4 ms·
No, that’s a lie. The local junta used Facebook like they would have used any convenient mode of communication. Facebook wasn’t able to detect it because of a
by bertil 6y ago
No, that’s a lie.
The local junta used Facebook like they would have used any convenient mode of communication. Facebook wasn’t able to detect it because of a complex issue involving automated translation of non-Ascii languages. They were concerning reports and the relevant team reached out to their contact in the country, the wife of a senior executive and _a Nobel prize recipient_ who both personally denied that anything wrong was happening.
The company scrambled to get more context but didn’t have translators willing to tell them the truth because… well there’s an uncomfortable correlation between people speaking Burmese and people who thing Rohingya deserve respect.
As soon as the reality was clear, the company acknowledged that they made a mistake in trusting local authorities, not investing more in non-standard software tools and piled on their investment on detecting such project.
You can compare that to how much Toyota cares about their logo being at the back on the technical on every photo featuring genocidal warlords and terrorist groups.
- mike00632 6y agoYou're making excuses. Facebook didn't hire translators even though they were profiting off the genocide. They didn't cut off services. It wasn't just the military but nationalist Buddhists were outing their neighbors, doxxing them as Rohingya, condemning them to death via Facebook. And for you to suggest that Facebook shouldn't be held responsible for their actions because other tech companies would do the same, is lazy and dishonest. The fact is that the genocide was lead by Facebook, not some other tech company, and I will keep reminding people of this event every time some apologist tries to ignore what happened.