Facebook Fails To Detect Hate Against Rohingya (apnews.com) 110
A new report has found that Facebook failed to detect blatant hate speech and calls to violence against Myanmar's Rohingya Muslim minority years after such behavior was found to have played a determining role in the genocide against them. From a report: The report shared exclusively with The Associated Press showed the rights group Global Witness submitted eight paid ads for approval to Facebook, each including different versions of hate speech against Rohingya. All eight ads were approved by Facebook to be published. The group pulled the ads before they were posted or paid for, but the results confirmed that despite its promises to do better, Facebook's leaky controls still fail to detect hate speech and calls for violence on its platform. The army conducted what it called a clearance campaign in western Myanmar's Rakhine state in 2017 after an attack by a Rohingya insurgent group. More than 700,000 Rohingya fled into neighboring Bangladesh and security forces were accused of mass rapes, killings and torching thousands of homes.
On Feb. 1 of last year, Myanmar's military forcibly took control of the country, jailing democratically elected government officials. Rohingya refugees have condemned the military takeover and said it makes them more afraid to return to Myanmar. Experts say such ads have continued to appear and that despite its promises to do better and assurances that it has taken its role in the genocide seriously, Facebook still fails even the simplest of tests -- ensuring that paid ads that run on its site do not contain hate speech calling for the killing of Rohingya Muslims.
On Feb. 1 of last year, Myanmar's military forcibly took control of the country, jailing democratically elected government officials. Rohingya refugees have condemned the military takeover and said it makes them more afraid to return to Myanmar. Experts say such ads have continued to appear and that despite its promises to do better and assurances that it has taken its role in the genocide seriously, Facebook still fails even the simplest of tests -- ensuring that paid ads that run on its site do not contain hate speech calling for the killing of Rohingya Muslims.
Saudi Arabia should do more (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
How are poor villagers in northern myanmar expected to make their way to saudi arabia? - it's several thousand miles away, and with a number of other countries in between if you travel by land.
They don't have access to aircraft or seaworthy ships that would be required to navigate to somewhere so far away.
Re: Saudi Arabia should do more (Score:2)
All muslims must do one pilgrimage to Mecca during their lifetime. They know where it is.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
That's not quite right. All Muslims are supposed to participate in the Hajj if they are well enough off physically and financially to take the trip and to maintain their dependents while they're gone. There are plenty of poor and sick Muslims who can't afford to take the trip, especially because Mecca is now full up every year, which makes it ever more expensive to take the trip. Only about 2-3 million people participate each year, which means not even close to all the world's billions of Muslims can mak
Migration (Score:2)
Refugees from Afghanistan and Syria make it to England and France, which is on the other side of a continent from their home countries, sometimes crossing through hostile countries and over lakes and seas.
The other point being, why aren't *those* refugees landing in Saudi Arabia?
Re: (Score:2)
Good question, and as a German, their preferred destination in Europe being Germany for some reason, I'd like to know, too, so I googled.
Apparently it's a mixture of not having the concept of a "refugee" in their code of laws and not wanting politicized muslims inside their borders who could stir opposition against the regime. Also in the Gulf states the native populations are a (sometimes tiny) minority with e.g. Qatar having had 90% foreigners in 2010, which doesn't help.
https://www.lejournalinternati... [lejournali...ational.fr]
F
Re: (Score:2)
Mod parent up and I love the sig.
Re: (Score:2)
You can't really think of "muslims" as a single group. There are several different sects, some of which are actively hostile to each other. Introducing a large number of one sect of muslims into a country populated by a rival sect would also cause problems.
Re: (Score:2)
The right thing for non-musl
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure how you extrapolate a general responsibility from the responsibility Saudi Arabia, one would think, has taken upon itself.
Re: (Score:2)
Saudi Arabia funds mosques in every country using the petro dollars. They appoint the imams who cause trouble. They whip up a mixture of superiority complex and victimhood in every country. If there is back lash, Saudi Arabia thinks that is good, if they get thrown and become refugees, Saudi Arabia will fund "charities" that will convey them to India, Europ
Re: (Score:2)
>Equally by that token, all people are morally obligated to accept all refugees.
Which token? The Saudi's moral obligation is one they have taken on themselves. This, one may assume, should go above and beyond any general fuzzy moral obligation that mankind has to take care of itself as a whole, or even other countries have taken on as the rights of all people.
Or are you simply trying to say that "we all should do more!"?
Re: (Score:2)
The logic is, Saudi Arabia claims to be the protector of all Muslims of the world, It preaches Muslims should only obey Shari-ah and not whatever is the local law, through the mosques funded by them. The radicalization and misdirection of muslim youth happens by the mosques funded by Saudi Arabia.
Now turn it back and say, "Since Saudi Arabia is the protector of all Muslims, all Muslims get the right to immigrate to Saudi Arabia by default". 99.9% of the Muslims do not want
Imagine that (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That's probably a key part of the problem...
Only whites are capable of carrying out genocide or oppression. Since the myanmar generals are not white, there is far less attention on them.
If the generals were white, there would be a much louder outcry and far more scrutiny on them.
hate against Russians still ok. (Score:1)
It's the hate flavor of the month after all!
Re: hate against Russians still ok. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: hate against Russians still ok. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You're spreading Russian propaganda.
Re: (Score:2)
However, none of this is relevant to the fact that the Russian regime has committed the ultimate crime, a war of aggression. All the carnage we're seeing is a result of that crime
You're spreading Russian propaganda.
I'm guessing you only read the first sentence or do not know how propaganda works.
Re: (Score:2)
Not true. The other stuff is just providing cover for the lie that he wants to spread. After all, if you believe that Ukraine has a significant neo-nazi problem, then you accept Putin's justification for the war and that makes the 'war of aggression' claim a lot weaker.
I'd say that you're the one who doesn't know how propaganda works.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
He's literally parroting Russian propaganda. Get a clue.
Re: (Score:2)
After all, if you believe that Ukraine has a significant neo-nazi problem, then you accept Putin's justification for the war and that makes the 'war of aggression' claim a lot weaker.
I'd say that you're the one who doesn't know how propaganda works.
I don't understand why a country having racists would make it ok to attack that country. People level the the same claims at the US. Would that allow Russia to have cause to invade us?
Re: (Score:2)
I don't get it either, but the 'de-Nazification' of Ukraine was one of the ways he tried to justify his invasion.
Would that allow Russia to have cause to invade us?
My guess is that any attack on the US would be "justified" as an act of retaliation or self-defense.
Re: (Score:2)
Nobody disputes the existence of neo-nazis in Ukraine - the Azov Battalion has official recognition as part of the Ukrainian national guard. But looking closer, you'll find neonazis on both sides. The paramilitary group formed by Russia within the Donbas region has ties to Russian National Unity, which is a neo-nazi organization that supposedly no longer exists but had a modified swastika on its flag. That group is officially "banned" but it seems that both sides of the fight in Donbas had neo-nazis.
Reme
Re: hate against Russians still ok. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
I doubt you'd find anyone waving Swastikas in Russia. I can give you 20 million reasons why. There are however, a significant number of neo-Nazis in Ukraine. However, none of this is relevant to the fact that the Russian regime has committed the ultimate crime, a war of aggression. All the carnage we're seeing is a result of that crime.
Z is the swastika of this war. There are many theories on what it means, but I guess it's something to do with zombies.
Percentage of neo-Nazis in russia is much higher than in Ukraine.
Re: (Score:2)
Percentage of neo-Nazis in russia is much higher than in Ukraine.
How would you know?
Re: (Score:1)
A significant number being less than the number of actual Nazis that supported Germany in WW2. There are currently less than a thousand members of the Azov batallion, during WW2, with a much smaller population, 50,000 Ukrainian military personnel supported the Nazis vs 1.5M that opposed them.
Nazism (and most forms of implemented extremist socialism) has been relegated to the dustbin of history, even the most staunch Marxist can only do so at an intellectual level and implementations must differentiate thems
Re: (Score:2)
>I doubt you'd find anyone waving Swastikas in Russia.
No, they are waving a half swastika. or "Z" if you will.
>There are however, a significant number of neo-Nazis in Ukraine.
Define significant. Less that 1% of the population? There are significant number of neo-Nazis in the USA!
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
the average westerner currently hates Russians
Nope.
Re: (Score:2)
>The Russian people had no control over what happened
The problem is that the Russian people are the only ones that can actually stop Russia from being the way it has been so they better start having some control.
They are the ones that are going to have to stop the war, I don't think Putin is capable of admitting defeat, it would ruin his ego.
Re: (Score:2)
Well it seems that with the current policies you can hate russians (who are mostly nice people who may not even be aware whats happening in ukraine) and call for the death of russian soldiers (most of whom are just following orders - sometimes in fear of severe reprisals if they disobey), but you can't call for the assassination of putin who is the one ultimately giving the orders.
Re: (Score:2)
call for the death of russian soldiers (most of whom are just following orders
Russian soldiers are killing Ukrainians. While Russia continues aggression, not being in favour of Russian soldiers getting killed is being in favour of Ukrainian civilians being slaughtered because those are currently the two choices.
And as for just following orders. Way to Godwin the thread.
Re: hate against Russians still ok. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah well the Ukrainians choice is to kill as many Russian solders as possible or suffer a similar fate. Wishing the world were different doesn't make it so. Neither have a choice, but one lot are fighting on the side of freedom, the others to give more power to a violent, nuclear armed fascist dictator.
Re: (Score:2)
If you actually read the stories coming out of ukraine, you will find that a lot of russian soldiers were misled about why they are there, many have no will to fight and are refusing to do so or are surrending themselves and their equipment to the ukrainian forces. There are lots of interviews published online with soldiers who were captured or surrendered.
Others believe the propaganda from the russian government, which claims that ukraine is full of nazis. I believe a lot of people would want to fight agai
Not surprised (Score:2)
- somebody who's reported a lot of *blatantly* violating content
Re: (Score:1)
Re: Not surprised (Score:2)
I landed in FB jail for a month for calling out someone as a jackass for believing their blatant right-wing conspiracy theory bullshit.
Guess I tread on someoneâ(TM)s First and Second Amendment rights.
Facebook and money (Score:2)
You can advertise pretty much anything on Facebook, as long as you word it in a certain way.
They will take your money, publish of ads, then wait to see if anyone protests.
If yes, they will remove your ads and keep your money.
Else, they will run your ads until you run out of budget.
Just look at all the obvious scam ads such as "We're closing the store, selling everything cheaply" - run those websites through scam-detector or similar services - they are all scams. Facebook won't care. They make money in the p
Problems are problems (Score:2)
As much as I dislike Facebook, the primary problem here is hate against Rohingya. In fact abbreviate it, the primary problem here is hate.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes absolutely, the real problem is hate. But to tackle that, you need to tackle the root causes of hate not the symptoms.
If one group hates another, there will always be a reason why. It may be based on past actions or bad experiences, it may be based on upbringing or teaching, there could be any number of factors.
But if you suppress that hatred by preventing people from expressing it, the hatred doesn't go away. It just becomes augmented with anger because now these people will feel oppressed and censored
Re: (Score:2)
I would argue that in Myanmar, at least part of the problem is the stifling of speech, prohibited by the current government. Similarly, many Russians support the war in Ukraine because the only source of information they have is the government, which doesn't give them good information.
Re: Problems are problems (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
No, the problem is people want to corral free speech as if it will help. I'm sure nobody in that forsaken country was persuaded by Facebook to join in a genocide, that's just not how these things work. The primary thing that leads to those atrocities are the suppression of free speech, secondary is good ol' state-approved media. What the article is recommending is that we should go along with the primary thing that leads to atrocities in order to prevent atrocities of another kind.
If Facebook was even remo
Re: (Score:2)
I agree with your general point, but Facebook has been blocked in China for a long time. Apparently it's blocked in Russia now, too.
Re: (Score:1)
Versions of some of their apps exist, as does Apple's and Microsoft's etc.
Re: (Score:2)
What is the point in identifying 'hate' as a problem?
In a similar vein, what is the point of identifying 'greed' or 'sexuality; or 'desire' or 'status' or 'love' or anything else.
All these things are a part of us as humans. These are just broad terms that pretty much mean nothing and there's almost nothing you can do to alter people's humanity.
Identifying tangible problems and solutions is a lot more effective.
Problems like deeply different societies generally don't do well without segregation (like Canada
Re: (Score:2)
These are just broad terms that pretty much mean nothing and there's almost nothing you can do to alter people's humanity.
Uh, you somehow missed out on the last 2600 years of thought. Since you missed out, I'll fill you in: the purpose of education is to alter people's humanity. A particularly notable exposition of this point was 500 years ago, in Shakespeare's Hamlet. A more recent (and perhaps for you, approachable) exposition might be found in My Fair Lady.
Thought police? (Score:1)
Re: Thought police? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Hate is not a natural emotion, and since the Internet is no longer Common Carrier, it is the job of those who carry or store information to police it. If you don't want it policed, it must be made Common Carrier again. The choice is that simple.
Re: (Score:2)
since the Internet is no longer Common Carrier, it is the job of those who carry or store information to police it. If you don't want it policed, it must be made Common Carrier again. The choice is that simple
ISPs used to behave as common carriers, but web sites never did, and ISPs of today can't be any more than websites can be. If they don't shape traffic they won't function. If sites can't police themselves then they won't either.
Re: (Score:2)
I remember, back in the day, when Slashdot proudly resisted takedown requests from the Scientologists, arguing (successfully, as I recall) common carrier status.
Shaping traffic is independent of whether an ISP fits the definition of "common carrier", as long as it is done without packet inspection.
Let's say you had three pipes coming into a router, where two are of equal size and one is double. It would be in violation of Common Carrier to say that torrent traffic is excluded or capped.
It would be perfectly
Re: (Score:2)
I remember, back in the day, when Slashdot proudly resisted takedown requests from the Scientologists, arguing (successfully, as I recall) common carrier status.
Nope [slashdot.org].
A web site was NEVER a common carrier. This is obvious if you look at the definition of a common carrier. I believe this comment [slashdot.org] picked from the above linked discussion says it best, so I won't waste my time going back over the arguments from 22 fucking years ago.
Re: (Score:2)
Hate is very much a natural emotion. The largest, longest, and most significant problem of our species has been how to deal with the problem of evil and its effects. If hate wasn't a natural emotion, world peace would have happened long ago.
The problem of hate is that it is so much easier to hate someone than to love them. Hating is easy, loving is difficult. And it doesn't help that Facebook is actively opposed to groups (like Christians) trying to get people to love each other.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, no. Wars and major tribal conflict only appears around 7,000-9,000 BC, during the transition from hunter-gatherer to farmer. There is simply no evidence prior to this. There is also significant evidence of a lack of major conflict in Scotland during the Bronze Age - Brochs aren't defensive and would have required major cooperation to build at all, and only one borderland grave has yielded individuals killed in battle out of the many excavated.
It would also have been completely impossible for hominins
Re: (Score:2)
>It would also have been completely impossible for hominins to develop the way they did from 3.3 million years BP to 1.1 million years BP if there was significant violence.
Citation needed.
It is entirely possible and probable that the technology is what allowed us to develop rather than lack of violence. You also see chimpanzees lack extensive tool use.
However, ""Stones tools that are 3.3 million years old have been unearthed pre-dating the earliest-known humans in the Homo genus." where did those being
Re: (Score:2)
Strangely, at no time have I used the phrase "no violence". You get your citations when you read what you're replying to and not before.
Re: (Score:2)
>Strangely, at no time have I used the phrase "no violence". You get your citations when you read what you're replying to and not before.
Fine, then let me rephrase it:
There has been war and tribal conflict that is "as major" as the tribes involves for as long as their has been tribes! So I doubt your premise that is some time in Eden there was no war.
Re: (Score:2)
Never said there was no war, either. You're still not reading, so you still won't get.
Re: (Score:2)
>Never said there was no war, either. You're still not reading, so you still won't get.
Well, you said:
"Well, no. Wars and major tribal conflict only appears around 7,000-9,000 BC, during the transition from hunter-gatherer to farmer. There is simply no evidence prior to this."
So, yes indeed you said there was no war. And no "major tribal conflict" prior to 9000BC. Good luck with that premise.
I said that there are conflicts *as major as* any groups involved well before this.
Now I wonder who of us is mor
Re: (Score:2)
No response? Not even to the cites I've given others?
Doesn't look to me like you wanted the cites at all, you just wanted a fight.
Re: (Score:2)
>No response? Not even to the cites I've given others?
No response to what? I see no response to mine!
>Not even to the cites I've given others?
I looked through your posting history. the only cite in this thread that I have seen is this:
https://indo-european.eu/2018/... [indo-european.eu]
I read this and if anything it supports my premise that violence are war are prevalent. Thanks for the link!
Re: (Score:2)
>No response to what? I see no response to mine!
Sorry, saw that now. Will respond there.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Whoever did the emigrating wiped out 16 out of 17 males in the late Neolithic, very early Bronze Age. That's the worst entirely manmade genetic bottleneck in history.
https://indo-european.eu/2018/... [indo-european.eu]
When we look at later manmade genetic bottlenecks, two of the worst were the British Empire (when 100 million were killed over 200 years), and the Mongol empire (in which 40 million were killed in 160 years). I'll leave the statisticians to point out which numbers are bigger. There was also the Late Bronze Age C
Re: (Score:2)
but are happy to hate Russians which if it is OK for us to hate Russians who have done us no harm
I assume you're American, because I hear this short-sighted attitude only from Americans.
Russians have historically done a lot of harm to your current allies, they've done some more clandestinely over the past years and threaten to do more, especially these past weeks. That alone should be a concern, at the very least.
I can't imagine looking the other way if a similar threat was looming over the USA.
Re: (Score:2)
I assume you're American, because I hear this short-sighted attitude only from Americans.
He's a right-wing troll. They're noisy, but a clear minority.
Re: (Score:2)
The average westerner has no idea what they are talking about when the subject of Rohingya comes up but are happy to hate Russians which if it is OK for us to hate Russians who have done us no harm
No one is free while others are oppressed. You think it can't happen to you, but it can, and the way it begins is tolerance of others' oppression.
Russia has been an aggressor for centuries. Have some respect for history.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
The idea that people are fundamentally different based on the color of their passport is as dumb as the idea that they're fundamentally different based on the color of their skin. This way of thinking needs to go.
Yes, that's why you should stop thinking it. When people say Russians this or Russians that they don't necessarily mean that it's because of their genetics. I know that's not what I mean when I say it. What I for one mean is that a whole culture can be deliberately or accidentally trained to certain behaviors which tend to be self-reinforcing. I could sit here all day and say uncomplimentary things about people from my own country, and in fact I do when we're the topic of conversation.
When Russians are at i
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Facebook always was a dating service - didn't you notice?
They connect people together into groups of like minded people and then help people campaign to expand their group and influence their group; pedophiles or whatever. The internet previously had a barrier to entry and a limited manual search -- no automated dating service outside of actual dating and not a free one.
This isn't thought police, this is like purposely matching the most vulenarable children with the "best" pedophile. Let them find each o
Two words of the heading always apply (Score:2)
Systemic Hate and Genocide (Score:2)
Facebook directly caused the Rohingya genocide. They put cheap phones with free Facebook access into Burman hands and "fail to detect" anti-Rohingya memes shared in pro-junta Facebook groups.
Sources:
* https://www.mobileworldlive.co... [mobileworldlive.com]
* https://techcrunch.com/2018/05... [techcrunch.com]
* https://www.reuters.com/articl... [reuters.com]
* https://www.ohchr.org/sites/de... [ohchr.org]
Re: (Score:2)
That's not how causation works. But they did directly enable it. And unintended consequences should be treated as importantly as intended ones.
Is this a facebook issue? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Facebook isn't the world police. It's not the UN.
Facebook is sort of based in the US. The US is hugely active in the UN but more or less never ratifies any treaties with the UN. Nobody wants the US to be subject to or accountable to anybody else. The US is also not bound by any of the important parts of the Geneva Convention.
There is no world police. Facebook can take responsibility for things without enforcement actions against it. They have more money and resources than many of the nations they affect. If they were a country, their GDP would be 10
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
We aren't their customers, for one. But for every issue where you worry about losing your choice, another user is protected. There are two sides and the needs of both sets of users need respected.
Re: (Score:2)
Facebook isn't the world police. It's not the UN. It's not a world power. It doesn't have an army.
I don't think anyone is expecting them go in and physically restrain anyone. I think you read the wrong article.
It doesn't have Twitter's magical moderation team that can't do anything wrong because they have magical hate detection powers granted by Sauron the Lord of Gifts and of the Earth.
Don't know what that's all about, but they approved 8 ads calling for ethnic cleansing, including one that read “The current killing of the Kalar is not enough, we need to kill more!”. I don't think any magical detection
People are expecting too much (Score:2)
Most living people cannot differentiate between Awadhi, Banjara, Bhojpuri, Bhil people, and we expect a computer to do it?
Re: (Score:2)
What constitutes "blatant hate speech"? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
They can be trying and still be judged fairly. As much money as they bring in, they can do this without AI. Scan for important key words and push off the ads to a human reviewer. They'll lose some advertising revenue by not automating it. But they will still be profitable. They might lose 75% of their profit by actually trying to do the right thing. But as long as they're not losing, I have no sympathy.
Re: This is a nearly impossible task (Score:2)
TFA is about Facebook accepting paid ads inciting to violence. Not policing every message from every user on the platform.
Re: (Score:2)
Is this the same Facebook that recently approved open calls for violence against an invading army?
FTFY.