7 ms·

Does Facebook cause this or does it simply fuel the fire that was already raging? I think you could argue either one.

AnimalMuppet 6y ago
Facebook 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 ago
  Does it amplify it or just speed up the natural course of what would otherwise happen?
  - AnimalMuppet 6y ago
    Would 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 ago
The 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.
  - Barrin92 6y ago
    The genocide of the Rohingya in Myanmar is probable the clearest example, which Facebook has even acknowledged itself[1], after a UN fact-finding mission investigated the relationship between social media and the racist sentiment in the country[2] "The Mission has examined documents, publications, statements, Facebook posts and audio-visual materials that have contributed to shaping public opinion on the Rohingya and Muslims more generally. The analysis demonstrates that a carefully crafted hate campaign has developed a negative perception of Muslims among the broad population in Myanmar. This campaign has been the work of a few key players: nationalistic political parties and politicians, leading monks, academics, prominent individuals and members of the Government. This hate campaign, which continues to the present day, portrays the Rohingya and other Muslims as an existential threat to Myanmar and to Buddhism" I'm not even sure I can take the second point in good faith. Violence having decreased compared to historical high points has literally nothing to say on whether social media itself causes violence. Other factors can easily explain an overall decline, which obviously is not uniform. If you live in one of the countries in which social media is used as a means to instigate genocides, I can tell you that more safety in a US city will matter very little to you. [1]https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/06/technology/myanmar-facebook.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/06/technology/myanmar-facebo... [2]https://www.ohchr.org/Documents/HRBodies/HRCouncil/FFM-Myanmar/A_HRC_39_CRP.2.pdf https://www.ohchr.org/Documents/HRBodies/HRCouncil/FFM-Myanm...
    - megaman821 6y ago
      You have basically responded with an ancidote. Nearly all forms of media can and have contributed to violence. What evidence is there that Facebook is especially noxious? Facebook isn't especially old, I remember a world pre-Facebook book and we still had things hate and violence in roughly the same proportion. Furthermore did the lack of Facebook produce better outcomes for Muslims in China? The world is complicated place, the answer probably isn't as simple as "Facebook is bad".
      - Barrin92 6y ago
        A case study of a nation-wide butchering of more than 24000 people is not an anecdote. If that's not enough then I'm not sure what sort of evidence it is you're looking for. And again, the issue is not the state of violence in the world or just Facebook, which is why I used 'social media' more generally at the end of my last post, it's the ways in which those companies uniquely contribute to violence. You don't need to be responsible for all violence in the world to be held accountable for the violence you cause. The fact that the world is complicated and violent doesn't absolve actors from their responsibility. Social media is quite unique in many ways. From mass bot-networks to influence campaigns that disguise themselves as bottom-up, to speed and virality that no other medium has, to lack of accountability and the ease at which information moves cross borders and enables nefarious states to conduct sabotage. And China is not a good example either. It's probably the prime example of a country that has used digital technologies, including social media, to build a dystopian surveillance network, including on Uyghurs, that could not otherwise function.
konjin 6y ago
Have there been genocides before facebook? That should answer your question.
- ALittleLight 6y ago
  Really we need to ask about the frequency and intensity of genocides before Facebook or without facebook availability. E.g. if we could find proxy countries, like ethiopia but with more, less, or no Facebook use, we could compare genocides in each country. Maybe take "communication" instead of just Facebook so we could go further back in history if there is a good way to objectively measure how much communication is happening. Hard task for sure, but I'd be interested in reading about it if anyone has done so.
  - thysultan 6y ago
    The radio facilitated in the rwanda genocide, and is probably a bigger influence than facebook, as far as last-mile delivery of information is concerned.
  - b_ocu 6y ago
    Facebook isn't in China right now.
throwawaynothx 6y ago
Being in the spotlight means getting burnt.
rdiddly 6y ago
I'm sure it's not helping, let's put it that way. If they have, as some suggest, any ambitions toward nation-state-hood, they are proving daily that they're not cut out for it.
MrMan 6y ago
Ted nugent was not able to get regular Midwestern moms and dads to "like" his civil war calls to arms in the tens of thousands before social media
- COGlory 6y ago
  What does liking something actually accomplish, though? And how do we compare it to pre-social media? How do we know those people didn't already have that preference, but had no medium to express it, and so no one knew it existed?

Facebook 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 ago
Does it amplify it or just speed up the natural course of what would otherwise happen?
- AnimalMuppet 6y ago
  Would 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 ago

The 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.
- Barrin92 6y ago
  The genocide of the Rohingya in Myanmar is probable the clearest example, which Facebook has even acknowledged itself[1], after a UN fact-finding mission investigated the relationship between social media and the racist sentiment in the country[2] "The Mission has examined documents, publications, statements, Facebook posts and audio-visual materials that have contributed to shaping public opinion on the Rohingya and Muslims more generally. The analysis demonstrates that a carefully crafted hate campaign has developed a negative perception of Muslims among the broad population in Myanmar. This campaign has been the work of a few key players: nationalistic political parties and politicians, leading monks, academics, prominent individuals and members of the Government. This hate campaign, which continues to the present day, portrays the Rohingya and other Muslims as an existential threat to Myanmar and to Buddhism" I'm not even sure I can take the second point in good faith. Violence having decreased compared to historical high points has literally nothing to say on whether social media itself causes violence. Other factors can easily explain an overall decline, which obviously is not uniform. If you live in one of the countries in which social media is used as a means to instigate genocides, I can tell you that more safety in a US city will matter very little to you. [1]https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/06/technology/myanmar-facebook.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/06/technology/myanmar-facebo... [2]https://www.ohchr.org/Documents/HRBodies/HRCouncil/FFM-Myanmar/A_HRC_39_CRP.2.pdf https://www.ohchr.org/Documents/HRBodies/HRCouncil/FFM-Myanm...
  - megaman821 6y ago
    You have basically responded with an ancidote. Nearly all forms of media can and have contributed to violence. What evidence is there that Facebook is especially noxious? Facebook isn't especially old, I remember a world pre-Facebook book and we still had things hate and violence in roughly the same proportion. Furthermore did the lack of Facebook produce better outcomes for Muslims in China? The world is complicated place, the answer probably isn't as simple as "Facebook is bad".
    - Barrin92 6y ago
      A case study of a nation-wide butchering of more than 24000 people is not an anecdote. If that's not enough then I'm not sure what sort of evidence it is you're looking for. And again, the issue is not the state of violence in the world or just Facebook, which is why I used 'social media' more generally at the end of my last post, it's the ways in which those companies uniquely contribute to violence. You don't need to be responsible for all violence in the world to be held accountable for the violence you cause. The fact that the world is complicated and violent doesn't absolve actors from their responsibility. Social media is quite unique in many ways. From mass bot-networks to influence campaigns that disguise themselves as bottom-up, to speed and virality that no other medium has, to lack of accountability and the ease at which information moves cross borders and enables nefarious states to conduct sabotage. And China is not a good example either. It's probably the prime example of a country that has used digital technologies, including social media, to build a dystopian surveillance network, including on Uyghurs, that could not otherwise function.

konjin 6y ago

Have there been genocides before facebook? That should answer your question.

ALittleLight 6y ago
Really we need to ask about the frequency and intensity of genocides before Facebook or without facebook availability. E.g. if we could find proxy countries, like ethiopia but with more, less, or no Facebook use, we could compare genocides in each country. Maybe take "communication" instead of just Facebook so we could go further back in history if there is a good way to objectively measure how much communication is happening. Hard task for sure, but I'd be interested in reading about it if anyone has done so.
- thysultan 6y ago
  The radio facilitated in the rwanda genocide, and is probably a bigger influence than facebook, as far as last-mile delivery of information is concerned.
- b_ocu 6y ago
  Facebook isn't in China right now.

throwawaynothx 6y ago

Being in the spotlight means getting burnt.

rdiddly 6y ago

I'm sure it's not helping, let's put it that way. If they have, as some suggest, any ambitions toward nation-state-hood, they are proving daily that they're not cut out for it.

MrMan 6y ago

Ted nugent was not able to get regular Midwestern moms and dads to "like" his civil war calls to arms in the tens of thousands before social media

COGlory 6y ago
What does liking something actually accomplish, though? And how do we compare it to pre-social media? How do we know those people didn't already have that preference, but had no medium to express it, and so no one knew it existed?