TE
TechEcho
Home24h TopNewestBestAskShowJobs
GitHubTwitter
Home

TechEcho

A tech news platform built with Next.js, providing global tech news and discussions.

GitHubTwitter

Home

HomeNewestBestAskShowJobs

Resources

HackerNews APIOriginal HackerNewsNext.js

© 2025 TechEcho. All rights reserved.

Meta in Myanmar, Part III. The Inside View

212 pointsby joeyhover 1 year ago

13 comments

3npover 1 year ago
Part I HN thread: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=37709284">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=37709284</a>
评论 #37802092 未加载
theptipover 1 year ago
&gt; the most generous number from the disclosed memos has Meta removing 5% of hate speech on Facebook. That would mean that for every 2,000 hateful posts or comments, Meta removes about 100–95 automatically and 5 via user reports.<p>Its really hard to contextualize these numbers. What are the comparable rates for other media?<p>What % of hate speech on Mastodon is taken down? Twitter? YouTube? Discord? Comparing with old-school mob formation technology, what about leaflets handed out? Political rallies?<p>Meta is an obvious target because they have such a high % of total online speech, and by virtue of this make a potentially impactful single intervention point to make things better. And these articles do make it seem they have room at the margin to improve. But imagine a word with multiple social networks per country - do we think they would be better or worse at policing this stuff (and crucially, the places where it matters are the developing less-regulated countries, often with governments that are at least disinterested in preventing the ethnic conflicts, if not actively promoting them)? I can see hand-wavey arguments in both directions but what I really want is data analyzing the question.
评论 #37805233 未加载
评论 #37802758 未加载
评论 #37803508 未加载
评论 #37805089 未加载
评论 #37803158 未加载
评论 #37842528 未加载
评论 #37803131 未加载
kaycebasquesover 1 year ago
The discussion about how Meta purportedly twisted the content moderation discussions around 2020 was a revelation for me. This quote from Meta captures the alleged spin well:<p>&gt; We proactively detect 99 percent of the hate speech removed from Facebook in Myanmar<p>If the accusation is correct, they are <i>not</i> saying that they capture 99% of <i>all</i> Myanmar hate speech on Facebook. I remember that the big news agencies reported it that way. Meta is actually saying &quot;of the 5% that we do catch, 99% was caught automatically.&quot; The key phrasing is &quot;99% of the hate speech removed&quot;.
评论 #37803688 未加载
评论 #37803771 未加载
评论 #37803540 未加载
arczyxover 1 year ago
So Facebook is presented with a trolley problem that have people lives on one track and more profit on the other track, and chose the latter, just as what we can expect from big corporations nowadays.<p>Not an unexpected decision overall, but it did surprise me how low Facebook can stoop. Like, they didn&#x27;t even bother to fix their stuff in Myanmar after all these years with Myanmar being the poster child of their hate speech problem!<p>&gt; In 2022, Global Witness came back for one more look at Meta’s operations in Myanmar, this time with eight examples of real hate speech aimed at the Rohingya—actual posts from the period of the genocide, all taken from the UN Human Rights Council findings I’ve been linking to so frequently in this series. They submitted these real-life examples of hate speech to Meta as Burmese-language Facebook advertisements.<p>&gt; Meta accepted all eight ads.
评论 #37802609 未加载
评论 #37805159 未加载
gmercover 1 year ago
The Senate hearing was really the final confirmation anyone needed our elected representatives are woefully outmatched.<p>Calling out the simple statistic slight of hand would have been a sure fire way of establishing control and the impression of hard on big tech they wanted. It was delivered on a platter.<p>Instead of that we got “Senator we run ads” and stupid gotcha games trying to prove FB was biased against conservatives when it was painfully clear that Joel Kaplan had fully taken over the bias department in favor of his friends (preventing misinformation action on the news surface because, shocker, it came 90% from conservative staples like Drudge report)
photochemsynover 1 year ago
This series is an interesting view into Meta&#x27;s internal policies - but historically it lacks a great of context and doesn&#x27;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:<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.reuters.com&#x2F;article&#x2F;us-myanmar-rohingya&#x2F;myanmars-rohingya-insurgency-has-links-to-saudi-pakistan-report-idUSKBN1450Y7" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.reuters.com&#x2F;article&#x2F;us-myanmar-rohingya&#x2F;myanmars...</a><p>&gt; &quot;“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.&quot;<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Ataullah_abu_Ammar_Jununi" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Ataullah_abu_Ammar_Jununi</a><p>That certainly doesn&#x27;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.<p>Entirely neglecting this background is just bad journalism, and also distorts the role of Meta. It&#x27;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&#x2F;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.<p>I&#x27;m also in favor of free speech over censorship - it&#x27;s very easy to demonstrate in an open conversation that mindless hatred of others based on their ethnic&#x2F;religious&#x2F;racial background is simply the product of ignorance and immaturity.
评论 #37803115 未加载
评论 #37806013 未加载
评论 #37803141 未加载
评论 #37805350 未加载
评论 #37803081 未加载
评论 #37803093 未加载
评论 #37804450 未加载
sensanatyover 1 year ago
I&#x27;ll preface this by saying the articles are of excellent quality, obviously well researched and to me an exemplary piece of research and journalism.<p>With that being said, are we really supposed to be holding entities like Meta&#x2F;Facebook accountable for the actions of governments? You can read through my comments here on HN and I&#x27;m sure you&#x27;ll notice I&#x27;m not one to generally have nice or even neutral things to say about megacorp entities like Meta, but I just fail to see how any of this is really on them.<p>If it wasn&#x27;t Facebook where misinfo was being spread, it would&#x27;ve been twitter, or mastodon, or whatever other social media platform. And even if there were no social media platforms, disinformation, propaganda and unfortunately even genocides have all been happening for a lot longer than Meta&#x27;s been a thing, and I seriously doubt that the lack of channels like Facebook would&#x27;ve prevented or even changed anything.<p>Why are we suddenly deciding that Meta&#x2F;Twitter&#x2F;Google&#x2F;Pick your poison are to be the arbiters and keepers of truth and justice?
评论 #37806658 未加载
评论 #37806877 未加载
throwaway4goodover 1 year ago
Is Facebook still allowed in Myanmar?
评论 #37804748 未加载
mycologosover 1 year ago
OK, I spent ~an hour reading parts I [1], II [2], and III (TFA). My perception going in was that comment moderation is very hard, and essentially impossible at scale, and that Facebook&#x2F;Meta cannot credibly be accused of literally causing genocide. Here is how my opinion shifted some after reading this series:<p>The articles present a lot of evidence to support the notion that Facebook was well aware of clear-cut incitement to violence years before its escalation into large-scale genocide in late 2016. It isn&#x27;t spelled out explicitly, but I think there are two things that make Facebook&#x27;s initial apparent non-response easier to understand as incompetence rather than evil:<p>* In the aftermath of the Arab spring, technology and social networks enjoyed a honeymoon in public perception that is hard to remember over a decade later. People, including (especially?) people in tech, could genuinely believe that making it easier for people to talk to each other was basically good, full stop. I&#x27;d suggest that this honeymoon only really ended after the 2016 US presidential election, which caused a lot of soul searching about information and echo chambers, and got even worse after the Cambridge Analytica scandal [3, this is a graph image from NBC news]<p>* As part I of the article notes, &quot;[t]he information landscape in Myanmar is so unstable that accounts of any given incident conflict, often in major ways&quot;. This dynamic seems to appear in a lot of places where well-off westerners interact with much poorer and more chaotic countries (Rwanda is a clear parallel). Part I points out that the &quot;Burmese government&quot; itself seems to make statements both fanning anger against the Rohingya and then trying to walk them back when it boils over into disorder<p>So I think it was possible to be a basically well-intentioned (naive) Facebook employee in the leadup to 2016 and hear of strange, almost genocidal sounding posts in another language in a place you don&#x27;t understand and still not think &quot;this is a break-glass moment and I need to escalate and make a new path inside my corporation for this to be taken seriously&quot;. In hindsight, this was wrong, but I think we&#x27;re forgetting that what happened next didn&#x27;t seem possible, because we still thought of the internet as an exceptional new dawn in mass communication. A lot is necessary for people to process something as a novel, serious emergency.<p>However, it&#x27;s hard to maintain this judgment over the ensuing years, as senior figures at Facebook are repeatedly presented with evidence that people are deliberately distributing misinformation (e.g., making fake accounts, and other clear-cut evidence that doesn&#x27;t require a fact checker and research) and mostly wave it away unless it&#x27;s big enough to provoke media and investor consternation. By the end of the 2010s, I think Facebook was well past the &quot;this sort of thing wasn&#x27;t something we could imagine&quot; stage of a crisis, and into a less defensible position along the lines of &quot;this is reality, it cannot really be moderated, but we can pretend to moderate&quot;.<p>One last point re: moderation, I have no idea how Meta hires its Burmese content moderators, but it must be tricky, since as far as I can tell <i>most people in Burma are anti-Rohingya</i>. I would like to be wrong about this, but what should be factually trustworthy sources like the Brookings institution write things like:<p>&gt; Most of the Myanmar population, especially the Buddhist majority, feels that the Rohingya don’t belong in their country ... [t]he straightforward solution would be to help the Rohingya return to their homes in Myanmar and live in peace and freedom. Sadly, this solution looks impossible in the near term because of the nationalist sentiment of the Buddhist majority<p>[1] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;erinkissane.com&#x2F;meta-in-myanmar-part-i-the-setup" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;erinkissane.com&#x2F;meta-in-myanmar-part-i-the-setup</a><p>[2] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;erinkissane.com&#x2F;meta-in-myanmar-part-ii-the-crisis" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;erinkissane.com&#x2F;meta-in-myanmar-part-ii-the-crisis</a><p>[3] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;media-cldnry.s-nbcnews.com&#x2F;image&#x2F;upload&#x2F;t_fit-560w,f_auto,q_auto:eco,dpr_2.0&#x2F;newscms&#x2F;2018_16&#x2F;2403241&#x2F;n180418-facebook-trust.png" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;media-cldnry.s-nbcnews.com&#x2F;image&#x2F;upload&#x2F;t_fit-560w,f...</a><p>[4] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.brookings.edu&#x2F;articles&#x2F;on-the-ground-in-myanmar-the-rohingya-crisis-and-a-clash-of-values&#x2F;" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.brookings.edu&#x2F;articles&#x2F;on-the-ground-in-myanmar-...</a>
kaycebasquesover 1 year ago
&gt; There are a lot of posts about Rohingya men raping, forcibly marrying, beating, and murdering Buddhist women.<p>(That quote comes from the description of the mechanics of the military&#x27;s coordinated propaganda campaign.)<p>I would like to share a PSA in the truest sense of that acronym. I suggest building an automatic bullshit indicator in your brain whenever you see any content along the lines of &quot;they&#x27;re harming our women&quot; from anyone. It may literally be the oldest trick in the propaganda book. Both sides used it extensively in WWI [1]. It pops up a lot in the history of American slavery &#x2F; racism as the idea that often directly sparked lynchings. I&#x27;m sure you can think up lots of other examples. Sorry if this is already obvious but over the years I keep seeing more and more examples of it and IMO this tactic doesn&#x27;t seem to be as well-known as the technique of depicting the victims as an infestation of animal pests.<p>[1] Example of USA propaganda from WWI <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;firstamendment.mtsu.edu&#x2F;article&#x2F;committee-on-public-information&#x2F;" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;firstamendment.mtsu.edu&#x2F;article&#x2F;committee-on-public-...</a>
评论 #37803257 未加载
评论 #37803103 未加载
g-b-rover 1 year ago
We need a Nuremberg trial for Facebook (without the death sentences, which I don&#x27;t support for anyone)
评论 #37804419 未加载
评论 #37805269 未加载
评论 #37815323 未加载
评论 #37803018 未加载
czhu12over 1 year ago
People have been quite good at committing genocide well before Facebook came around. I suspect even if Facebook didn&#x27;t exist, the situation in Myanmar would not be materially improved.
joweaover 1 year ago
The previous parts do say that Facebook was not doing well even when it was just disorganized masses and some provocateurs, but I am the only one who feels it is weird that Facebook, a private company, is expect to &quot;fight&quot; state organizations? Is this consequence of free market capitalism really how the US should do things?
评论 #37803104 未加载