12 ms·
Ethnic violence in Ethiopia has been supercharged by hate speech on Facebook
- quantified 6y agoA big problem with freeing up communications from everybody is how toxic some people and groups will be to others. Facebook is just a mirror, a fun-house mirror that magnifies some things and minimizes others, but it's not adding the content. Some "information" is best kept under wraps.
- sharadov 6y agoIt gives voice to nut job fringe elements and brings them together in echo chambers. All bad stuff, someone has to shut this monstrosity down. It is out of control. The regulation BS will not work because it's become way too big to monitor and control.
- CountSessine 6y agoIt isn't nut job fringe elements that commit genocide - in Rwanda, Bosnia, and Cambodia it was thousands and thousands of people - ordinary people - who either cooperated and enabled or sometimes even picked up machetes and guns to participate in the genocide. I don't feel like this is a facebook problem (although I wouldn't object to shutting them down - as long as we kill that other cancer, Twitter, too). I think this is a people-with-poor-education problem.
- MrMan 6y agoExactly this. However, smart people are manipulated by the illusion of individual choice and their ability make above-average decisions. Less intelligent people are manipulated through slightly different mechanisms, but intelligent people are enlisted just as surely, and their confidence in their own unique individual attributes creates a trap. We are social animals. Libertarianism is simply the will to power, not a an expression of truth. Every genocide is portrayed as a unique accident, but they follow the same gamelan. Facebook is literally a crowd control mechanism and it works no matter how smart you think you are.
- dane-pgp 6y ago> it was thousands and thousands of people - ordinary people ... > I think this is a people-with-poor-education problem. Do you think that German adults in the 1930s had poor education?
- mr_toad 6y agoFrom what I’ve read, the violence that ultimately lead to Hitlers grab for power was mostly between rank and file brownshirts and communists: young, working class males who were stirred up by the exact same sort of deliberate misinformation that is propagating in social networks today.
- rexpop 6y ago> nut job fringe elements This is not, to the best of my understanding, what's actually happening. Such elements are actively cultivated and their reach is facilitated by powerful benefactors. It's not a natural phenomenon. Right-wing populism must be bred and right-wing terrorists must be groomed. It's not simply an inevitable development of environmental factors, e.g. "the shape of the room," or the structure of online discourse. It's a deliberate campaign. These grooming networks are not organic. 1. https://datasociety.net/library/alternative-influence/ https://datasociety.net/library/alternative-influence/ 2. https://datasociety.net/library/media-manipulation-and-disinfo-online/ https://datasociety.net/library/media-manipulation-and-disin...
- sharadov 6y agoI agree that they are being bred. Just like the Tea Party was not a collection of frustrated people tired of the system, like it was painted, but rather a party propped up by wealthy right wing interests. I just think that a platform like FB or Twitter makes it absurdly easy to do it.
- UncleOxidant 6y agoI'm in my late 50s so I recall news in the 70s. There were basically 3 networks (ABC, NBC, CBS) and if there was a slant, they all had the same slant. There wasn't right-wing news and left-wing news there was just news. Sure, there were fringe elements like the John Birch Society, but they were considered so far out of the mainstream that they weren't even on most people's radar. We also still had the Fairness Doctrine. Now the fringe conspiracy theorists have huge followings. There's a very deep epistemic gap between the various factions of society. The possibility that this will spin out of control - especially since we have a leader who seems to want to fan the flames of division - is terrifying. Case in point: The Oregon fires are happening in the politically Redder part of the state, but many not too far from Portland. There are rumors going around in those Red areas that "left wingers" and BLM started the fires. Folks in those areas are generally very well armed. If those rumors get traction (and from looking through social media they seem to be) and people think that the folks on the left burned down their houses and towns... it's not gonna be pretty. We've already had trouble with right-wing groups showing up in Portland looking for a fight on several occasions and the police don't seem to be inclined to try to reign them in probably because these groups are so well armed. At this point I'd just as soon see FB, Twitter, et al shut down before this gets ugly. But I also suspect they'll find other outlets on the internet for spreading conspiracy theories.
- schreiaj 6y agoThe issue is that Facebook is not simply a mirror, it’s one of those infinity mirrors. It doesn’t just let people spread their opinions it helps you find others with similar views. And then because those views align with your own you engage more so it reinforces the algorithm. It’s a positive feedback loop. (Positive in the sense that the relationship between input and output is not inverted)
- rexpop 6y ago> Facebook is just a mirror This is an echo of the "dumb pipes" argument, which characterizes social media as neutral carriers of both harmless and harmful content. While I recognize that harmful ideology originate outside of Facebook, it's really unhelpful to deny that in Facebook's capacity as "a fun-house mirror that magnifies some things and minimizes others" it's really very deliberately shaping the discourse, the zeitgeist and, as such, political reality. We don't know the algorithm's ultimate purpose. It is, inevitably, biased. What biases Facebook management has decreed (and how closely its implementation hews) is an unknown to those of us on the outside. But it's certainly not, at this point an accident. Whenever discussing algorithmic bias, I am always reminded of the old programming koan: 1. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10970937 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10970937
- jnwatson 6y agoI think one of the reasons why folks are mad at Facebook is it uncovered the uncomfortable truth that freedom of speech is not a first-order good. I used to be a free speech maximalist, but it is clear that lack of education and aggressive state-actor PsyOps is simply too high a hurdle to overcome. I wouldn't be surprised if when historians look back in 50 years, that they determine that the Pandora's box of free information interchange from the Internet hastened the end of free society.
- loceng 6y agoFreedom of speech vs. freedom of reach.
- jnwatson 6y agospeech x money = reach. The Supreme Court of the US decided that freedom of speech implies freedom of reach, including the financial means to do so.
- chrisco255 6y agoIt's really the same thing. Freedom of the press is also right there in the First Amendment, implying the right to reach an audience with a message.
- dane-pgp 6y agoAt least with the press, historically, the editor was a human being (generally with a known set of allegiances), rather than an algorithm; and people had to pay for their news, which kept the publisher accountable. If people had multiple (interoperable) Facebooks to choose from, and had to pay for them based on how often they visited the site, I imagine the news / social media landscape would look a lot different.
- swiley 6y agoFacebook intentionally suggests posts that raise engagement, these push people to outrage. Facebook is curated, it’s on the oposite side of the spectrum from free.
- COGlory 6y agoThis is the biggest issue, and hopefully will gain more eyeballs. This isn't a fair fight of the rational vs irrational in open discourse. Facebook has intentionally stacked the deck in favor of the irrational and amplified them artificially because it's correlative with "engagement". This isn't an organic outcome that just happens to be mediated by Facebook because it's the agora of our times. This is an unintended (I hope) side effect of a business model that intentionally skirts the line between inflammatory and violent because it also happens to be where maximum profit resides. And it was intentional, strategic, and extremely powerful.
- laretluval 6y agoEngaging content spreads even if it isn't boosted. That's what engaging means. Facebook's algorithms might amplify the dynamic, but by how much?
- COGlory 6y agoWe don't know, and we may never. But we do know it's not a fair fight. The amount of psychologists and scientists Facebook actively employs is absolutely staggering [0]. The most educated person in a western country, with expendable income, hobbies, and endless sources of pleasure stands no chance. Someone in Ethiopia who is actually feeling the stresses of conflict and poverty? This isn't some accidental outcome of Facebook. Every data point suggests Facebook designed their system from the ground up to maximize it. [0] https://www.glassdoor.com/Jobs/Facebook-psychology-Jobs-EI_IE40772.0,8_KO9,19.htm https://www.glassdoor.com/Jobs/Facebook-psychology-Jobs-EI_I...
- laretluval 6y agoThe fact that they're trying to optimize doesn't mean that it's effective. Psychologists don't know much.
- qwerty456127 6y ago> A big problem with freeing up communications from everybody is how toxic some people and groups will be to others. Another big problem is how stupid and violent many people are - enough to take Internet bullshit serious and kill people. I would only allow people into the Internet after they get educated and pass a test of not taking ANYTHING they find there too serious.
- soneca 6y agoI disagree. I believe Facebook profits from hate speech, this incentivizing is spread. I don’t buy that Facebook is merely a mirror and just reflecting what is already there. I believe is promoting and making stronger this kind of behaviors.
- rbecker 6y agoI see that, unlike the US, Ethiopia has yet to learn how to draw strength from their diversity. A lesson the Balkans likewise failed to learn before their run in with ethnic cleansing and, later, splitting into separate countries.
- AnimalMuppet 6y agoI'm not sure whether that was sarcasm, but the US isn't doing great at drawing strength from diversity either at the moment. (It may still be doing better than Ethiopia, but the US is not a shining example of how to do it, at least right now.)
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- shard972 6y agoWhat is a good example of a country drawing strength from diversity?
- krapp 6y agoJust tell the Ethiopians that the solution to hate speech is more speech, and that censorship is a fate worse than death. I'm sure everything will be fine.
- konjin 6y agoSounds good, we will just hide the fact that the genocide ever happened and arrest anyone who says it did for Anti-Ethopian-ness. As is the case in Turkey.
- krapp 6y agoVigorous Lincoln-Douglas style debates will sort everything out, not to worry.
- konjin 6y agoYes they will. That you're unable to defend your ideas because they are "obvious" is unfortunate and a danger to any society where people like you make up the majority. You like minorities today, tomorrow who knows, you might burn some books, or stores, or people. Depends how you feel like, because consistency is a tool of white supremacy.
- MrMan 6y agoNot doing violence Not calling for violence Should be obvious. I don't want to debate antisocial gangs out for power- I want to be protected from their violence.
- konjin 6y agoDriving cars is violence on pedestrian bodies. I don't want to debate antisocial car gangs out for blood, I want them locked up where they can't hurt anyone else with their murder machines.
- captainredbeard 6y agoDoes Facebook cause this or does it simply fuel the fire that was already raging? I think you could argue either one.
- AnimalMuppet 6y agoFacebook amplifies it. It (probably) was already there, but Facebook can take it from a simmer to a boil... or from a boil to a bloodbath.
- captainredbeard 6y agoDoes it amplify it or just speed up the natural course of what would otherwise happen?
- AnimalMuppet 6y agoWould everyone, say, be angry anyway? Probably. Would everyone be angry enough to take to the streets with guns and clubs? Probably not (or at least in much fewer numbers).
- Barrin92 6y agoThe correct way to reason about this is stochastically. Facebook/unchecked mass communication increases the rate and chance that resentment turns into a mob or violent action. It's rather meaningless to debate the causality of individual cases, but more important to look at the effect in a broad sense. Also the question to your answer is likely both, as in there's a feedback loop between real world violence, causing more conflict on social media, fuelling yet more violence.
- megaman821 6y ago> Facebook/unchecked mass communication increases the rate and chance that resentment turns into a mob or violent action. Is there any evidence of this? Do you have any research showing the correlation of the rise in Facebook to increased mob violence in the world. The world has actually enjoyed a few decades of low violence compared to the historic mean.
- m0zg 6y agoYou don't need to go all the way to Ethiopia to see the harm. Hate speech on Facebook and Twitter is pushing United States dangerously close to civil war, too. People have literally died in this country because of social media radicalization. Perhaps amplifying the fringes wasn't such a swell idea after all.
- baryphonic 6y agoWhich people have died because of social media radicalization?
- MrMan 6y agoMost recently ones shot by 17 y.o. militia kid
- baryphonic 6y agoYou mean the 17 y.o. kid chased by an angry mob? The one who shot three people attacking him?[1] Your comment is ambiguous as to whom you are referring, but based on the evidence, I don't think the 17 y.o. kid was the radicalized one. I've also seen no evidence that any of the people involved are/were particularly active on social media (although the one who lived allegedly told his friend he wishes he emptied his entire gun into the 17 y.o.).[2] I also haven't seen any evidence that the 17 y.o. was in a militia (he apparently worked as a life guard), but maybe there is some. This sort of proves my point, though: social media has "radicalized" people into believing claims that lack a factual basis and serve a particular narrative. But this is mostly perpetrated by members of the traditional press, not ordinary social media users. If anything, social media has only radicalized people by privileging members of the traditional press at the expense of the random people, no matter how crazy they are. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ro8hkfBDVw&bpctr=1600132912 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ro8hkfBDVw&bpctr=1600132912 [2] https://mobile.twitter.com/mrandyngo/status/1299086141329563648/photo/1 https://mobile.twitter.com/mrandyngo/status/1299086141329563...
- StellarTabi 6y ago
- aaron695 6y ago> Hate Speech on Facebook I despise the way Vice has to make such an important topic "Woke" They are using dead Ethiopia's in a genocide for their own agenda. Could they not turn it off and be centrist for such an important topic. I was interested how Rwanda was referred to, specifically cockroaches and radio at the time. Some people did refer to it as hate speech - 1996 - https://www.article19.org/data/files/pdfs/publications/rwanda-broadcasting-genocide.pdf https://www.article19.org/data/files/pdfs/publications/rwand... Hate media was also popular when referring to the incident.
- BurningFrog 6y agoI think the ancient wisdom apples here: Don't shoot the Messenger!
- dr_dshiv 6y agoYeah, but shooting the UX designer seems apropos... Facebook design specifically impairs reasonable discourse.
- marticode 6y agoThe messenger here goes out of its way to push engagement and spread content that cause outrage and anger, while encouraging that anger to bounce and amplify into echo chambers.
- _emacsomancer_ 6y agoWhen the messenger is a bad faith agent, you probably need some way of making sure they don't pass any more messages.
- dominotw 6y agothere are just way too many people on a warming earth. This is going to get ugly real fast, real soon.
- imgabe 6y ago1st amendment advocates are soon going to be put in the same position as 2nd amendment advocates to retain any semblance of freedom. Speech doesn't kill people. People kill people. Blaming this on Facebook instead of the people swinging the machetes is not going to solve the problem.
- bfieidhbrjr 6y agoNormally I'd agree but there's something weird about social media that brings out the worst in people. It's kind of automatically polarizing and divisive.
- mr_toad 6y agoPart of the problem is the exclusive nature of the social graphs. Suddenly the world is full of cliques, cabals and clandestine societies.
- ganoushoreilly 6y agoI think the factor Social media misses is the get popped in the mouth factor. People have always spewed trash, though they dealt with the responses of others "popping them in the mouth". Social media / the internet as a whole, allows you to say and do things without any real fear of repercussion in the real world. That definitely doesn't help. Compound that by the ease of which we all can fall into an echo chamber, only hearing the ideals we seek out, and it's risky for sure. The dopamine fix of winning in arguments or commentary through the various gamification definitely feed an unhealthy addiction.
- MikusR 6y agoIt's the same thing that turns protesters into looters and rioters.
- bashinator 6y agoDo you think the second amendment should provide for an individual right to own nuclear arms?
- ilamont 6y agoFacebook being used to inflame ethnic hatred in poor countries was big news several years ago in Myanmar. Via https://www.lawfareblog.com/facebooks-role-genocide-myanmar-new-reporting-complicates-narrative https://www.lawfareblog.com/facebooks-role-genocide-myanmar-... Alongside this developing body of evidence and consensus about the crimes that have been committed in Myanmar, debate has raged over Facebook’s role in these events. In recent months, Facebook has taken steps to accept its role and responsibility. In a surprising concession before the Senate intelligence committee in September 2018, Chief Operating Officer Sheryl Sandberg even accepted that Facebook may have a legal obligation to take down accounts that incentivize violence in countries like Myanmar. Sandberg called the situation “devastating” and acknowledged that the company needed to do more, but highlighted that Facebook had put increased resources behind being able to review content in Burmese. Note that Facebook was aware the problem of being unable to review content in Burmese several years ago. The new Vice article points out that the same pattern is repeating itself in other parts of the world, and Facebook can't even handle the basics of translating its own community guidelines. How hard can that be for a company with Facebook's resources?
- jxramos 6y agoDidn't realize machetes were such a prevalent thing to contend with over there. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MJq_Wqw0a0o&lc=UgxRTCqLVWkWDWppCX14AaABAg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MJq_Wqw0a0o&lc=UgxRTCqLVWkWD...
- kyleee 6y agoAre there any groups fighting for knife control? Seems like a machete ban may be sensible
- hyperion2010 6y agoThis happened after the invention of the printing press as well. Pamphlets and broadsides recounting (often fictitious) atrocities committed by protestant against catholic and catholic against protestant were circulated widely before and during the 30 years war. We figured out how to prevent that from happening again with print media. We don't have to start from scratch with digital media, but it sure feels like no one is paying attention to what happened last time.
- jojobas 6y agoThere is a counteracting technology known as borders.
- Thorrez 6y agoI'm a bit confused. The government shut down the internet for 2 weeks and it sounds like the violence ramped up at that point. The volunteer facebook moderators couldn't access it due to the shutdown. Were the violent attackers able to access facebook?