6 ms·

Did facebook _cause_ it? Or would it have happened anyway? Lynchings have happened frequently throughout human history, long before the invention of facebook.

by gretch 4y ago

Did facebook _cause_ it? Or would it have happened anyway? Lynchings have happened frequently throughout human history, long before the invention of facebook. Racism and ethnic hatred have always been there. To me this is like saying 'well the guy who killed him was wearing nike shoes, nike caused his death'. It's pretty clear to me that if he didn't have nike shoes, he would have done the same things wearing any other pair of shoes.

lostmsu 4y ago
Nike shoes actually could save your life if you need to leg for it.
reaperducer 4y ago
Did facebook _cause_ it? Or would it have happened anyway? Hair splitting. "Guns don't kill people. Bullets do!"
tsol 4y ago
Facebook allowed them to disseminate information leading to his murder. You can theorize all day about whether you think it would have happened anyways, but that doesn't really add any facts to the case.
- gretch 4y ago
  The concept of a controlled experiment is quite important to scientific discovery and obtaining new knowledge. What you just said is pretty equivalent to saying: When the moon is full, there is more murder. Therefore full moons must be contributing to violence. No need to theorize what happened when there's not a full moon, that's not adding any facts to the case!
  - jeromegv 4y ago
    His fucking address and call for murder was shared 50,000 times. And here you are, parroting the idea of controlled experiment and wanting to discuss scientific discovery. This is someone's life we are talking about. Clearly it is a failure in moderation policy. This type of thing would not have happened in the US.
    - saint_fiasco 4y ago
      > This type of thing would not have happened in the US That's because the real police would intervene, not because murderers are afraid of social media moderators. That said, I do believe that if Ethiopian law enforcement can't (won't?) handle their murderous mobs, they should censor their social media until they can figure out what is going on. And foreign social media companies should cooperate with them. But the initiative has to come from Ethiopia.
    - gretch 4y ago
      Your saying that I’m missing an obvious point about the 50k shares, and I think your missing the even more obvious backdrop that this took place amidst a civil war! Is this the only guy that died in this civil war? Did fb cause the civil war?
    - PeterisP 4y ago
      > His fucking address and call for murder was shared 50,000 times. That still doesn't mean that the medium for sharing caused the murder or is responsible for it. This is one of cases where intent and/or explicit action is required for both moral and legal culpablity - simply doing nothing may be an asshole thing to do, but it doesn't make you an accomplice in a crime, and if you do try assisting by moderating but are bad at it and fail sometimes, that's definitely not being an accomplice, because there is no duty to be perfect at that; a failure in moderation policy is just that - a failure in moderation policy, not becoming co-guilty of the too-slowly-moderated thing unless that post was kept up by someone with the explicit intent to facilitate that murder. I'd say that every single one of the 50,000 sharers is each more culpable than Meta. Like, we have serious precedent for propagandists considered liable for inciting murderous hatred like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ferdinand_Nahimana https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ferdinand_Nahimana and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean-Bosco_Barayagwiza https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean-Bosco_Barayagwiza , but the bar there is met because they actively and intentionally made the propaganda; on the other hand, all the many people who (for example) kept the radios running and/or could have somehow stopped the propagandists but didn't - well, they are not liable for the crime.
- subradios 4y ago
  So a US based company, operating under US law, is responsible to use its US based platform and employees to decide how users in a totally different country use the internet? If you're gonna support the British Empire, fine, be my guest, but be aware that this is pretty close to noblest oblige views of colonialim
  - joshuaissac 4y ago
    > So a US based company, operating under US law When Facebook operates in Ethiopia, it is expected to follow Ethiopian law. > If you're gonna support the British Empire [...] this is pretty close to noblest oblige views of colonialim The British Empire has forced subjugated countries to recognise a concept of extraterritoriality for British merchants operating in those countries, where they would not be subjected to local laws. But the US has not made such an agreement with Ethiopia about Facebook. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraterritoriality https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraterritoriality
    - Manuel_D 4y ago
      So Qatar and other Middle Eastern countries could make Facebook either withdraw from the region or ban all expressions of homosexuality worldwide? Facebook can, and should, tell those countries to fuck off and build their own Great Firewall if they want to.
      - joshuaissac 4y ago
        Facebook is being sued for allowing its platform to be used to incite and facilitate murders in Ethiopia. If they want to do the same in another country where it is legal, Ethiopian law does not forbid them. Similarly, EU laws that restrict the sale of firearms do not apply to Facebook Marketplace in the US, only to the EU. If they allow firearms to be sold on Facebook Marketplace in the EU, they will face prosecution, even though they are based in the US. Facebook can decide to ignore local laws, in the Middle East or anywhere else, whether they apply locally or globally, but if they ignore laws in a jurisdiction where they have assets or revenue, then legal judgements against them can be enforced. That is what is happening here.
jszymborski 4y ago
You're right! We all die eventually... Meta just expedited it. I know I'd feel _totally_ OK with that if I worked at Meta. /s
legutierr 4y ago
The Rawandan genocide was driven forward in large part by disk jockeys on broadcast radio who used their platform to direct the mob toward their targets. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio_T%C3%A9l%C3%A9vision_Libre_des_Mille_Collines https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio_T%C3%A9l%C3%A9vision_Lib... Even lynchings in the Jim Crow South were often driven by the mass media of the time, newspapers. https://www.nbcuacademy.com/catalog/newspaper-archives-printing-hate https://www.nbcuacademy.com/catalog/newspaper-archives-print... Violence like that described in the article often does not happen organically without mass media of some kind inspiring it, contrary to what you have asserted. Ethnic violence requires people to identify someone as "other" than themselves, and requires people to take the massive leap towards using that otherness to justify murder. These ideas need to be organized by a rational and malevolent mind, and they need to be widely disseminated before they encounter people who are motivated to act upon them. The people who come up with these ideas are usually not unhinged enough to carry out these atrocious acts, and the people who commit these murders are usually not able to come up with these ideas on their own. It's the mass media that links them together. Violent ideas disseminated via Facebook can and do have the same effect that violent ideas disseminated via radio and newspapers have had in the past. And it should be assessed through the same lens. Wouldn't you say that the radio station owners in Rawanda shared responsibility with the disk jockeys they put on the air? Wouldn't you say that the newspaper publishers in the Jim Crow South shared responsibility with the writers that they published? Of course you would. Facebook was told that this call for violence before the man was murdered, and they did not act. Yes, there is a clear difference between Facebook and these other examples in that Facebook does not share the politics of the murderers. But Facebook provided the platform, Facebook made money when the call for violence was disseminated, and the man died because Facebook failed to act in a timely manner to remove the information. Different perhaps in intent, but not in effect, compared to these earlier examples. If they are not held financially liable for this, will they have sufficient incentive to act differently in the future?
- gretch 4y ago
  > Violence like that described in the article often does not happen organically without mass media of some kind inspiring it, contrary to what you have asserted. Dude what? So what if we go back even further? Spanish Inquisition? Crusades? Genghis khan slaying anyone in his path? Colonialism? What about the thousands of small and undocumented tribal wars fought before people even had written language? It’s as if you are saying racism and tribalism aren’t in basic levels of the human psyche and that it’s really just 1 or 2 bad ppl with a megaphone. Dangerous stance imo

by gretch 4y ago

lostmsu 4y ago

Nike shoes actually could save your life if you need to leg for it.

reaperducer 4y ago

Did facebook _cause_ it? Or would it have happened anyway? Hair splitting. "Guns don't kill people. Bullets do!"

tsol 4y ago

Facebook allowed them to disseminate information leading to his murder. You can theorize all day about whether you think it would have happened anyways, but that doesn't really add any facts to the case.

gretch 4y ago
The concept of a controlled experiment is quite important to scientific discovery and obtaining new knowledge. What you just said is pretty equivalent to saying: When the moon is full, there is more murder. Therefore full moons must be contributing to violence. No need to theorize what happened when there's not a full moon, that's not adding any facts to the case!
- jeromegv 4y ago
  His fucking address and call for murder was shared 50,000 times. And here you are, parroting the idea of controlled experiment and wanting to discuss scientific discovery. This is someone's life we are talking about. Clearly it is a failure in moderation policy. This type of thing would not have happened in the US.
  - saint_fiasco 4y ago
    > This type of thing would not have happened in the US That's because the real police would intervene, not because murderers are afraid of social media moderators. That said, I do believe that if Ethiopian law enforcement can't (won't?) handle their murderous mobs, they should censor their social media until they can figure out what is going on. And foreign social media companies should cooperate with them. But the initiative has to come from Ethiopia.
  - gretch 4y ago
    Your saying that I’m missing an obvious point about the 50k shares, and I think your missing the even more obvious backdrop that this took place amidst a civil war! Is this the only guy that died in this civil war? Did fb cause the civil war?
  - PeterisP 4y ago
    > His fucking address and call for murder was shared 50,000 times. That still doesn't mean that the medium for sharing caused the murder or is responsible for it. This is one of cases where intent and/or explicit action is required for both moral and legal culpablity - simply doing nothing may be an asshole thing to do, but it doesn't make you an accomplice in a crime, and if you do try assisting by moderating but are bad at it and fail sometimes, that's definitely not being an accomplice, because there is no duty to be perfect at that; a failure in moderation policy is just that - a failure in moderation policy, not becoming co-guilty of the too-slowly-moderated thing unless that post was kept up by someone with the explicit intent to facilitate that murder. I'd say that every single one of the 50,000 sharers is each more culpable than Meta. Like, we have serious precedent for propagandists considered liable for inciting murderous hatred like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ferdinand_Nahimana https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ferdinand_Nahimana and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean-Bosco_Barayagwiza https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean-Bosco_Barayagwiza , but the bar there is met because they actively and intentionally made the propaganda; on the other hand, all the many people who (for example) kept the radios running and/or could have somehow stopped the propagandists but didn't - well, they are not liable for the crime.
subradios 4y ago
So a US based company, operating under US law, is responsible to use its US based platform and employees to decide how users in a totally different country use the internet? If you're gonna support the British Empire, fine, be my guest, but be aware that this is pretty close to noblest oblige views of colonialim
- joshuaissac 4y ago
  > So a US based company, operating under US law When Facebook operates in Ethiopia, it is expected to follow Ethiopian law. > If you're gonna support the British Empire [...] this is pretty close to noblest oblige views of colonialim The British Empire has forced subjugated countries to recognise a concept of extraterritoriality for British merchants operating in those countries, where they would not be subjected to local laws. But the US has not made such an agreement with Ethiopia about Facebook. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraterritoriality https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraterritoriality
  - Manuel_D 4y ago
    So Qatar and other Middle Eastern countries could make Facebook either withdraw from the region or ban all expressions of homosexuality worldwide? Facebook can, and should, tell those countries to fuck off and build their own Great Firewall if they want to.
    - joshuaissac 4y ago
      Facebook is being sued for allowing its platform to be used to incite and facilitate murders in Ethiopia. If they want to do the same in another country where it is legal, Ethiopian law does not forbid them. Similarly, EU laws that restrict the sale of firearms do not apply to Facebook Marketplace in the US, only to the EU. If they allow firearms to be sold on Facebook Marketplace in the EU, they will face prosecution, even though they are based in the US. Facebook can decide to ignore local laws, in the Middle East or anywhere else, whether they apply locally or globally, but if they ignore laws in a jurisdiction where they have assets or revenue, then legal judgements against them can be enforced. That is what is happening here.

jszymborski 4y ago

You're right! We all die eventually... Meta just expedited it. I know I'd feel _totally_ OK with that if I worked at Meta. /s

legutierr 4y ago

The Rawandan genocide was driven forward in large part by disk jockeys on broadcast radio who used their platform to direct the mob toward their targets. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio_T%C3%A9l%C3%A9vision_Libre_des_Mille_Collines https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio_T%C3%A9l%C3%A9vision_Lib... Even lynchings in the Jim Crow South were often driven by the mass media of the time, newspapers. https://www.nbcuacademy.com/catalog/newspaper-archives-printing-hate https://www.nbcuacademy.com/catalog/newspaper-archives-print... Violence like that described in the article often does not happen organically without mass media of some kind inspiring it, contrary to what you have asserted. Ethnic violence requires people to identify someone as "other" than themselves, and requires people to take the massive leap towards using that otherness to justify murder. These ideas need to be organized by a rational and malevolent mind, and they need to be widely disseminated before they encounter people who are motivated to act upon them. The people who come up with these ideas are usually not unhinged enough to carry out these atrocious acts, and the people who commit these murders are usually not able to come up with these ideas on their own. It's the mass media that links them together. Violent ideas disseminated via Facebook can and do have the same effect that violent ideas disseminated via radio and newspapers have had in the past. And it should be assessed through the same lens. Wouldn't you say that the radio station owners in Rawanda shared responsibility with the disk jockeys they put on the air? Wouldn't you say that the newspaper publishers in the Jim Crow South shared responsibility with the writers that they published? Of course you would. Facebook was told that this call for violence before the man was murdered, and they did not act. Yes, there is a clear difference between Facebook and these other examples in that Facebook does not share the politics of the murderers. But Facebook provided the platform, Facebook made money when the call for violence was disseminated, and the man died because Facebook failed to act in a timely manner to remove the information. Different perhaps in intent, but not in effect, compared to these earlier examples. If they are not held financially liable for this, will they have sufficient incentive to act differently in the future?

gretch 4y ago
> Violence like that described in the article often does not happen organically without mass media of some kind inspiring it, contrary to what you have asserted. Dude what? So what if we go back even further? Spanish Inquisition? Crusades? Genghis khan slaying anyone in his path? Colonialism? What about the thousands of small and undocumented tribal wars fought before people even had written language? It’s as if you are saying racism and tribalism aren’t in basic levels of the human psyche and that it’s really just 1 or 2 bad ppl with a megaphone. Dangerous stance imo