3 ms·

This series is an interesting view into Meta's internal policies - but historically it lacks a great of context and doesn't explain the roots of the conflict th

This series is an interesting view into Meta's internal policies - but historically it lacks a great of context and doesn't explain the roots of the conflict that led to the mass exodus of Rohingya people from Myanmar - in fact the author is almost entirely silent on a key issue that exacerbated the situation: Saudi-Pakistani efforts to run a regime change operation based in the Rohingya region. See Reuters, 2016: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-myanmar-rohingya/myanmars-rohingya-insurgency-has-links-to-saudi-pakistan-report-idUSKBN1450Y7 https://www.reuters.com/article/us-myanmar-rohingya/myanmars... > "“Though not confirmed, there are indications he went to Pakistan and possibly elsewhere, and that he received practical training in modern guerrilla warfare,” the group said. It noted that Ata Ullah was one of 20 Rohingya from Saudi Arabia leading the group’s operations in Rakhine State. Separately, a committee of 20 senior Rohingya emigres oversees the group, which has headquarters in Mecca, the ICG said." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ataullah_abu_Ammar_Jununi https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ataullah_abu_Ammar_Jununi That certainly doesn't justify the response of the Myanmar government, but it helps explain it to some degree - imagine the US political response if, say, US border facilities were attacked by an Iran-based group that killed a dozen US border guards. Entirely neglecting this background is just bad journalism, and also distorts the role of Meta. It's highly unlikely, given this information, that a rigorous censorship strategy on Meta would have changed the outcome much if at all. A more rational conclusion is that the Myanmar government viewed the Rohingya people as a potential base for Saudi/Pakistani-backed terror groups to launch attacks within Myanmar, and that was the root cause of the expulsion, and that social media-based propaganda efforts were not that important in understanding what happened. I'm also in favor of free speech over censorship - it's very easy to demonstrate in an open conversation that mindless hatred of others based on their ethnic/religious/racial background is simply the product of ignorance and immaturity.

g-b-r 3y ago
> I'm also in favor of free speech over censorship At issue here is the PROMOTION of misinformation, lies and genocidal speech (in users' feeds), not the fact that they haven't deleted it.
p_j_w 3y ago
> I'm also in favor of free speech over censorship - it's very easy to demonstrate in an open conversation that mindless hatred of others based on their ethnic/religious/racial background is simply the product of ignorance and immaturity. Demonstrating that fact is a really poor substitute for taking some kind of action against an ongoing genocide.
- photochemsyn 3y ago
  Practically, the best way to have avoided the problem might have been to encourage Saudi Arabia and Pakistan to NOT engage in the export of radical Wahhabist ideology and the funding of regime change operations in other states. Kind of like the best way to have avoided the war in Ukraine would have been for the USA to NOT have engaged in a regime change op in 2014, and the best way to avoid the current Libyan disaster would have been for NATO to have NOT engaged in a regime change operation in 2011, and so on.
  - p_j_w 3y ago
    Regardless of whether the things you assert caused the genocide or not, there was a genocide ongoing and your free speech and rational argumentation is completely impotent to stop it.
    - cultureswitch 3y ago
      Do you believe Facebook could stop or even affect what happened in any meaningful way? Because I've got a bridge to sell
      - p_j_w 3y ago
        If they had taken action then fewer people would have undoubtedly got swept up, yea, absolutely 100%. I have to say though, “I don’t think it would’ve had much impact anyways so they should get a pass for knowingly profiting off of aiding and abetting a genocide” is not an argument I thought someone would ever seriously advance. Congratulations for that.
catlover76 3y ago
> I'm also in favor of free speech over censorship - it's very easy to demonstrate in an open conversation that mindless hatred of others based on their ethnic/religious/racial background is simply the product of ignorance and immaturity. Clearly it's not; this myth needs to stop being pushed. Everything we have observed from the internet age is that such hatred metastasizes even easier because of the internet and social media, and that almost all discourse is worse.
alxmng 3y ago
Agreed. Myanmar has been at civil war since WWII. The Tatmadaw viewed Arakan muslims as enemies for decades before Facebook. In the 1980s they had policies against them. And that's just one conflict in Myanmar. The Tatmadaw has been killing Shan, Karen, and other ethnic groups for 70 years. The Karen conflict is one of the longest running conflicts in the world. They're bombing Karen and Sagaing villages right now. Facebook is inconsequential to Myanmar's bloody politics. It's true there are problems with Facebook. But without Facebook the Tatmadaw would still have laws against Rohingya, still have a policy of driving them out, still would engage in fighting ARSA, still would fund and promote groups like Ma Ba Tha, etc.
- blix 3y ago
  The conflict in Myanmar isn't a civil war any more than the conflict of the USA between settlers and natives was a civil war. The Myanmar (Bamar), Karen, Shan, etc populations were all there before the British drew the borders of 'Burma.' The conflict goes back way farther than WWII. The main difference now is that the Myanmar are winning.
  - alxmng 3y ago
    The conflicts exist along ethnic lines, but all major armed ethnic groups had formed a government together at end of WWII, and even today many of the groups openly support a federal union. Settlers and natives has nothing to do with it. All the major armed ethnic peoples existed in Myanmar since before WWII. The “settlers” were the British and they left.
    - blix 3y ago
      > formed a government together at end of WWII I am not convinced this ever happened in any meaningful sense. As you note, it turned into armed conflict almost immediately. This was a British-induced transient state that was unable to sustain itself in the region. > The “settlers” were the British and they left. The Myanmar state/people are also colonizers/conquerors. You don't need to come across an ocean to see territory that you dont control and decide to try to take control by force. Facebook and ethno-nationalism are simply new tools in a long-running conflict.
Aunche 3y ago
I get a sense that people like the author care less about the Rohingya genocide as much as they enjoy the ammunition against Facebook. I'm sure you could cherry pick examples of Rohingya escaping persecution because Facebook offered better communication. Nobody is give Facebook credit for doing good and rightfully so, but why should they get the full blame for escalating hate speech?
BlueTemplar 3y ago
They did mention in the previous parts about ARSA killing border guards and executing 99 civilians (?)
anon84873628 3y ago
>mindless hatred of others The whole reason Facebook is a useful tool for hate groups is because it allows them to cultivate a fake justification for hate that goes beyond "mindless". Inventing crimes, doctoring photos, promoting false narratives and conspiracy theories, etc. It radicalizes moderate people by making it seem like the out group is an existential threat to the in group. We don't hate them because of their skin color or religion, we hate them because they're trying to kill us first. Open dialogue can't fix this because it's much harder to disprove bullshit than to generate it.

g-b-r 3y ago

> I'm also in favor of free speech over censorship At issue here is the PROMOTION of misinformation, lies and genocidal speech (in users' feeds), not the fact that they haven't deleted it.

p_j_w 3y ago

> I'm also in favor of free speech over censorship - it's very easy to demonstrate in an open conversation that mindless hatred of others based on their ethnic/religious/racial background is simply the product of ignorance and immaturity. Demonstrating that fact is a really poor substitute for taking some kind of action against an ongoing genocide.

photochemsyn 3y ago
Practically, the best way to have avoided the problem might have been to encourage Saudi Arabia and Pakistan to NOT engage in the export of radical Wahhabist ideology and the funding of regime change operations in other states. Kind of like the best way to have avoided the war in Ukraine would have been for the USA to NOT have engaged in a regime change op in 2014, and the best way to avoid the current Libyan disaster would have been for NATO to have NOT engaged in a regime change operation in 2011, and so on.
- p_j_w 3y ago
  Regardless of whether the things you assert caused the genocide or not, there was a genocide ongoing and your free speech and rational argumentation is completely impotent to stop it.
  - cultureswitch 3y ago
    Do you believe Facebook could stop or even affect what happened in any meaningful way? Because I've got a bridge to sell
    - p_j_w 3y ago
      If they had taken action then fewer people would have undoubtedly got swept up, yea, absolutely 100%. I have to say though, “I don’t think it would’ve had much impact anyways so they should get a pass for knowingly profiting off of aiding and abetting a genocide” is not an argument I thought someone would ever seriously advance. Congratulations for that.

catlover76 3y ago

> I'm also in favor of free speech over censorship - it's very easy to demonstrate in an open conversation that mindless hatred of others based on their ethnic/religious/racial background is simply the product of ignorance and immaturity. Clearly it's not; this myth needs to stop being pushed. Everything we have observed from the internet age is that such hatred metastasizes even easier because of the internet and social media, and that almost all discourse is worse.

alxmng 3y ago

Agreed. Myanmar has been at civil war since WWII. The Tatmadaw viewed Arakan muslims as enemies for decades before Facebook. In the 1980s they had policies against them. And that's just one conflict in Myanmar. The Tatmadaw has been killing Shan, Karen, and other ethnic groups for 70 years. The Karen conflict is one of the longest running conflicts in the world. They're bombing Karen and Sagaing villages right now. Facebook is inconsequential to Myanmar's bloody politics. It's true there are problems with Facebook. But without Facebook the Tatmadaw would still have laws against Rohingya, still have a policy of driving them out, still would engage in fighting ARSA, still would fund and promote groups like Ma Ba Tha, etc.

blix 3y ago
The conflict in Myanmar isn't a civil war any more than the conflict of the USA between settlers and natives was a civil war. The Myanmar (Bamar), Karen, Shan, etc populations were all there before the British drew the borders of 'Burma.' The conflict goes back way farther than WWII. The main difference now is that the Myanmar are winning.
- alxmng 3y ago
  The conflicts exist along ethnic lines, but all major armed ethnic groups had formed a government together at end of WWII, and even today many of the groups openly support a federal union. Settlers and natives has nothing to do with it. All the major armed ethnic peoples existed in Myanmar since before WWII. The “settlers” were the British and they left.
  - blix 3y ago
    > formed a government together at end of WWII I am not convinced this ever happened in any meaningful sense. As you note, it turned into armed conflict almost immediately. This was a British-induced transient state that was unable to sustain itself in the region. > The “settlers” were the British and they left. The Myanmar state/people are also colonizers/conquerors. You don't need to come across an ocean to see territory that you dont control and decide to try to take control by force. Facebook and ethno-nationalism are simply new tools in a long-running conflict.

Aunche 3y ago

I get a sense that people like the author care less about the Rohingya genocide as much as they enjoy the ammunition against Facebook. I'm sure you could cherry pick examples of Rohingya escaping persecution because Facebook offered better communication. Nobody is give Facebook credit for doing good and rightfully so, but why should they get the full blame for escalating hate speech?

BlueTemplar 3y ago

They did mention in the previous parts about ARSA killing border guards and executing 99 civilians (?)

anon84873628 3y ago

>mindless hatred of others The whole reason Facebook is a useful tool for hate groups is because it allows them to cultivate a fake justification for hate that goes beyond "mindless". Inventing crimes, doctoring photos, promoting false narratives and conspiracy theories, etc. It radicalizes moderate people by making it seem like the out group is an existential threat to the in group. We don't hate them because of their skin color or religion, we hate them because they're trying to kill us first. Open dialogue can't fix this because it's much harder to disprove bullshit than to generate it.