3 ms·

Read this. Once I started, I couldn't stop. It's a far quicker read than it looks (though this is just part 1) and utterly essential. Kissane has put together

by yoz 3y ago

Read this. Once I started, I couldn't stop. It's a far quicker read than it looks (though this is just part 1) and utterly essential. Kissane has put together a concise, readable, and horrifying account of both the background of the Rohingya genocide and how Meta actively fanned the flames. Her argument for Meta's culpability is simple and effective. Meta faced two problems in Myanmar: (1) not enough Facebook users, and (2) increasing incitement and hate speech that was clearly and repeatedly stoking anti-Rohingya violence. The company repeatedly showed that it was only interested in growing the user base, even though they were clearly aware of how that growth fed a genocide.

fallingknife 3y ago
[flagged]
- shwaj 3y ago
  Facebook isn’t a dumb pipe. It is an algorithm which preferentially selects content which will increase engagement, in this case apparently sparking a genocide. Your analogy falls flat.
  - fallingknife 3y ago
    And the algorithm that maximizes engagement is the algorithm that gives the user exactly the content he most wants to engage with. In other words, with iteration, it will converge on an algorithm whose output is entirely driven by the user, not the developer. In this way it is basically a dumb pipe just like a phone that lets the user say exactly what he wants when he wants.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    - dr_kiszonka 3y ago
      You are assuming users visit Facebook to engage with content and that Facebook's definition of engagement is consistent with the users' understanding of it. (One example, merely viewing my brother's photo is not considered engagement but sharing or liking it is.) I think many people would agree that a dumb pipe in this context would mean FB not ranking and filtering content. I am not saying all users want unfiltered content. I am just arguing against calling FB a dumb pipe. If anything, it is a smart pipe, or a pipe bomb.
    - Hammershaft 3y ago
      > the algorithm that maximizes engagement is the algorithm that gives the user exactly the content he most wants to engage with. Nothing about any system that opaquely ranks and filters content resembles a dumb pipe. Moreover, maximizing the attention content captures from viewers IS NOT the same as maximising the value users derive from content.
junofan 3y ago
Is there another side to the story? Seems like revenue on (at the time) a couple million users in Myanmar would not be worth the PR hassle. What’s Facebook’s incentive here? What content are they supposed to ban, and why is that content so popular with Burmese people?
- alephnerd 3y ago
  > What’s Facebook’s incentive here Corporate inertia. There wasn't clear ownership within FB to manage these kinds of political minefields back then. You have to remember that this was the 2010-2015 timeframe and social media was riding high due to the impact it had during the Arab Spring only a couple years prior. > why is that content so popular with Burmese people Because society in Myanmar is extremely communalized, with both ethnic strife among the 70 different ethnic groups and also religious strife between the 4 main religions. Myanmar has been in a state of civil war since independence, and this is further exacerbated by regional powers fueling the flames by supporting militias along with the army.
  - dagmx 3y ago
    I would say corporate inertia but also a mix of corporate immaturity and single minded incentives. Meta’s corporate culture is single mindedly focused on engagement. They don’t care about side effects or other ambitions. They don’t have a corporate structure that encourages anything else that may be beneficial to their consumer base. It means that anything that detracts from that engagement is counter to any personal goals an employee might have. And if you can’t personally relate to the problem, you’re far less likely to put your career on the line to push for something that runs contrary to the singular goal of engagement.
    - 26fingies 3y ago
      > Meta’s corporate culture is single mindedly focused on engagement. They don’t care about side effects or other ambitions. They don’t have a corporate structure that encourages anything else that may be beneficial to their consumer base. I dont really see how that is unique to Meta though. The mandate of any corporation is essentially sociopathic. Unless the leaders really go out of their way for the company to behave in ways that are perhaps good for people (customer or not) and bad for the company the company is just going to be as selfish as it can be.

by yoz 3y ago

fallingknife 3y ago

[flagged]

shwaj 3y ago
Facebook isn’t a dumb pipe. It is an algorithm which preferentially selects content which will increase engagement, in this case apparently sparking a genocide. Your analogy falls flat.
- fallingknife 3y ago
  And the algorithm that maximizes engagement is the algorithm that gives the user exactly the content he most wants to engage with. In other words, with iteration, it will converge on an algorithm whose output is entirely driven by the user, not the developer. In this way it is basically a dumb pipe just like a phone that lets the user say exactly what he wants when he wants.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - dr_kiszonka 3y ago
    You are assuming users visit Facebook to engage with content and that Facebook's definition of engagement is consistent with the users' understanding of it. (One example, merely viewing my brother's photo is not considered engagement but sharing or liking it is.) I think many people would agree that a dumb pipe in this context would mean FB not ranking and filtering content. I am not saying all users want unfiltered content. I am just arguing against calling FB a dumb pipe. If anything, it is a smart pipe, or a pipe bomb.
  - Hammershaft 3y ago
    > the algorithm that maximizes engagement is the algorithm that gives the user exactly the content he most wants to engage with. Nothing about any system that opaquely ranks and filters content resembles a dumb pipe. Moreover, maximizing the attention content captures from viewers IS NOT the same as maximising the value users derive from content.

junofan 3y ago

Is there another side to the story? Seems like revenue on (at the time) a couple million users in Myanmar would not be worth the PR hassle. What’s Facebook’s incentive here? What content are they supposed to ban, and why is that content so popular with Burmese people?

alephnerd 3y ago
> What’s Facebook’s incentive here Corporate inertia. There wasn't clear ownership within FB to manage these kinds of political minefields back then. You have to remember that this was the 2010-2015 timeframe and social media was riding high due to the impact it had during the Arab Spring only a couple years prior. > why is that content so popular with Burmese people Because society in Myanmar is extremely communalized, with both ethnic strife among the 70 different ethnic groups and also religious strife between the 4 main religions. Myanmar has been in a state of civil war since independence, and this is further exacerbated by regional powers fueling the flames by supporting militias along with the army.
- dagmx 3y ago
  I would say corporate inertia but also a mix of corporate immaturity and single minded incentives. Meta’s corporate culture is single mindedly focused on engagement. They don’t care about side effects or other ambitions. They don’t have a corporate structure that encourages anything else that may be beneficial to their consumer base. It means that anything that detracts from that engagement is counter to any personal goals an employee might have. And if you can’t personally relate to the problem, you’re far less likely to put your career on the line to push for something that runs contrary to the singular goal of engagement.
  - 26fingies 3y ago
    > Meta’s corporate culture is single mindedly focused on engagement. They don’t care about side effects or other ambitions. They don’t have a corporate structure that encourages anything else that may be beneficial to their consumer base. I dont really see how that is unique to Meta though. The mandate of any corporation is essentially sociopathic. Unless the leaders really go out of their way for the company to behave in ways that are perhaps good for people (customer or not) and bad for the company the company is just going to be as selfish as it can be.