case, except that Whatsapp could be spied upon much more cheaply and efficiently (were it not encrypted).
  - mijamo 8y ago
woah 8y ago
Interestingly, this article is written from the perspective that Facebook is responsible for everything posted on its website.
- seanmcdirmid 8y ago
  This is actually an interesting question, from a legal standpoint anyways. I don't think Myanmar has a safe harbor exemption like the US does, they actually have some pretty heavy handed censorship laws on the books. However, Facebook doesn't even have an office in Myanmar, they aren't officially there, and without a GFW Myanmar can't really block Facebook (nor would the people be ok with that, as Facebook has already become the internet to many). Probably why Facebook won't be opening an office in Myanmar anytime soon, at least until they can sort these issues out and have some strong legs to stand on.
  - repsilat 8y ago
    Linking this explicitly to safe harbour like you've done is important -- the knee-jerk response online is often to condemn Facebook for not policing content but to defend content hosters for not being able to filter out all instances of copyright violations. Maybe those positions are held by different people, and maybe there's some good-faith "make an effort" middleground, and maybe the standards should be different because nobody dies when someone pirates Westworld, but they're clearly analogous. If we do have different standards we should be able to back it up with argument, and try hard not to let how much we like the companies colour our judgement.
    - Nasrudith 8y ago
      Not to mention that the impossible remains so even in if it is for a good cause.
    - Kalium 8y ago
      The middle ground is a great place to be if you want to take fire from everyone. In terms of legal and regulatory risk, it's an incredibly hazardous place to be because it has few defenders and many attackers. Personally, I'm uncomfortable with the idea of demanding that megacorporations do censorship for us on whatever arbitrary standards they can be convinced are good.
jlebrech 8y ago
they are too busy cracking down on peaceful criticism of Islam in the west.
- jlebrech 8y ago
  down votes to this are proof the peaceful discussion is futile.
  - sctb 8y ago
    We've asked you many times to please stop breaking the guidelines, so we've banned the account. We're happy to unban accounts if you email us at hn@ycombinator.com and we believe you'll start using the site as intended.
dingo_bat 8y ago
TL;DR shithole countries will stay shithole countries, regardless of any action or inaction from a social network website. It's not FB's job to enforce law and order in Myanmar, it's Myanmar's job.
- sctb 8y ago
  We've banned this account.
otterley 8y ago
Interesting that the project codename is “Honey Badger.” To me that connotes not caring less — you might remember this YouTube viral video from a few years ago: https://youtu.be/4r7wHMg5Yjg https://youtu.be/4r7wHMg5Yjg
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
BloodyHands 8y ago
Reuters is articulating an anti-American anti-Constitutional position. Why is Reuters doing this? There is no need to demand that American citizens flush their Constitution down the toilet, yet this is what Reuters plans, it plans to coerce the American people to the view that the Constitution of the USA is a gun that shoots hate speech. Reuters is an enemy of the people of the USA. Reuters attacks American values. Reuters uses clever tricks to manipulate American public opinion. In short, Reuters has demonstrated a HATRED of the American people and a HATRED of the Constitution of the USA. This means Reuters is NOT a reliable source of news, it is a reliable source of HATE. Reuters is a fire burning in a fireplace, and if it escapes, it will burn down the house of USA.
JohnClark1337 8y ago
Wet pavement causes rain.

134 points by humantiy 8y ago

Facebook sees this as a cost center and will therefore do the minimum it can get away with to address this. They have shown no real concern for the negative effects they have on communities and society. Their leadership has displayed a lust for power that would make most politicians blush, IMO.

ridgeguy 8y ago
I agree with all but your last point. Facebook leadership's lust for power doesn't make politicians blush. It turns them green with envy.
duskwuff 8y ago
"Daily active users in developing countries" is, in all probability, a KPI at Facebook. "People killed as the result of rumors spread on our platform" is probably not. :/

megous 8y ago

Blah title, but article is quite good. Referenced Reuters article is even better.

seanmcdirmid 8y ago

I really don't see why Facebook is blamed for this. That ethnic tension was present way before Facebook even existed. It was kept in check by an authoritarian military dictatorship and then bubbled up in the transition to more democracy, which really shouldn't have been unexpected. Facebook was just there at the wrong time, and happened to be the way people were communicating at that time; Aung San Suu Kyi has also gotten a lot of criticism for being in this even though she has been mostly powerless to do anything about it either. All Facebook can do is stop the propagation on their network. Even with China-level censorship, they would probably need serious manual effort or even a complete network shutdown to stop being a medium. But the same problems will still occur using other channels, maybe the hate won't move as fast, but it will still be fast enough to cause plenty of damage.

ardy42 8y ago
> I really don't see why Facebook is blamed for this. That ethnic tension was present way before Facebook even existed. I think it's because they were given ample, clear warnings that their platform was being used to incite ethnic hatred and genocide, but chose to do nothing for years. I don't think they would be getting so nearly so much blame if they hadn't been so utterly negligent about the problem. They didn't even bother to translate their objectionable content reporting tools into Burmese until a few months ago, long after the persecution started. When you are repeatedly notified by human rights groups and the local government that your essentially unmoderated social network is being used to organize lynch mobs, you should either shut it down or hire enough moderators to control the problem.
- AndrewKemendo 8y ago
  The challenge of course, is multifaceted: 1. It's not a trivial problem to be able to identify what is hate speech in a regional dialect automatically 2. It sets a problematic precedent if Facebook throws 100s of - hard to find, hard to pay and hard to support - native language local reviewers at every place where Facebook could be abused. I'm no Facebook apologist, however I recognize how hard of a technical problem, and how it's equally a personnel management, prioritization and scaling problem. Facebook risks chasing every group that makes a loud enough noise, and then being criticized for it irrespective of what they do. No win situation.
  - ardy42 8y ago
    > It sets a problematic precedent if Facebook throws 100s of - hard to find, hard to pay and hard to support - native language local reviewers at every place where Facebook could be abused. In what way is that a problematic precedent? Their negligence contributed to ethnic cleansing and genocide. If a multi-billion dollar company is too cheap to hire local staff to watch its platform, it shouldn't operate a localized version for that place. They need to act responsibly. Think if it like product safety testing.
    - 8y ago

toomanybeersies 8y ago

There has been a big problem in India with lynch mobs being formed in Whatsapp groups, over various unsubstantiated rumours, including apparent child snatchers travelling through villages [1]. This raises an interesting cross section of moral issues. Obviously end-to-end encryption is good for a lot of reasons. But end-to-end encryption is one of the reasons that these lynchings have been able to happen. These kinds of lynchings have been going on forever, but Whatsapp and mobile phones have allowed these rumours to spread faster than ever before, and for mobs to form so much easier. Does the right to privacy outweigh people's right to travel without fear of being lynched? [1] https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-44856910 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-44856910

krasin 8y ago
>But end-to-end encryption is one of the reasons that these lynchings have been able to happen Have all participants of the lynchings being prosecuted? Enforcing civil and criminal codes is enough to stop them. There's no need to blame end-to-end encryption. It's not the tool, it's the people.
- pjc50 8y ago
  No, because the rule of law has largely collapsed and, like lynchings everywhere, they happen with the complicity of local law enforcement.
humbledrone 8y ago
Assuming that you agree that the government should not have the right to install mandatory CCTV cameras in private residences, where do you draw the line between that and eavesdropping on people's digital communications? What is it about digital communications that makes it reasonable for the government to listen in? I don't see any difference between the government CCTV in your bedroom and the Whatsapp case, except that Whatsapp could be spied upon much more cheaply and efficiently (were it not encrypted).
- mijamo 8y ago

woah 8y ago

Interestingly, this article is written from the perspective that Facebook is responsible for everything posted on its website.

seanmcdirmid 8y ago
This is actually an interesting question, from a legal standpoint anyways. I don't think Myanmar has a safe harbor exemption like the US does, they actually have some pretty heavy handed censorship laws on the books. However, Facebook doesn't even have an office in Myanmar, they aren't officially there, and without a GFW Myanmar can't really block Facebook (nor would the people be ok with that, as Facebook has already become the internet to many). Probably why Facebook won't be opening an office in Myanmar anytime soon, at least until they can sort these issues out and have some strong legs to stand on.
- repsilat 8y ago
  Linking this explicitly to safe harbour like you've done is important -- the knee-jerk response online is often to condemn Facebook for not policing content but to defend content hosters for not being able to filter out all instances of copyright violations. Maybe those positions are held by different people, and maybe there's some good-faith "make an effort" middleground, and maybe the standards should be different because nobody dies when someone pirates Westworld, but they're clearly analogous. If we do have different standards we should be able to back it up with argument, and try hard not to let how much we like the companies colour our judgement.
  - Nasrudith 8y ago
    Not to mention that the impossible remains so even in if it is for a good cause.
  - Kalium 8y ago
    The middle ground is a great place to be if you want to take fire from everyone. In terms of legal and regulatory risk, it's an incredibly hazardous place to be because it has few defenders and many attackers. Personally, I'm uncomfortable with the idea of demanding that megacorporations do censorship for us on whatever arbitrary standards they can be convinced are good.

jlebrech 8y ago

they are too busy cracking down on peaceful criticism of Islam in the west.

jlebrech 8y ago
down votes to this are proof the peaceful discussion is futile.
- sctb 8y ago
  We've asked you many times to please stop breaking the guidelines, so we've banned the account. We're happy to unban accounts if you email us at hn@ycombinator.com and we believe you'll start using the site as intended.

dingo_bat 8y ago

TL;DR shithole countries will stay shithole countries, regardless of any action or inaction from a social network website. It's not FB's job to enforce law and order in Myanmar, it's Myanmar's job.

sctb 8y ago
We've banned this account.

otterley 8y ago

Interesting that the project codename is “Honey Badger.” To me that connotes not caring less — you might remember this YouTube viral video from a few years ago: https://youtu.be/4r7wHMg5Yjg https://youtu.be/4r7wHMg5Yjg

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

BloodyHands 8y ago

Reuters is articulating an anti-American anti-Constitutional position. Why is Reuters doing this? There is no need to demand that American citizens flush their Constitution down the toilet, yet this is what Reuters plans, it plans to coerce the American people to the view that the Constitution of the USA is a gun that shoots hate speech. Reuters is an enemy of the people of the USA. Reuters attacks American values. Reuters uses clever tricks to manipulate American public opinion. In short, Reuters has demonstrated a HATRED of the American people and a HATRED of the Constitution of the USA. This means Reuters is NOT a reliable source of news, it is a reliable source of HATE. Reuters is a fire burning in a fireplace, and if it escapes, it will burn down the house of USA.

JohnClark1337 8y ago

Wet pavement causes rain.