U.N. says Facebook 'slow' to respond to Myanmar 'genocide' against Rohingya
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
LONDON — Facebook has been “slow and ineffective” in tackling online hatred against Rohingyas , according to a United Nations report Monday that also called for Myanmar military leaders to be prosecuted for genocide.
Investigators working for the U.N.'s top human rights body said the country’s military carried out mass killings and gang rapes against the ethnic minority with “genocidal intent.”
Also on Monday, Facebook announced it was removing some Myanmar military leaders from its platform —including some of those identified in the U.N. report.
The U.N. investigators took the unusual step of identifying the commander-in-chief and five generals by name to pinpoint the main alleged perpetrators of deadly, systematic crimes against the ethnic minority.
The civilian government led by Aung San Suu Kyi has allowed hate speech to thrive, destroyed documents and failed to protect minorities from crimes against humanity and war crimes by the army, they concluded.
In doing so, it “contributed to the commission of atrocity crimes,” their report said.
The investigators compiled hundreds of accounts of crimes including gang rape, the torching of hundreds of villages, enslavement, and killings of children.
They said hatred against Rohingya was still being incited among Facebook users in Myanmar .
“The role of social media is significant,” it said. “Facebook has been a useful instrument for those seeking to spread hate, in a context where for most users Facebook is the Internet.
“Although improved in recent months, Facebook’s response has been slow and ineffective. The extent to which Facebook posts and messages have led to real-world discrimination and violence must be independently and thoroughly examined.”
Facebook enjoys sudden and overwhelming dominance in Myanmar, where basic freedoms such as internet access were banned by a military-led regime until 2014.
Read more at seeded content
Tags
Who is online
61 visitors
An interesting discussion about publications and responsibility. Every platform has to set their own standards, including NT. Here, Facebook is held to task by the UN for user accounts by another nation. The question becomes in user-generated material, who is responsible?
Absolutely, and any platform that serves to legitimize and normalize fake news and the Trump presidency, will have to own their decision to do so.
Lenny,
Are you implying that NT tries to legitimize and normalize fake news and the Trump presidency? I thought you were a big freedom of speech guy?
I am not sure how that applies to facebook.
On NT, the author gets to make the call, but if a person is on topic, then we don't remove, even if flagged.
What does freedom of speech have to do with this place? We aren't even allowed to disparage the most evil and destructive cult man has ever created, because it enjoys special protections here. We aren't even allowed to refer to it as a cult even though the very definition of the word cult describes it to a tee. You have a lot of nerve even mentioning free speech. YOU decide what speech is allowed here, and YOU are responsible for using the site to legitimize right wing lies and Donald fucking Trump, and protect evil, child-raping cults. Own it.
Lenny,
Damn right I own it. I also get the repercussions of things that go on here, plus I have to follow the rules that the group voted on. You are allowed to say anything you like about the "evil cult" so long as it abides by the rules. But you want it to be your rules, not what the site voted on. And here's the thing you seem to want to ignore. They can't call you names either. That's what fairness is all about.
At this point, there should be no mystery as to what is and is not allowed on this site. The only mystery to me is, why adults have such a hard time with following the rules.
If you have any other meta complaints please take them to "Metafied". I will deal with them there. Otherwise, as the owner of this seed, no more meta allowed.
Such a lovely choice of words; to belittle, denigrate, deprecate. All the things I am sure don't bother you if someone from the other side decides to reciprocate? After all, what's a little vitriol amongst friends, right?
To disparage is easy, it is quick, and your anger is momentarily satisfied. But the end result is, you have accomplished nothing. That isn't quite true, you have caused a hardening of the wall between you and the other. So you have in fact accomplished something, not something that is really very good, but an accomplishment nonetheless.
Freedom of speech is easy as long as one agrees with said speech. It only gets tough when one disagrees with it. Shouldn’t be that way but it’s the way some operate unfortunately.
I realize these are passionate times, and I get that everyone has strong opinions. Hence why I stay clean and out of the political fray. But there is room for everyone's opinions. What there is no room for is nasty name calling because of a difference. Make your best case and move on.
Is Donald Trump the Catholic Church? What the fuck does Donald Trump have to do with this?
You are deliberately taking what I said out of context and trying to make it look like I want to be able to disparage other members. I was complaining about not being able to disparage the Catholic Church, and trust me pal, the wall between me and the Catholic fucking Church can NEVER be high enough for my liking, and the anger I feel toward this church will NEVER be satisfied.
I really can't understand why a person who is so unhappy with the civil requirements of this site doesn't just leave.
Another blog I was on the owner got sued over opinions that were voiced that the plaintiff simply disagreed with. The owner won but had to waste time and resources (money) defending his site. Many on the site donated money to help in his defense.
It was a frivolous lawsuit but a lawsuit just the same.
Again, we need tort reform in this country ...... big time!
That is a nutty story, but hence why (unlike most blogs) I have a UA and a TOS along with CoC. One must be careful these days.
Yeah i hear you. His situation was awhile ago but he had similar protections as well. Anyone can can sue, for any reason, any time they want. More or less. It might not go anywhere but you will have to defend yourself to some point.
I taught scuba for over a decade. The paperwork students had to sign that legally protected us was voluminous and colleagues still got sued regularly, for doing nothing wrong, but rather when someone "perceiving" they did something wrong.
A big reason i got out of it.
That's a shame.
Yep, just be careful and fastidious with the rules like you have been.
One might get away with frivolous lawsuits in the USA but it's a little riskier in Canada. I recall one case where the lawyer repeatedly started proceedings on a frivolous matter until the Judge ordered that the lawyer himself pay both party's costs out of his own pocket rather than the client's. That sure as hell stopped the bullshit.
People sometimes say weird things.
Perrie, since you are the owner of this site--- should we attack you for the lack of coverage of the Myanmar Genocide? Are you therefore complicit-- perhaps even a war criminal?
/sarc
Interesting seed.
It seems a bit like the pot calling the kettle black... The United Nations saying that Facebook isn't doing enough???
That said... perhaps Facebook is all that can be done. If the Middle East, since Mossadegh, has taught us anything, it is that perverse effects completely overwhelm our Sorcerer's Apprentice actions.
This rejoins a recent conversation about media as as a branch of capitalism. It is to Facebook's best advantage to allow a maximum of trash... as long as it is compartmentalized so that the general public doesn't see it. Facebook sells clicks, and in Myanmar, there are lots of clicks that hate the Rohingya.
I hate to say it... but I don't think there's anything we can do...
Yeah, I know. They were so helpful during the Rwandan genocide. And that is their job description.
The UN can't take actions on its own per se, at least not without support from the UNSC members. Facebook however is free to determine what content is allowed on its platform.
Skrekk, the genocide has been going on since Jan 2017 and the UN just sent people to Myanmar this month to "investigate":
Meanwhile, it has the nerve to point to Facebook. Now I don't love facebook, but they have 2.2 billion users to police and assess. Meanwhile, the UN can sit on their hands for over a year till the investigate.
They did the same crap in Rowanda.
I'm one of the biggest human rights advocates, but when it comes to the UN, I find them to be the most worthless body created. Look at how streamlined Doctors without Borders is. That should be the UN.
That's by design.
I think it is way past time to ask if the UN has any useful purpose...
Then time to chuck in the design. it's way to expensive to waste money on when we could be doing actual good with it.
I totally agree Bob.
It's way past time to get rid of the UNSC entirely and give the UN general assembly some real authority. It's especially stupid to allow one UNSC member to veto any action of the UN. That's really why it's just a toothless puppet of a small handful of countries.
I totally agree if we are going to keep on the UN.
This is the same problem as the US Senate, where Wyoming has the same power as California. Do you really want an international body with Nauru having the same authority as China?
There's a reason for bicameralism... but sometimes it becomes unreasonable. It's hard to thread the needle.
Perhaps weighted voting in a single chamber would be better...
Except we're not talking about a federation with a common body of law like the US has. What we have instead is a federation where might makes right and 95% of the members are completely powerless, and the "governing authority" of the federation has no might whatsoever, much less a monopoly on the use of force.
True.
So IMHO, there's nothing to be done with the UN, and we should let it die.
Nah, it just means we need to either reform or abolish the UN security council.
It's way past time to get rid of the UNSC entirely and give the UN general assembly some real authority. It's especially stupid to allow one UNSC member to veto any action of the UN. That's really why it's just a toothless puppet of a small handful of countries.
Some people say the General Assembly is democratic-- after all, each country has one vote. Sounds fair, eh?
But there are two problems with that. Is it really fair to give an equal vote to countries such as China (over 1.5 billion people) and countries such as Tuvalu (total population less than 11 thousand!) ; Nauru (11, 347); Palau (21,000); Monaco (about 37 thousand population) and several others?
To put that into perspective-- these four tiny countries have 4 times the number of votes as the world's largest country (China!). Is that really democratic? Is it really fair?)
I don't agree with abolishing the UNSC as long as there is an obviously biased block that controls the vote in the GA.
The UN is such a disappointment to me. When I was 16 years old in 1953 I recall touring the UN, wowed by the amazing artwork, the architecture, and especially the hope for world peace that it represented. I watched the great Krishna Menon speak to the General Assembly. The UN made the unique decision on Partition to create a homeland for the Jews. This was the pathway to follow. So what happened? Just read General Dellaire's book "Shake Hands With the Devil" about the Rwanda genocide to see how tragically useless the organization had become. And now, the bias of the General Assembly, controlled by the Arab oil producing states and their co-religionists and the oil-hungry states that rely on the supply of oil that pander to them would create a weapon requiring the rest of the world to cater to whatever the Arab nations demand - without the UNSC any semblance of balance would be gone.
I truly wonder what those who want the UNSC to be abolished have in mind unless they are also in favour of a world wide caliphate, because the result would surely be similar.
I'm not sure what exactly FB could have done sooner...
The world is standing by while this genocide is taking place. I guess pointing fingers takes some of the guilt away.
There you go Kavika!
That's the thing that the thing that bothers me. They have pet projects and lots of lip service. But actually, get involved in any meaningful way, doesn't happen.
Exactly!
The UN, almost all countries of the world (including BTW, even Muslim countries!) etc have done nothing-- so in an attempt to deflect any accusations of guilt they attempt top derail the comversation by use a variation of the tactic of "Whattaboutism".
Facebook has in no way caused the problem-- and it has no power to fix it!
They said hatred against Rohingya was still being incited among Facebook users in Myanmar .
My issue with the above is this: holding Facebook accountable for its users posts seems to me to be akin to holding Fiat Chrysler accountable for James Fields Jr driving his dodge into a crowd of people. How is a maker/provider supposed to anticipate every action of a potential user?
This can go on ad nauseum. Yes, we are all tired of seeing hatred and fake news, but it will not change until people change.
Prohibition is a perfect example of banning. It didn't stop anything, it only drove it underground and made criminals wealthy and stronger. It didn't change behaviour, it didn't stop behaviour and may actually have increased the banned behaviour.
Bank of America freezing accounts of suspected undocumented immigrants: report
Bank of America is taking it a step further, freezing accounts of people 'suspected' of being undocumented aliens: read illegal if you want. People's assets are being taken because they are 'suspected' of being …: insert whatever you want.
So, once the censorship genie is let out of the bottle, where does it stop? History tells us it doesn't.
People who are incited by hate speech, are haters by nature. Whether they see/hear the speech isn't going to affect how they feel. Only one on one discussion with individuals will change behaviour. But how can we electronically foster one on one discussion? David Brin has some interesting thoughts:
Disputation Arenas: Harnessing Conflict and Competitiveness
Well said Steve. I agree with you totally.
I think that the UN should try and do something for a change. I mean actually do something. Not after the fact. Don't expect some posts on facebook to be as effective as taking actual action...
But we all know how this will play out.
Exactly. Will they do anything about the 2 journalists sentenced to 7 years in prison for reporting on the massacre? Likely not.
And this is what bothers me about the UN. The can criticise and pretend to take a moral high ground a huge fee to run the place, but when it comes to anything meaningful, like being proactive in this case, they don virtually nothing. This facebook thing is just another deflection for their incompetence and hypocrisy.
They can't. The General Assembly has no power (other than issuing toothless resolutions).
The real power is in the UN Security Council-- and anything the U.S. backs there will be blocked by the Russians and the Chinese-- and anything the Russian and Chinese back will be blocked by the U.S.!
IIRC, there was one time the UN could act. When Communist China illegally invaded Korea. The UN Security Council did act-- and did more than talk-- they actually sent in troops which resulted in the Korean war.
Troops (including the U.S.) fighting under the UN flag were fighting Communist China.
But-- how could they do this? Why wasn't it stopped by a Russian/Chinese veto? (One veto would've stopped it). Simple-- China and Russia walked out of the Security Council-- without their presence r the Council could pass the rersolution to act-- and they did!
There's another factor as well."Armchair quarterbacks" online love to pontificate about why nations should act re: human rights abuses. But with rare exceptions, in the real world most nations don't give a hoot about human rights-- or often when they do that's secondary.
This may come as a shock to some Internet users, but more often than not countries act primarily based on . . . self interest! (Or perhaps more accurately, perceived self interest).
In other words, their leaders usually act like stereotypical politicians. The often have another ax to grind that takes priority over concern for human rights. (Especially if the victims are of a different race, religion, ethnicity, etc).
Here's a much closer parallel - what responsibility did radio stations in Rwanda have for the Rwandan genocide? I'd say a substantial one given the role which hate radio played. In fact at least three radio station owners or executives were convicted of fomenting genocide and sentenced from 35 years to life in prison by an international court authorized by the UN.
The difference of course is that FB doesn't necessarily share the views against the Rohingyas. But does that matter if they're the medium for that message and are aware of how their platform is being used?
How about this? Send Seal Team Six over to Myanmar to spank the entire government for allowing genocide. In many ways, we all bear responsibility; either for not speaking out or not doing. What about the soldiers who carried out the genocide? What is their responsibility?
Who bears responsibility for the 1 million Muslims in internment camps in China while the millions of Christians in this country decry the lack of freedom of religion?
We can point the finger in direction you want, the simple truth is, it is the individual who bears responsibility. I mean, Hearst and Pulitzer spewed a lot of yellow journalism, but the end result was to give the people what they wanted anyway, war. And so hatred of the other remains in the human heart, and will remain, despite any and all censorship, until one by one, humans begin to understand that they are destroying themselves in the process. It has taken at least 200,000 years for us to get to this point. It will probably take another 200,000 to get to the point of removing that hatred.
Certainly Hearst should have been prosecuted for ginning up wars and essentially running his own foreign policy. And we do try to hold individuals responsible for their actions, but that's too little and too late when it comes to genocide. So the question is what can we do to prevent that? Why wouldn't a private company or state or international organizations simply pull the plug on a technology or a platform which is enabling genocide?
Yep. When it comes to extreme Whaddaboutism"" (trying to avoid responsibility for one's own actions-- or the actions of a particular group one identifies with... by mentioning someone else who is guilty to avoid blame).
Rwandans? Not their fault-- it was all fake news? A while back I discovered Stalin killed more people than Hitler. So you can defend Hitler-- simple: whenever someone blames him, use this whattaboutism:
Sure, Hitler wasn't a nice guy-- but whattabout Stalin?
IMO there's a major trend happening today-- people not wanting to take responsibility for their own actions.
(And defending people/groups they like by saying things like: "He isn't so bad... after all, whattabout ________).
N.B: Whattaboutism is one type of derail...it can be useful if you want to kill any intelligent discussion
Well, by the same token, why didn't FDR do anything about preventing genocide when he could've taken strong action? (Against both the Nazis and Imperial Japan during WWII?). He refused to act. (We did not go to war to prevent ithose genocides--- the only reason we finally did is because the Axis attacked us first!).
Not trying to derail anything. I was simply pointing out that the thought can lead to many unwanted outcomes. Whataboutisms can be useful, if you pay close enough attention. True, a lot of people use them to derail, but then again, they can be useful to show the extreme logical conclusion of a particular line of thought.
Censorship of any kind, to me at least, can lead to a much less utopian outcome than originally thought. Does that mean I like hate speech or condone yellow journalism or any other kind of inflammatory speech? No. It doesn't. So let's go back to your Hitler v Stalin. Yeah, Stalin had ordered more people killed, but who did the killing? Hitler, Stalin? NO, they depended on those who would say they were just following orders or just doing their job. It was all of the individuals collectively who did the killing. The same in Myanmar. The people who listened to the radio broadcasts already had hatred of the other in them. Would the genocide have not happened if there had been no radio? Doubtful. The numbers of dead may have been fewer, but the result would have been the same. The broadcasts were a reflection of what was already out there.
Facebook and other platforms, have created an entity that is not entirely under their control any longer. Their main focus has and will continue to be, on the click bait dollar. The Chinese government is trying its best to make sure they don't have a Facebook issue, but I am not very keen on their methods.
So is there really an answer? Short of having a Thought Police Force, I don't see one.
Well, since you brought it up, I totally agree-- its definitely the Christians in this country who are responsible for the 1 million Muslims in internment camps in China!
The connection between the two is perfectly obvious-- a clear cut case of cause and effect!
(Once again logic reigns supreme on NT). And definitely one of the best examples of "Whattaboutism" I've seen in a while-- keep up the good work!
That can be done, but the question is, when do you do it? After the enabling is noticed or before? If you do it before, we wouldn't be having this conversation as the web would be completely dark. It wouldn't exist at all.
If we do it after, do we darken only that portion, and how do you darken a portion of a platform? You can remove access to the platform, but what is to stop them from creating their own platform? We already have that. So you pull the plug on the bad server, but then who gets to decide what is a bad server? (Yes, I tend to use server and platform interchangeably. Because in the end, you are simply talking about a server somewhere.) The server upon which the platform of NT resides, may at the same time be hosting a platform which encourages genocide, or any other kind of cide. Should the plug be pulled on the server, thereby causing NT to go dark, or should the offending account be removed? If you really want to punish the owner of the server for hosting something considered bad, you would pull the plug on the whole thing in order to deprive them of their cash flow. But at the same time, you are punishing a lot of innocent bystanders.
The net is a conglomeration of many things and is very much entertwined, like a climbing vine. So if you want to regulate or punish or whatever, it better be laser precise, because otherwise there are going to be a lot of innocent people hurt.
That's a fair question but a better way to look at it is why did the US permit American companies to sell stuff to the Nazis for so long?
Obviously nothing prevents that, not even now. But why should a company which presumably doesn't support genocide provide a platform to people who are using it to do that?
If we compare Facebook to Prescott Bush's funding of steel companies which traded with the Nazis, it was apparent that Bush didn't really give a crap that what he indirectly sold the Nazis would be used to commit genocide. Does FB have a similar policy?
Thanks for taking everything logically out of context. You are correct. Once again logic reigns supreme on NT. You add so much to the conversation. Your depth and breadth of understanding is amazing.
Thanks for the compliment!
(But I'm becoming sort of used to it-- while its not happening as quickly as it should, more and more people are indeed starting to realize that!)
Don't forget this part.
FB, last I checked, is privately owned, They are under no obligation to act in any certain way. If they want to suppress free speech? They can. If they want to have a specific political agenda? They can.
Lol, that is totally rich coming from you and exemplifies the double standard by many who use that logic.
No, I completely understand that is how you really feel and that you simply can’t see or refuse to see the hypocrisy in feeling that way.
SOSDD coming from the left these days
Actually, that is true. Privately held companies can dictate what they will or will not carry. Freedom of speech does not extend to them. That being said, if you are going to say you are non-partisan then you should be.
So according to the government, which companies can exercise their free speech rights?
I'm not sure I understand.
Is Fb partisan? Does it push a political agenda of one sort or another? (And if so-- which one?)
I knew Facebook was big; but, do they now have a seat at the UN? Unless they are a member the UN is just blowing hot air
I saw this article around 12 o'clock, and forced myself to write this before I let myself sleep.
My source used for this essay is Dr. Aye Chan's research at Japan's Kanda University of International Studies, in his review of Britsh correspondence between the years 1947 and 1975. As well as his later original research papers and articles on this conflict.