Facebook Accidentally Blacked Out an Entire Language (theverge.com) 26
On January 16th, Facebook users received an error message when posting in Jinghpaw, a language spoken by Myanmar's ethnic Kachin and written with a Roman alphabet. From a report: "We couldn't post this. Tap for more info," the message said. When clicking, a second appeared: "Your request couldn't be processed. There was a problem with this request. We're working on getting it fixed as soon as we can." A Facebook representative told The Verge that the issue was caused by "a bug in our language infrastructure," and coincided with the launch, the same day, of an updated language identification model supporting ten new languages, including Jinghpaw. The representative said Facebook fixed the issue within hours of receiving reports on January 17th. But while the disabling of Jinghpaw was not an active move of censorship, it alerted many Kachin people that Facebook had the capability to identify their language, an alarming thought for the embattled minority group. That realization has evoked a visceral reaction from the Kachin, and brought forth new calls for the company to be more transparent about its technology and the ways it will be used.
Guh? (Score:3)
I find this baffling. And...?
So Facebook had a bug, which happens. And people are mad because computers can identify text now? Wtf am I reading here?
Re: Guh? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What if I want to communicate with someone in a made-up language that the two of us speak? Or what if I belong to a really tiny minority group?
If anything, it showcases that Facebook is not interested in facilitating communication between people unless they can eavesdrop on that communication.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So it's back to good old talking in code, then?
Well, then. Queen Victoria is stuck on the beach of Diamond Hill on her vacation, send pineapples for her dinner with Lord Applebee. My dog has tics.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Minority group with a history of being oppressed by its government discovers that Facebook can identify them by the language they write in. They make this discovery because communication through Facebook in their language is blocked. But its OK, because it is "just a bug".
Are you starting to get what the problem might be yet? Can you come up with any reasonable explanation why Facebook would add the ability to post in a particular language? Can you come up with any reasonable explanation why this ability
Re: (Score:2)
Is the OP idiot? (Score:1)
Quote: " it alerted many Kachin people that Facebook had the capability to identify their language, an alarming thought for the embattled minority group."
Is an autocorrect for a minor language, which *needs to identify the language* (here the piece of resistance) an "alarming thought"? Seriously guys... you're really high on... whatever.
Re:Is the OP idiot? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Facebook probably arrived on their devices before the open internet, with their subsidized connections and non-net neutrality. For a good chunk of the world, Facebook is the Internet, ala America Online.
You think the people surprised by this are sophisticated users?
Re: (Score:2)
They probably mistakenly thought that as an American company, Facebook represents freedom of speech, and would not share info with their government. Now that their language, and only their language was blocked from posting on Facebook, they have to face reality.
Re: (Score:2)
I am similarly confused. Do the Kachin people specifically fear Facebook? Otherwise its not like if FB in recognizing the latinization of their language is outing them as members of this minority or something. If facebook's algorithm can do it any of the humans they fear surely can as well. Seems like they probably need to be thinking long and hard about using their native language online at all if they need to keep their identity as a member of this minority a secret.
Re: (Score:2)
Do the Kachin people specifically fear Facebook?
Don't you? Should a precondition of your being able to communicate with your friends and relatives be that Facebook (and perhaps others) monitor your conversations? And if they can't, you can't speak.
Re: (Score:2)
Well that is a interesting angle. Should facebook allow content they can't understand to be posted? How do they know that its not violating their AUP? Frankly I think it would be irresponsible for facebook to allow such posts.
Re: (Score:2)
Should facebook allow content they can't understand to be posted? How do they know that its not violating their AUP?
Ixnay on the odecay.
Re: (Score:2)
Does msmash own a piece of Slashdot? (Score:2)
ms mash is trolling the audience as usual by being as blatantly lazy and indifferent to quality content is possible.
Unfortunately all criticism of staff is ignored and their content considered sacred.
Does anyone know if msmash owns a piece of Slashdot? An explanation is in order.
What's the problem? (Score:3)
A company of Facebook's size, with the complexity and data ingest that would come naturally, would have to automate most of the operations to stand the slightest chance of making anything work. This isn't a case of transparency, it's a case where the user has to apply a microsecond of thought to the scale of the problem, realizing that language processing is a very small part of the entire platform, and an absolute necessity. If you don't want the ideas you make public to be scanned, analyzed and in some case monitored, then don't make them public, and especially don't hand them over to one of the biggest social companies on the planet.
BFD (Score:2)
Look at it this way. Had FB never bothered to include this language it would still be a little island nobody could understand. FB tried their best, failed, and fixed it. If anything FB should get 2 thumbs up on this one.
I can't believe I'm both defending FB and not being an anonymous coward here.
Think of the implications (Score:2)
They have a method to detect a particular language and selectively block all use of it. The bug wasn't detecting and blocking the language. The bug was enabling this capability.
This should worry the shit out of you.
Think about what this would be used for.
Think of the necessary purposes (Score:2)
They can't. Thus, this is a legitimate expansion of basic and necessary core-business functionality.
Oh, and let's not forget that the
Who would have thought (Score:2)
Turning over the major means of public and private discourse to large corporations with no legal protection of free speech turns out to be a dystopian nightmare? Such surprise!
But what about their right to privacy (Score:1)