A Genocide Incited on Facebook, With Posts From Myanmar’s Military(nytimes.com)
nytimes.com
A Genocide Incited on Facebook, With Posts From Myanmar’s Military
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/15/technology/myanmar-facebook-genocide.html
57 comments
Not just endorsement of violence, but organizing it: https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/2018/08/02/facebooks-fig...
Russians do similar stuff, the most famous case is probably this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crucified_Boy
They incited war this way, still ongoing.
They incited war this way, still ongoing.
Serious question.
Why is there so much "whataboutism" whenever anyone brings up these issues?
Sure Russia has rights violations.
China has censorship and Uighurs.
The US has all kinds of toddlers in internment camps.
Etc etc etc. Lots of bad things happening in lots of other places.
But right now we're talking about the number they're doing on the Rohingya. Sheez.
If you want to talk about Russia, or Brazilian death squads, or immigrant toddlers, or whatever submit a link and we can talk about it.
Why is there so much "whataboutism" whenever anyone brings up these issues?
Sure Russia has rights violations.
China has censorship and Uighurs.
The US has all kinds of toddlers in internment camps.
Etc etc etc. Lots of bad things happening in lots of other places.
But right now we're talking about the number they're doing on the Rohingya. Sheez.
If you want to talk about Russia, or Brazilian death squads, or immigrant toddlers, or whatever submit a link and we can talk about it.
You question is valid, ignore the downvotes.
I think it comes about as a way for people to "explain away" or "brush off" things that happen in our modern world that we are just too lazy/busy/preoccupied or otherwise can't be bothered to fix.
It doesn't really matter what the thing that happens is, someone will always chime in with "yeah, that's just like when xyz happened" - which is a completely useless thing to say, but I think it helps people feel better that the world is not utter chaos, and things are not entirely isolated or have no precedent.
Of course, as you say, it would be much more productive to spend time trying to solve or eliminate said things, but gossip and media and reality TV aren't about that.
I think it comes about as a way for people to "explain away" or "brush off" things that happen in our modern world that we are just too lazy/busy/preoccupied or otherwise can't be bothered to fix.
It doesn't really matter what the thing that happens is, someone will always chime in with "yeah, that's just like when xyz happened" - which is a completely useless thing to say, but I think it helps people feel better that the world is not utter chaos, and things are not entirely isolated or have no precedent.
Of course, as you say, it would be much more productive to spend time trying to solve or eliminate said things, but gossip and media and reality TV aren't about that.
No, it’s that human rights have long been used as instruments of aggressive foreign policy by some countries; so now, when issues are raised, there is an instinctive reaction from some quarters that basically means “oh no, you will not use that to bully Country X, because you are no saint either”.
It’s the diplomatic equivalent of “Why do you see the speck in your brother’s eye, but fail to see the beam of wood in your own?”
It’s the diplomatic equivalent of “Why do you see the speck in your brother’s eye, but fail to see the beam of wood in your own?”
Why do you read that as whataboutism? It's just added context and related information. Whataboutism usually means "X is also bad / worse because they do Y". This was just "here's a similar situation, have a read".
I was interested in the link because it provides more interesting information on the topic. It lacks any comparison / judgement as far as I can tell.
I was interested in the link because it provides more interesting information on the topic. It lacks any comparison / judgement as far as I can tell.
I'll be honest the downvotes confuse me. HN has a very prevalent habit of whenever something is posted - a newsworthy item, a new startup, or whatever - many of the top-level comments are people just listing off things that may be tangentially related. Especially if the article is about some obscure tool or product you'll fine a dozen top-level comments just linking to other obscure tools or products in the same niche, or completely unrelated ones with the same homepage design, or completely unrelated ones that use the same tech stack, or something to that effect.
The article is about Myanmar so unless there is something interesting about the fact that Russia is doing sort-of-the-same-thing-but-not-really things, it's not really relevant, is it?
The article is about Myanmar so unless there is something interesting about the fact that Russia is doing sort-of-the-same-thing-but-not-really things, it's not really relevant, is it?
> many of the top-level comments are people just listing off things that may be tangentially related.
That's half the reason I come to HN :-)
> The article is about Myanmar
Is it? I read it as an article about the role of social networks in spreading information about groups of people via channels that collect diverse viewers. Essentially what happens when you gather random people on the street and shout something polarising. The specific case of it this time is Myanmar and FB, but I'd like to understand more about it as a general phenomenon.
The link was interesting because it shows an example of news reporting leading to that situation and links to interesting papers in references.
That's half the reason I come to HN :-)
> The article is about Myanmar
Is it? I read it as an article about the role of social networks in spreading information about groups of people via channels that collect diverse viewers. Essentially what happens when you gather random people on the street and shout something polarising. The specific case of it this time is Myanmar and FB, but I'd like to understand more about it as a general phenomenon.
The link was interesting because it shows an example of news reporting leading to that situation and links to interesting papers in references.
I’ve drastically reduced my wandering into HN comments precisely because of this.
Someone posts a Show HN about something they’ve worked on, and the top comment is usually something that is mildly related but completely tangential to the actual posting.
It should be easy enough to ignore, but it has been happening so often I’ve started having a visceral negative reaction that makes me not want to even open the comments anymore.
Which is disappointing because the HN comments are usually a treasure trove of information.
Someone posts a Show HN about something they’ve worked on, and the top comment is usually something that is mildly related but completely tangential to the actual posting.
It should be easy enough to ignore, but it has been happening so often I’ve started having a visceral negative reaction that makes me not want to even open the comments anymore.
Which is disappointing because the HN comments are usually a treasure trove of information.
The point is that this is not unique to Myanmar or to Facebook, so the calls to "solve" this problem by censoring Facebook as many would suggest would be ineffective.
This isn't whataboutism:
Whataboutism (also known as whataboutery) is a variant of the tu quoque logical fallacy that attempts to discredit an opponent's position by charging them with hypocrisy without directly refuting or disproving their argument
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism
Bringing up related incidents isn't, per se, a dismissal of the issue.
Whataboutism (also known as whataboutery) is a variant of the tu quoque logical fallacy that attempts to discredit an opponent's position by charging them with hypocrisy without directly refuting or disproving their argument
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism
Bringing up related incidents isn't, per se, a dismissal of the issue.
> so much "whataboutism"
It’s not whataboutism, it’s basically the same story. Rogue state actors abuse free speech to spread fakes in media, the fakes cause terrible things like genocides or wars.
There’re many visitors here on HN who live in Europe, myself included. I’ve wrote that comment to remind people the problem is not local to some distant location 10 hours flight away. Unfortunately, the problem is global, and is much closer than Myanmar.
I understand why media behave this way. They’re selling advertisements and don’t care much about global issues, at least when it takes resources to combat these rogue states. They’re private businesses, strictly speaking it’s not their responsibility to do anything besides making money for their shareholders, and they probably have good legal departments and are not breaking any laws of their jurisdictions.
But just because I understand that doesn’t mean I like that. The more people will care about the problem, the more likely we’ll be able to come up with a solution.
It’s not whataboutism, it’s basically the same story. Rogue state actors abuse free speech to spread fakes in media, the fakes cause terrible things like genocides or wars.
There’re many visitors here on HN who live in Europe, myself included. I’ve wrote that comment to remind people the problem is not local to some distant location 10 hours flight away. Unfortunately, the problem is global, and is much closer than Myanmar.
I understand why media behave this way. They’re selling advertisements and don’t care much about global issues, at least when it takes resources to combat these rogue states. They’re private businesses, strictly speaking it’s not their responsibility to do anything besides making money for their shareholders, and they probably have good legal departments and are not breaking any laws of their jurisdictions.
But just because I understand that doesn’t mean I like that. The more people will care about the problem, the more likely we’ll be able to come up with a solution.
I welcome it because I came to the HN discussion primarily to discuss the broader topics.
Note the parent comment's lack of "It's okay because ..."
It's not okay. And it's not whataboutism.
Note the parent comment's lack of "It's okay because ..."
It's not okay. And it's not whataboutism.
Brain is a pattern matching organ. People just come up with something more interesting to them that is similar. It's how many real life conversations go about, too.
>> Why is there so much "whataboutism" whenever anyone brings up these issues?
It's not just these types of threads either. Any thread that has Apple, Microsoft, Google, or pretty much everything eventually devolves into these types of threads.
It used to bother me a lot more than it does now, because I just accepted that once I hit the inevitable whatabout post I just go do something else. Its a good sign that there's nothing left in the thread.
It's not just these types of threads either. Any thread that has Apple, Microsoft, Google, or pretty much everything eventually devolves into these types of threads.
It used to bother me a lot more than it does now, because I just accepted that once I hit the inevitable whatabout post I just go do something else. Its a good sign that there's nothing left in the thread.
[deleted]
The only way to combat propaganda and 'fake news' is for its audience to apply some critical thinking. As far as I'm aware the Internet in Myanmar is not restricted/censored, so people there have every opportunity to check facts - that they do not appear to may be a symptom of Internet access being such a new phenomenon there.
While Myanmar no longer has a restricted internet enforced via firewall that's a relatively recent development, only having changed in 2011. There isn't official state censorship at this point in time, however there is still a large degree of self-censorship occurring due to concerns over being jailed or otherwise penalized for voicing a dissident opinion online. Freedom House has a more comprehensive report on the state of internet there available here https://freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-net/2017/myanmar
The current state of affairs is such that only those voices that conform to the government's official narrative will be heard and promoted while those that do exercise critical thought can't verbalize it online without fear of violence and intimidation.
The current state of affairs is such that only those voices that conform to the government's official narrative will be heard and promoted while those that do exercise critical thought can't verbalize it online without fear of violence and intimidation.
> that they do not appear to may be a symptom of Internet access being such a new phenomenon there.
It would seem that there are many citizens in nations (e.g. US) where internet access is not a new phenomenon do not do this either, so I don't think that is a valid excuse.
It would seem that there are many citizens in nations (e.g. US) where internet access is not a new phenomenon do not do this either, so I don't think that is a valid excuse.
[deleted]
saana(3)
sprash(1)
I don't get how Mark can live with the monster he has created. He made billions from this, why doesn't he retire and move to a desert island with his wealth. From there he can start to work on an open protocol alternative to FB.
Could anyone explain to me how would an open protocol alternative to FB be more resilient to a government backed propaganda campaign like this one?
It wouldn't.
The reality is that this is not a technology problem. It is a human problem.
The reality is that this is not a technology problem. It is a human problem.
It's probably not going to solve itself for sure, but at least the solution is not in the hands of one entity, with perverse incentives to get more engagement to show ads. Besides this, an alternative to FB may not be one technology or service, but several separate ones.
This is just wishful thinking. Facebook is not the root of this problem. People using a medium of communication to incite violence is the problem, Facebook just happens to be the most popular and thus the most effective. History unfortunately shows that other media can just be as effective. The example of the Rwandan genocide already has been given.
Even if he did, Facebook doesn't go away. It's here to stay now.
If you're dining with Satan, you can't decline dessert. You have to eat everything Satan prepares for the evening. You can try to run away, but I'm not sure you would get very far.
If you're dining with Satan, you can't decline dessert. You have to eat everything Satan prepares for the evening. You can try to run away, but I'm not sure you would get very far.
Maybe that's the case for him, but I'm of the oppinion that open protocols will win in the end. You often hear about the network effect of social netorks, however it is important to remember that FB is a subset of the greater network that is the Internet, which is built on open protocols.
I don't think you're understanding.
Let's suppose that you had open protocols. How would that stop the spread of false and incendiary information about the Rohingya in this case? I mean, these people just happen to use Facebook to spread that information because Facebook is available. Who's to say they wouldn't just use the open protocol servers to spread the information if Facebook had not been available?
This sort of thing is simply a consequence of being able to spread information. So Zuckerberg can run, we hackers can come up with open protocols, and whatever else, but this problem would still exist.
This is just my opinion, but I don't think open protocols solve this problem, because this is a human problem at its root. The problem is the people, not really the tools.
Let's suppose that you had open protocols. How would that stop the spread of false and incendiary information about the Rohingya in this case? I mean, these people just happen to use Facebook to spread that information because Facebook is available. Who's to say they wouldn't just use the open protocol servers to spread the information if Facebook had not been available?
This sort of thing is simply a consequence of being able to spread information. So Zuckerberg can run, we hackers can come up with open protocols, and whatever else, but this problem would still exist.
This is just my opinion, but I don't think open protocols solve this problem, because this is a human problem at its root. The problem is the people, not really the tools.
I agree that is't a human (moral) problem at it's root, but the problem may be aggravated by the current technical solution.
1. I agree.
2. What technical solutions would be better at fending off these kinds of propaganda attacks?
I am trying to figure out, for example, whether Reddit is more or less susceptible. As far as I can tell, individual subreddits do better and worse based on their members, moderation, voting policies, and scale.
2. What technical solutions would be better at fending off these kinds of propaganda attacks?
I am trying to figure out, for example, whether Reddit is more or less susceptible. As far as I can tell, individual subreddits do better and worse based on their members, moderation, voting policies, and scale.
Knowing that I don't have an answer to your second question, just some ideas of the top of my head.
Not optimizing for engagement at all may help. Driving people who whish to air their oppinions in public to blogs with RSS as a "follow" button may help. Not concentrating everyone and their mother on the same platform may help. Decentralizing the central features of FB to different providers and technolgies will make it harder to concert these propaganda efforts in my oppinion. Not that they will not try, as has been mentionend before this has happened before the internet existed.
Not optimizing for engagement at all may help. Driving people who whish to air their oppinions in public to blogs with RSS as a "follow" button may help. Not concentrating everyone and their mother on the same platform may help. Decentralizing the central features of FB to different providers and technolgies will make it harder to concert these propaganda efforts in my oppinion. Not that they will not try, as has been mentionend before this has happened before the internet existed.
Are you conciously victimizing Facebook's leadership?
It makes money, but it has a net negative social effect. Do we, as a society, stigmatize, or at least not encourage greed? We don't. So you might as well say that these people are not the victims of the mythical, absolute evil, aka the devil; they're victims of our conflicted sense of value.
It makes money, but it has a net negative social effect. Do we, as a society, stigmatize, or at least not encourage greed? We don't. So you might as well say that these people are not the victims of the mythical, absolute evil, aka the devil; they're victims of our conflicted sense of value.
It's easy to pin evil on Facebook because of the company's arrogance. It's arrogance that ultimately negative impacts the value of the firm.
They look at growth as the only metric that matters and as a result have a vacuum in governance and practice. They appear to not fundamentally now respect the userbase, and have not appeared to seriously consider the conduct of partners on the platform in the past.
Anyone of the age of the Facebook leadership should have always understood how online forums work. Anyone who used Slashdot in the old days understood moderation, trolls, etc.
They look at growth as the only metric that matters and as a result have a vacuum in governance and practice. They appear to not fundamentally now respect the userbase, and have not appeared to seriously consider the conduct of partners on the platform in the past.
Anyone of the age of the Facebook leadership should have always understood how online forums work. Anyone who used Slashdot in the old days understood moderation, trolls, etc.
> If you're dining with Satan, you can't decline dessert. You have to eat everything Satan prepares for the evening.
What?
What?
Interesting how people were 'outraged' about 1 missing Journalist and flooded HN with articles about how evil the government of Saudi Arabia is ( which I agree with ) , but a more serious crime like genocide leaves HN disinterested. Would this be the same, if the perpetrators and victims were reversed ? I highly doubt it.
What a weird what-about-ism. There have been a few other atrocities too, why are you not mentioning them?
Ultimately it has to do with how close political ties are maintained. After all it's more concerning if a family member whom you share living space with suddenly becomes unpredictable or violent as opposed to a neighbour 3 houses down the street.
"Tech execs will never come to a full realization of their platforms' roles in genocide and the rise in authoritarianism, in part because doing it would require an overwhelmingly traumatic personal reckoning." -- https://twitter.com/oneunderscore__/status/10518563279522693...
We had a lot of coverage of the Myanmar genocide facilitated by Facebook and the comments were always very negative against Facebook here. You won't find much sympathy of the company on HN.
>We had a lot of coverage of the Myanmar genocide facilitated by Facebook and the comments were always very negative against Facebook here.
Not always. A surprising number of HN commenters in those threads supported both Facebook and the genocide.
Either way, HN was anything but disinterested.
Not always. A surprising number of HN commenters in those threads supported both Facebook and the genocide.
Either way, HN was anything but disinterested.
> A surprising number of HN commenters in those threads supported both Facebook and the genocide.
I'm skeptical that there actually were non-grey comments in support of the genocide
I'm skeptical that there actually were non-grey comments in support of the genocide
Every one of them probably wound up being downvoted and flagged, but that doesn't require a majority of users. My point is that the sentiment was still expressed, so it exists as a facet of HN culture.
You won't find many threads where Islam, Muslims or immigrants are mentioned in which at least some anti-Muslim and anti-immigrant bias doesn't appear, including this one.
You won't find many threads where Islam, Muslims or immigrants are mentioned in which at least some anti-Muslim and anti-immigrant bias doesn't appear, including this one.
Which specific comments in this thread as it stands indicate anti-muslim or anti-immigrant bias?
Edit: what did saana say that got them flagged out? Is this the one?
Edit: what did saana say that got them flagged out? Is this the one?
The Saana comment was pretty far out there.
Yes. It's safe to say that comment had anti-muslim, anti-immigrant, anti-minority bias.
There are many people like that in the world though. It's unreasonable to require them to not exist before we discuss topics like this. In fact, in a very real way, they are the entire reason we find ourselves needing to discuss topics like this.
Yes. It's safe to say that comment had anti-muslim, anti-immigrant, anti-minority bias.
There are many people like that in the world though. It's unreasonable to require them to not exist before we discuss topics like this. In fact, in a very real way, they are the entire reason we find ourselves needing to discuss topics like this.
Articles about politics are off-topic [1] on HN. Neither article should have made the front page nor aroused much attention.
[1]https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
[1]https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
The manipulation of social networking platforms such as Facebook by political actors (Myanmar's military) for the purpose of spreading disinformation with clear real-world consequences is patently 'on topic'.
You make a good point so long as that is the focus of the discussion. If on the otherhand, the discussion spins off into politics which it is already doing, then it is still off-topic because it is arousing off topic discussion.
This thread of conversation is more exactly and explicitly off-topic than conversations about 'politics', however.
These and other tragedies lie in the past. We would do well to look for the warning signs of these in the future: what media organisations are publishing propaganda about ethnic minorities? What incitement to and tacit endorsement of violence is currently being broadcast or circulated on Facebook and other places?