Facebook Approved Pro-Genocide Ads in Kenya

Kenya's national cohesion watchdog threatened to suspend Facebook from the country Friday if it doesn't mitigate hate speech ahead of the country's general elections next month. From a report: The regulator has given the company one week to remediate the problem, which included Facebook's approval of ads advocating for ethnic cleansing. Human rights organizations and the Facebook whistleblower are calling on Facebook to immediately suspend all advertising in Kenya and take other emergency steps. The National Cohesion and Integration Commission (NCIC), a Kenyan agency founded to mitigate ethnic violence and promote national healing in the wake of the 2007-08 post-election crisis, told reporters on Friday that Facebook was "in violation of the laws of our country."

Kill it already

[muh_freeze_peach]

Something needs to be done about Facebook's openly malicious advertising practices.

Re:

[DarkRookie2]

I am sure they will run out of people to give Facebook account to, once that happens, Facebook won't have growth, the people with the money will pull away, and it will rot away.
This is not a fast process, but the only one we can hope for. The Gov isn't going to do anything about it. Big tech pays them well.

Re:

[muh_freeze_peach]

The Lobbyists are the Real Government.

Re:

[Baloo Uriza]

ActivityPub is way ahead of you.

Of course

[DarkRookie2]

They paid money to Facebook. If you do, they will run your ad as well.

Re:

[timeOday]

Did they? The ads were not run. The investigators crafted some ads and then by some means determined that they could have been placed:

The groups said they tested the language using Facebook ad system specifically because it allowed them to assess Facebookâ(TM)s content approval process while also removing the posts before other users could see them.

Were these posts, or ads? In particular did they really go through the whole approval process? (And although it should not come to this, if they had a

Re:

[DarkRookie2]

Were these posts, or ads?

Really not much of a difference in most cases.

Re:

[mrex]

Is it even reasonable to expect a company like FB to employ censors competent in every single language on Earth, even really ultra obscure regional ones?

My clever plan is to false flag post an ad that's an open call to genocide of hoomans in my made-up language of Ur-Galaxian, then accuse the media companies of allowing it as a way to generate outcry for additional infrastructure of censorship. Bet Vice'll run it, at least.

They don't approve anything

[CastrTroy]

They don't actually actively approve anything. This isn't some 1960s MadMen type thing were people sit around a board room and debate the ads to see which ones will appeal most to the most people without having anything that would offend anyone. They just collect the money, put up whatever ad you paid for, and then worry about the backlash later if there is any. They've already collected the money, they aren't going to give it back.

AI does not work

[rahmrh]

It is really simple facebook and others rely on AI to work.

AI is only as good as is training and it is pretty much impossible to train it to cover all of the cases. AI does not think.

The fact that English genocide ads get through tells me that if it does not catch English, it is not going to catch any language since english should have had the most training.

Facebook's AI work as Trained

[Roger W Moore]

The fact that English genocide ads get through tells me that if it does not catch English

I bet their algorithms would catch ads calling for Facebook to be banned from the country for supporting genocide. As you say an "AI" - or rather machine learning algorithm since it is definitely not intelligent - is only as good as its training. Facebook cares only about making money and its AI training reflects that. It only blocks socially unacceptable ads for fear that it will alienate its users and cause it to lose money, not because it finds e.g. genocide morally repugnant.

free speech please

[Micah NC]

"hate speech" just means speech that the incompetent people don't like and want to get rid of

Re:

[muh_freeze_peach]

I also like to make up definitions for things that I may disagree with. Lets be friends!

Not just hate speech

[Roger W Moore]

This isn't just "hate speech" it's an incitement to violence of just about the worst sort imaginable. Almost every country bans this even, I believe, the US.

Re:

[Micah NC]

Are you going to label all whistleblowers "inciters of violence" ?

Would be better to let people incite whatever they want and let them take responsibility for it.

Re:

[serviscope_minor]

Yeah those people should hear both sides of the argument about whether they should be murdered. How do they know the would be murderers aren't right? Anyone who thinks they have a right to life is just an irrational incompetent who can't handle rational logical debate, clearly.

Re:

[mrex]

Hearing both sides of the argument means we shouldn't censor or ban hate groups like the KKK. This was famously argued by the American Civil Liberties Union in National Socialist Party of America v. Village of Skokie, among other cases.

"Hearing both sides of the argument" doesn't mean that anyone is obligated to accept cash payments to post advertisements that constitute a realistic incitement to commit imminent murder.

Re:

[Micah NC]

Government policing views is FAR more dangerous than anything the KKK ever were.

Kenya's debt is $66bn

[Bruce66423]

I'm sure a fine of 20% of that would be appropriate...

missing details

[systemd-anonymousd]

Genocide against whom?

Only in Kenya...

[Virtucon]

You only get this in Kenya [youtu.be]

You could make an argument for genocide

[wyattstorch516]

For example, if the Turks had been successful in their genocide then we wouldn't be subjected to the Kardashians today.

I guess one genocide wasn't enough for Zuckerberg.

[denny_deluxe]

First Myanmar, now this. But they cheerfully profit off vaccine misinformation and facilitate insurrections, so why not I guess. #zuckerpunch

Speech isn't the problem

[mrex]

Hearing both sides of the argument means we shouldn't censor or ban hate groups like the KKK. This was famously argued by the American Civil Liberties Union in National Socialist Party of America v. Village of Skokie, among other cases.

"Hearing both sides of the argument" doesn't mean that anyone is obligated to accept cash payments to post advertisements that constitute a realistic incitement to commit imminent murder.