Facebook’s Systems Promoted Violence Against Rohingya in Myanmar
amnestyusa.orgApparently, they introduced stickers that allow you to boost violent content by flagging it... They probably started this with good intentions, but the algorithm clearly went wrong.
"In 2014, Meta attempted to support an anti-hate initiative known as ‘Panzagar’ or ‘flower speech’ by creating a sticker pack for Facebook users to post in response to content which advocated violence or discrimination. The stickers bore messages such as, ‘Think before you share’ and ‘Don’t be the cause of violence.’
However, activists soon noticed that the stickers were having unintended consequences. Facebook’s algorithms interpreted the use of these stickers as a sign that people were enjoying a post and began promoting them. Instead of diminishing the number of people who saw a post advocating hatred, the stickers actually made the posts more visible."
Actually evil behavior.
People don't like confronting the idea we are violent tribal primates barely above chimpanzees, who conspicuously are also violent tribal primates. The only thing these companies are doing is holding a mirror to our society, and we really don't like the reflection.
> The only thing these companies are doing is holding a mirror to our society, and we really don't like the reflection.
If that would be the only thing they're doing that wouldn't be so much of a problem. The main issue is that those companies are massive amplifiers of those violent tendencies.
And as long it doesn't hurt their bottom line or results in bad press they tend to give less than a shit.
Would it be fair to say that HN "promotes" stories that HN users upvote, let alone actions that such stories might lead to?
No, Facebook simply showed what other people posted.
Repeating other people's message is typically what promoters do.
Yes? Google is promoting every mail that is sent to your Gmail inbox?
Has Gmail stopped filtering spam?
Spam is by definition messages that the recipient does not want to receive. Given what happened in Myanmar it looks like these people did want to receive those messages - but some organisations like "Amnesty International" didn't want those users to receive those messages. That is not a spam issue, that is a censorship issue.
Whether or not the recipient wants an email is an orthogonal concern to whether Google promotes it. When Google places email in someone's Inbox, as opposed to Spam, Google is promoting that email.Spam is by definition messages that the recipient does not want to receive.
Alright, it's a censorship issue. Censorship on one side; genocide on the other. Ideology or pragmatism.That is not a spam issue, that is a censorship issue.> Alright, it's a censorship issue. Censorship on one side; genocide on the other. Ideology or pragmatism.
Should we abandon honesty and accuracy if one side of an issue is genocide? Let me rephrase that: should I assume anyone speaking out against genocide is twisting words to their breaking point, and I shouldn't believe a word they're saying? Do you see the problem with this approach?
I find it incredibly dishonest to use spam-filters as a cheap trap that every non-spam message is "promoted", so that any usable messaging platform can be accused of "promoting" messages someone wants censored.
I propose the following: since opinion is split on this issue, using the (apparently incredibly broad) "promoting" will mislead a large segment of readers. And even those that won't be misled won't be any wiser, since to them, not having messages dropped as spam and algorithmically boosting a story so 90% of all Facebook users see it are both "promotion".
So instead of saying "promotion", say "treated the same as any other non-spam message". Unless you were in fact trying to mislead your readers, you would welcome this chance to be more accurate and descriptive.
Google does not send emails to spam just because it doesn't like the politics of what is being said in the email, so no, it's not the same thing.
Also when Google sends something to spam you can still read it. What "Amnesty International" is asking for here is making it impossible for people to read what some people say.