4 ms·

The attack on Meta here isn't really justified for the reasons Kissane seems to be providing. Take this paragraph, for example: > By that point in 2018, Myanma

by roenxi 3y ago

The attack on Meta here isn't really justified for the reasons Kissane seems to be providing. Take this paragraph, for example: > By that point in 2018, Myanmar’s military had murdered thousands of Rohingya people, including babies and children, and beaten, raped, tortured, starved, and imprisoned thousands more. About three-quarters of a million Rohingya had fled Myanmar to live in huge, disease-infested refugee camps in Bangladesh. That is the situation on the ground. The country is a powder keg, and there is evil afoot. Maybe there is more context here to come in part II, but it seems unreasonable to lay this at Facebook's feet from an external perspective. Facebook does not call for beatings, rape or killings. I can certainly see Facebook's leadership caring about the PR and doing something. But that raises alternative problems - what exactly is the standard Facebook is meant to enforce? Should it ban everyone who is responsible for pointless killing? That includes the US leadership apparatus - should it ban everyone who voted Aye for the Iraq war? Afghanistan? Wars like Vietnam? (yes, the people who voted for it knew better). They won't do that. We'll have a large, powerful company applying uneven and subjective standards. There is an issue there, but I think the specifics of why she is calling out Facebook are actually dangerously missing the point. The problem is the same no matter what influence Facebook tries to have - the problem is that the will of the people and the will of Facebook's leadership are radically different. In this case, the will of the people is unusually evil - but the problem is the clash and Facebook's position of influence, not which side is wrong on any particular day. Eventually, Facebook will be on the evil side.

crabmusket 3y ago
I have seen discussion of this problem by anti-tech writers become "Facebook caused these atrocities". I agree with you that it's overstating Facebook's role. However, I don't think that places Facebook's conduct beyond criticism. I'm very interested to see part 2, as it sounds like there are more positive acts by Facebook at that time. Rather than just the passive inaction which characterises part 1. But, "refusing to enforce your own policies" is action, and it sounds like Facebook is very guilty of this.
- roenxi 3y ago
  I stress that I'm waiting for Part II, because I don't think she's really gotten to the meat of it. But so far we've got Case 1: Facebook doesn't enforce their policies. There is a genocide. Plausible Case 2: Facebook enforces their policies. There is a genocide. Plausible Case 3: Facebook enforces their policies, shapes the future of a country and learns they are bigger than the people. They start actively influencing elections worldwide to shape a pro-Facebook political consensus. Case 2 is better than 1, but given 3 there is a strong argument that the conversation is being misframed focusing on Facebook's policies. The case where they act and succeed is just as worrying as when they do nothing. Possibly more so, given that there is no evidence at all that Facebook pushing political opinions will result in good outcomes. The mass media have traditionally been cheerleaders for any number of atrocities and help shield corrupt people.
  - skulk 3y ago
    Why even consider these counterfactuals? Is asking Facebook to not amplify bald-faced calls for ethnic cleansing too much here? Can we agree that Facebook should make a conscious effort to NOT do that, and failing that withdraw from the market?
    - roenxi 3y ago
      > Is asking Facebook to not amplify bald-faced calls for ethnic cleansing too much here? Can we agree that Facebook should make a conscious effort to NOT do that, and failing that withdraw from the market? Sounds good to me. If you meet anyone who disagrees with any of that, let me know. But I don't think Kissane is aiming for that with this article. We don't have the full story yet, but it looks like it might be an attack on Facebook, using the crimes of the Myanmarese as emotional fuel.
      - twright0 3y ago
        > If you meet anyone who disagrees with any of that, let me know Facebook appears to have disagreed with that; they amplified calls for ethnic cleansing and did not respond to concerns about it, so they must have believed that asking them not to was too much. That's the point.
botanical 3y ago
Facebook didn't remove posts promoting ethnic violence in a timeous manner. In fact, it did the opposite, its algorithms promoted these types of inflamed posts to increase user engagement. It's not hard to understand why Meta is responsible unless you're being disingenuous; you didn't touch on that aspect. Facebook is not some harmless message transceiver. And not to mention, Facebook didn't have sufficient native speakers to moderate the content. So at worst, they're negligent. There are responsibilities to allowing people on your platform and having them speak to the internet; free speech is not absolute.
- roenxi 3y ago
  The article mentions a murderous Mynamarese monk [0]. I think he is responsible. And people like him. There is a real question here about whether Facebook's algorithms created the zeitgeist or just reflected it. Since most countries have Facebook and most countries are avoiding Facebook-fueled mass murder sprees, I suspect it is more that their algorithms accurately reflected what a large number of people were thinking. It is an interesting question, and maybe there will be compelling arguments made in Part II. But that hasn't happened in Part I. [0] The gap that can emerge between the priests of a religion and the religious ideals would stun the naive. If this article is accurate then the man might be an anti-Buddha.
  - 26fingies 3y ago
    The ideas people are exposed to can shape their own ideas. That’s how ideas work.
    - baby 3y ago
      I think it's a fine line between "people shouldn't be exposed to bad ideas" and "people shouldn't be exposed to good ideas"
      - madeofpalk 3y ago
        Leaders calling for racial genocide isn't really at that "fine end". Meta should be able to distinguish between that and "corporations should pay less taxes".
KaiserPro 3y ago
Basically Facebook were the equivalent of radio stations in Rwanda. The difference being if facebook had assigned adequate resources, they could have removed egregious content. Would that have stopped the killings? It might have slowed down the spread of rage.
- pauldenton 3y ago
  Or it could have furthered censorship and propaganda. It's easy to sit on your hands and think the status quo is fine in Rwanda if every bit of footage revealing how bad it was is suppressed.
  - KaiserPro 3y ago
    You are missing the point. Radio is a tool, used to terrible effectiveness by several groups to further their aims. Rwanda was and is _horrific_. > 3/4million people died. So was Bosnia, Timor, Lebanon. You can't go from 0-100% genocide without a concerted effort. Should facebook have done more? you fucking betcha. Are they guilty of fanning the flames? totally. are they responsible for the genocide? no. That is very much down to the military junta, aided by Aung san suu kyi.
verbify 3y ago
> what exactly is the standard Facebook is meant to enforce? Should it ban everyone who is responsible for pointless killing? That includes the US leadership apparatus - should it ban everyone who voted Aye for the Iraq war? Afghanistan? Wars like Vietnam? (yes, the people who voted for it knew better). They won't do that. We'll have a large, powerful company applying uneven and subjective standards. I completely agree that Facebook isn't well placed to make these decisions, however the architects of the Iraq War faced almost no consequences. I wouldn't be upset if Facebook banned Bush. I agree with you in principle but the example you chose is exactly one that I would be comfortable with. Incidentally Facebook did ban a different former president, so I guess your point about Facebook's position of influence is true.
dm319 3y ago
> there is evil afoot > the will of the people is unusually evil I'm intrigued by this language. What do you mean by it? Do you believe in evil, are you religious? Do you believe people can be evil, or are you talking more about evil acts? I'm just curious because it stood out for me.
- roenxi 3y ago
  It is fair to say I'm irreligious. And, arguably, that I do not believe in evil. But we have a word, 'evil', and I feel it is the most appropriate word to describe people who coordinate genocides and/or mass violence.
xorcist 3y ago
Several NGOs tried at the time to raise awareness that a possible genocide was coordinated on Facebook. Facebook did nothing to interfere with this, despite that their platform is not only a passive message board, but actively features posts with high "engagement" to as many users as possible. We have to be able to value free speech and a free exchange of ideas, and accept that this means we will have shady web sites inciting war and violence, while at the same time holding mass media responsible for their actions. Whoever runs Facebook should be just as responsible as said shady web site. We should be talking personal responsibility in a literal legal manner here, not having philosophical arguments. Keep in mind that Facebook at the time still tried to win over web forums, had the Arab spring in their back and did not miss a chance to talk about how they could change the world and had the political clout to do it.

by roenxi 3y ago

crabmusket 3y ago

I have seen discussion of this problem by anti-tech writers become "Facebook caused these atrocities". I agree with you that it's overstating Facebook's role. However, I don't think that places Facebook's conduct beyond criticism. I'm very interested to see part 2, as it sounds like there are more positive acts by Facebook at that time. Rather than just the passive inaction which characterises part 1. But, "refusing to enforce your own policies" is action, and it sounds like Facebook is very guilty of this.

roenxi 3y ago
I stress that I'm waiting for Part II, because I don't think she's really gotten to the meat of it. But so far we've got Case 1: Facebook doesn't enforce their policies. There is a genocide. Plausible Case 2: Facebook enforces their policies. There is a genocide. Plausible Case 3: Facebook enforces their policies, shapes the future of a country and learns they are bigger than the people. They start actively influencing elections worldwide to shape a pro-Facebook political consensus. Case 2 is better than 1, but given 3 there is a strong argument that the conversation is being misframed focusing on Facebook's policies. The case where they act and succeed is just as worrying as when they do nothing. Possibly more so, given that there is no evidence at all that Facebook pushing political opinions will result in good outcomes. The mass media have traditionally been cheerleaders for any number of atrocities and help shield corrupt people.
- skulk 3y ago
  Why even consider these counterfactuals? Is asking Facebook to not amplify bald-faced calls for ethnic cleansing too much here? Can we agree that Facebook should make a conscious effort to NOT do that, and failing that withdraw from the market?
  - roenxi 3y ago
    > Is asking Facebook to not amplify bald-faced calls for ethnic cleansing too much here? Can we agree that Facebook should make a conscious effort to NOT do that, and failing that withdraw from the market? Sounds good to me. If you meet anyone who disagrees with any of that, let me know. But I don't think Kissane is aiming for that with this article. We don't have the full story yet, but it looks like it might be an attack on Facebook, using the crimes of the Myanmarese as emotional fuel.
    - twright0 3y ago
      > If you meet anyone who disagrees with any of that, let me know Facebook appears to have disagreed with that; they amplified calls for ethnic cleansing and did not respond to concerns about it, so they must have believed that asking them not to was too much. That's the point.

botanical 3y ago

Facebook didn't remove posts promoting ethnic violence in a timeous manner. In fact, it did the opposite, its algorithms promoted these types of inflamed posts to increase user engagement. It's not hard to understand why Meta is responsible unless you're being disingenuous; you didn't touch on that aspect. Facebook is not some harmless message transceiver. And not to mention, Facebook didn't have sufficient native speakers to moderate the content. So at worst, they're negligent. There are responsibilities to allowing people on your platform and having them speak to the internet; free speech is not absolute.

roenxi 3y ago
The article mentions a murderous Mynamarese monk [0]. I think he is responsible. And people like him. There is a real question here about whether Facebook's algorithms created the zeitgeist or just reflected it. Since most countries have Facebook and most countries are avoiding Facebook-fueled mass murder sprees, I suspect it is more that their algorithms accurately reflected what a large number of people were thinking. It is an interesting question, and maybe there will be compelling arguments made in Part II. But that hasn't happened in Part I. [0] The gap that can emerge between the priests of a religion and the religious ideals would stun the naive. If this article is accurate then the man might be an anti-Buddha.
- 26fingies 3y ago
  The ideas people are exposed to can shape their own ideas. That’s how ideas work.
  - baby 3y ago
    I think it's a fine line between "people shouldn't be exposed to bad ideas" and "people shouldn't be exposed to good ideas"
    - madeofpalk 3y ago
      Leaders calling for racial genocide isn't really at that "fine end". Meta should be able to distinguish between that and "corporations should pay less taxes".

KaiserPro 3y ago

Basically Facebook were the equivalent of radio stations in Rwanda. The difference being if facebook had assigned adequate resources, they could have removed egregious content. Would that have stopped the killings? It might have slowed down the spread of rage.

pauldenton 3y ago
Or it could have furthered censorship and propaganda. It's easy to sit on your hands and think the status quo is fine in Rwanda if every bit of footage revealing how bad it was is suppressed.
- KaiserPro 3y ago
  You are missing the point. Radio is a tool, used to terrible effectiveness by several groups to further their aims. Rwanda was and is _horrific_. > 3/4million people died. So was Bosnia, Timor, Lebanon. You can't go from 0-100% genocide without a concerted effort. Should facebook have done more? you fucking betcha. Are they guilty of fanning the flames? totally. are they responsible for the genocide? no. That is very much down to the military junta, aided by Aung san suu kyi.

verbify 3y ago

> what exactly is the standard Facebook is meant to enforce? Should it ban everyone who is responsible for pointless killing? That includes the US leadership apparatus - should it ban everyone who voted Aye for the Iraq war? Afghanistan? Wars like Vietnam? (yes, the people who voted for it knew better). They won't do that. We'll have a large, powerful company applying uneven and subjective standards. I completely agree that Facebook isn't well placed to make these decisions, however the architects of the Iraq War faced almost no consequences. I wouldn't be upset if Facebook banned Bush. I agree with you in principle but the example you chose is exactly one that I would be comfortable with. Incidentally Facebook did ban a different former president, so I guess your point about Facebook's position of influence is true.

dm319 3y ago

> there is evil afoot > the will of the people is unusually evil I'm intrigued by this language. What do you mean by it? Do you believe in evil, are you religious? Do you believe people can be evil, or are you talking more about evil acts? I'm just curious because it stood out for me.

roenxi 3y ago
It is fair to say I'm irreligious. And, arguably, that I do not believe in evil. But we have a word, 'evil', and I feel it is the most appropriate word to describe people who coordinate genocides and/or mass violence.

xorcist 3y ago

Several NGOs tried at the time to raise awareness that a possible genocide was coordinated on Facebook. Facebook did nothing to interfere with this, despite that their platform is not only a passive message board, but actively features posts with high "engagement" to as many users as possible. We have to be able to value free speech and a free exchange of ideas, and accept that this means we will have shady web sites inciting war and violence, while at the same time holding mass media responsible for their actions. Whoever runs Facebook should be just as responsible as said shady web site. We should be talking personal responsibility in a literal legal manner here, not having philosophical arguments. Keep in mind that Facebook at the time still tried to win over web forums, had the Arab spring in their back and did not miss a chance to talk about how they could change the world and had the political clout to do it.