5 ms·

> 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 am

by 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.
  - mango7283 8y ago
    Um wait you don't need a localised version of Facebook to type in a local language, you just need unfiltered internet... Or do you mean FB should prohibit sign ups from arbitrary countries?
    - yorwba 8y ago
      Just yesterday I watched a Chinese woman on a flight from Beijing to Moscow struggle with the onboard entertainment system because it was only available in Russian and English, and I realized how much shared cultural context is necessary to operate even simple apps in a foreign language. If Facebook didn't have a version localized to Burmese, it would never have gotten widespread enough in Myanmar to be a significant part of the problem.
- charlesism 8y ago
  > It's not a trivial problem to be able to > identify what is hate speech in a regional > dialect automatically This sentiment, which I read repeatedly, really irritates me. Most of us program here. It's not that hard a problem! When social media execs claim it is, what they really mean is "it's a hard problem to solve for us, because we are unwilling to risk losing any percentage of account sign-ups ever, under any circumstances." The irony is that they are so timid about their precious sign-ups that they act against their own interest. For example, YouTube won't risk a short term dip in user retention metrics to scrub garbage from their comments... even though doing so would likely greatly increase sign-ups in the long term.
  - LoSboccacc 8y ago
    natural language processing is like one of the hardest problems that's left to crack, don't be so dismissive about it i.e: "get rid of all black people" "get rid of all black people unemployment problems" "get rid of all black people unemployment problems sending them back to Africa" this can be expanded almost infinitely in every direction, and we're not even beginning with the false positive problems. "I hate black cars" so no, it's not just a claim that it's an hard problem.
    - charlesism 8y ago
      > natural language processing is like one > of the hardest problems that's left to crack You don't need to "crack it" or come anywhere remotely near to a perfect solution. False positives are okay, providing you accept that some percent of your users won't tolerate the errors, and will leave your platform. And we're talking about social networks. So there's a wealth of additional information (ie: who you follow. previous behavior. who has reported you. account age) beyond plain text to augment this. And there's the setting of policy (eg: how come I can post within an hour of signing up on most social networks?). The point is, what we have now on most social networks is not geared toward long-term customer satisfaction or the public good. It's geared toward medium-term account retention at any cost - regardless of whether the accounts are bots, sock puppets, or trolls.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
seanmcdirmid 8y ago
They never really entered the Myanmar market in a serious way before recently: they probably did the localization work long before Myanmar had widespread internet (which was recent, I think in 2014 or 2015?), focusing mostly on some Burmese expats. It was probably considered to be a minor thing and they didn't follow up aggressively when the political situation in Myanmar changed rapidly, thinking they could just continue supporting Burmese language like they were doing for 10 years previously. Ya, that is neglectful, but accusing them of aiding in inciting racial hatred and genocide is disingenuous.
helloindia 8y ago
I recently reported a post made in a regional language(language for which I'm sure Facebook doesn't have any translator/interpreter) as hate speech. I got a response from Facebook saying the said post doesn't violate Facebook's community guideline.
- verbify 8y ago
  What language was that? I'm sceptical they couldn't find a translator.
  - lawlessone 8y ago
    I'm skeptical they would bother even if they could. At the best they probably machine learning translated it and have no idea what the text really meant.
- LoSboccacc 8y ago
  they only care if they can get sued for it: that's why for example anti-white hate speech is not actioned. people love to think it's a global conspiracy but the reality is much simpler, they don't define hate speech, laws do. unless they are at risk for litigation, they won't remove posts.
  - amanaplanacanal 8y ago
    I disagree with this assessment. They are a business, and they are going to treat it as a business decision. If we allow the speech in question, will it get us more eyeballs, or will it drive away eyeballs? Will the speech in question threaten our advertising market? This is how they are going to make their decisions.
imgabe 8y ago
If the lynch mobs were being organized over the telephone, would it be the telephone company's responsibility to intercept the communications and stop it? If not, what makes Facebook different? Do we want Facebook to be the arbiter of what we are allowed to say to each other, or do we want them to be a neutral carrier for communications?
- aleksei 8y ago
  > Do we want Facebook to be the arbiter of what we are allowed to say to each other, or do we want them to be a neutral carrier for communications? Facebook is a private entity that can do as they please. It most certainly is not a neutral carrier for communications, and to treat it as such is foolish.
  - madengr 8y ago
    Why can’t it be neutral? The data is flowing over the same public right-of-ways and spectrum as voice communication? The phone companies are also private.
  - a_tractor 8y ago
    It is publicly accessible. You do not need an account to view "public" pages and posts. Anybody can get an account in order to interact with it if they want to. It is a publicly accessible platform that allows for public and private for communication, that happens to be owned and maintained by a for-profit, publicly traded organization. I really have a hard time understanding how the few areas in which Facebook as an entity is private outweighs the many areas in which it is not.
- jakelazaroff 8y ago
  > what makes Facebook different? The content in question isn't private messages, it's public (and shareable!) posts. We would absolutely expect, for example, the New York Times to disallow classified ads organizing lynch mobs.
  - imgabe 8y ago

by ardy42 8y ago

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.
- mango7283 8y ago
  Um wait you don't need a localised version of Facebook to type in a local language, you just need unfiltered internet... Or do you mean FB should prohibit sign ups from arbitrary countries?
  - yorwba 8y ago
    Just yesterday I watched a Chinese woman on a flight from Beijing to Moscow struggle with the onboard entertainment system because it was only available in Russian and English, and I realized how much shared cultural context is necessary to operate even simple apps in a foreign language. If Facebook didn't have a version localized to Burmese, it would never have gotten widespread enough in Myanmar to be a significant part of the problem.
charlesism 8y ago
> It's not a trivial problem to be able to > identify what is hate speech in a regional > dialect automatically This sentiment, which I read repeatedly, really irritates me. Most of us program here. It's not that hard a problem! When social media execs claim it is, what they really mean is "it's a hard problem to solve for us, because we are unwilling to risk losing any percentage of account sign-ups ever, under any circumstances." The irony is that they are so timid about their precious sign-ups that they act against their own interest. For example, YouTube won't risk a short term dip in user retention metrics to scrub garbage from their comments... even though doing so would likely greatly increase sign-ups in the long term.
- LoSboccacc 8y ago
  natural language processing is like one of the hardest problems that's left to crack, don't be so dismissive about it i.e: "get rid of all black people" "get rid of all black people unemployment problems" "get rid of all black people unemployment problems sending them back to Africa" this can be expanded almost infinitely in every direction, and we're not even beginning with the false positive problems. "I hate black cars" so no, it's not just a claim that it's an hard problem.
  - charlesism 8y ago
    > natural language processing is like one > of the hardest problems that's left to crack You don't need to "crack it" or come anywhere remotely near to a perfect solution. False positives are okay, providing you accept that some percent of your users won't tolerate the errors, and will leave your platform. And we're talking about social networks. So there's a wealth of additional information (ie: who you follow. previous behavior. who has reported you. account age) beyond plain text to augment this. And there's the setting of policy (eg: how come I can post within an hour of signing up on most social networks?). The point is, what we have now on most social networks is not geared toward long-term customer satisfaction or the public good. It's geared toward medium-term account retention at any cost - regardless of whether the accounts are bots, sock puppets, or trolls.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

seanmcdirmid 8y ago

They never really entered the Myanmar market in a serious way before recently: they probably did the localization work long before Myanmar had widespread internet (which was recent, I think in 2014 or 2015?), focusing mostly on some Burmese expats. It was probably considered to be a minor thing and they didn't follow up aggressively when the political situation in Myanmar changed rapidly, thinking they could just continue supporting Burmese language like they were doing for 10 years previously. Ya, that is neglectful, but accusing them of aiding in inciting racial hatred and genocide is disingenuous.

helloindia 8y ago

I recently reported a post made in a regional language(language for which I'm sure Facebook doesn't have any translator/interpreter) as hate speech. I got a response from Facebook saying the said post doesn't violate Facebook's community guideline.

verbify 8y ago
What language was that? I'm sceptical they couldn't find a translator.
- lawlessone 8y ago
  I'm skeptical they would bother even if they could. At the best they probably machine learning translated it and have no idea what the text really meant.
LoSboccacc 8y ago
they only care if they can get sued for it: that's why for example anti-white hate speech is not actioned. people love to think it's a global conspiracy but the reality is much simpler, they don't define hate speech, laws do. unless they are at risk for litigation, they won't remove posts.
- amanaplanacanal 8y ago
  I disagree with this assessment. They are a business, and they are going to treat it as a business decision. If we allow the speech in question, will it get us more eyeballs, or will it drive away eyeballs? Will the speech in question threaten our advertising market? This is how they are going to make their decisions.

imgabe 8y ago

If the lynch mobs were being organized over the telephone, would it be the telephone company's responsibility to intercept the communications and stop it? If not, what makes Facebook different? Do we want Facebook to be the arbiter of what we are allowed to say to each other, or do we want them to be a neutral carrier for communications?

aleksei 8y ago
> Do we want Facebook to be the arbiter of what we are allowed to say to each other, or do we want them to be a neutral carrier for communications? Facebook is a private entity that can do as they please. It most certainly is not a neutral carrier for communications, and to treat it as such is foolish.
- madengr 8y ago
  Why can’t it be neutral? The data is flowing over the same public right-of-ways and spectrum as voice communication? The phone companies are also private.
- a_tractor 8y ago
  It is publicly accessible. You do not need an account to view "public" pages and posts. Anybody can get an account in order to interact with it if they want to. It is a publicly accessible platform that allows for public and private for communication, that happens to be owned and maintained by a for-profit, publicly traded organization. I really have a hard time understanding how the few areas in which Facebook as an entity is private outweighs the many areas in which it is not.
jakelazaroff 8y ago
> what makes Facebook different? The content in question isn't private messages, it's public (and shareable!) posts. We would absolutely expect, for example, the New York Times to disallow classified ads organizing lynch mobs.
- imgabe 8y ago