Facebook is not free speech, nor does it merely "transmit" speech. It is a machine for algorithmically amplifying speech.
Facebook is not a pencil. Notice the article does not criticise mobile phone vendors for including keyboards in their phones.
Who do you think was pushing to subsidise data usage for Facebook? And to what end? Air doesn't do that.
I completely agree that free speech is important. I'm sure the people of Myanmar agree with that too after decades of regime rule. But it's irrelevant to this discussion.
Freespeech is what they afraid a lot. Even with algorithm , Facebook is platform to deliver our words. I wish there are non-algorithmic , un-mainipulatble , non-moderated platform that can be reached out to the world.
All of the stories and citations in this article also come from Burmese people and international monitors on the ground in the country.
So parallel to your claims that Facebook is irrelevant, there are other people working in this space with equally valid claims that Facebook does bear some responsibility. People who saw the situation developing and tried to warn Facebook, only to have their pleas fall on deaf ears.
Thanks again and best of luck to you.
The comparison pencils or air isn't fair because they aren't being boosted by a recommender system, powering the application layer of the content delivery platform for 90% of a country's people. If I write a message on paper containing a call to action which incites violence (e.g. "We should round up all people with six toes on each foot and shoot them") and hand it to one person, the message has reached one person. I would say, the digital equivalent to "pencil and paper" or "talking in a public square" more like "Writing a message in an HTML file and putting that HTML on a web server you own." I think it would be much more difficult for your average user in Myanmar to reach millions, even if they were given a web server and the means to write HTML.
Comparing it to "getting mad at air because it allows people to transmit their thoughts" equates Facebook the Internet, when one is an organization of people who provide technology and the other is technology. There are data scientists and engineers who created the models which learned how to optimize for engagement, and there are product managers who help set the KPIs for those engineers (i.e. encouraged them to solve for engagement) and there are execs who benefit from all of the above. While no single person is solely to blame for what happened in Myanmar, it's wrong to claim that we can't at least reason and discuss the products still created, maintained and own by company (made of people).
My opinion on this is heavily formed by the training I received when I wanted to DJ for my university's radio station. Even in the US, where freedom of speech is protected in the Amendments to the Consitution, there were very specific things you could and could not say on the air (while being classified as a non-profit radio station). You could receive massive fines for profanity, obscenity, inciting violence, hate speech, with a large general emphasis on calls to action. Generally, I think this training was good and it encouraged everyone who learned to DJ to be more intentional with their language.
I really think that if Facebook is gonna enable users to reach millions, there absolutely should be some caveats to that. People should be able to say whatever they want if they are capable of providing the means by which their own speech is amplified--and even then there are clear cases where the megaphone needs to be taken away.
Facebook is giving megaphones to people and some people use it to dispense hate speech. While I might've been willing to give Facebook a pass in their early years, it is clear that between Cambridge Analytica and this that governments around the world need to do better when it comes to working with Facebook to better identify content on their platform which incites violence or calls to action which present a clear and present danger to other people if acted upon. Facebook isn't some amorphous inanimate entity that we can't negotiate/regulate/punish. If someone uploads a hateful message which has a 0.00001% of encouraging a hate crime in Burma, Burma can expect around 5 hate crimes as a result of this message. With great power comes great responsibility.
1. The government
2. Internet company executives
3. Everyone
Sounds like you don't like 3. So please explain why only the government or internet company execs should have freedom of speech.
It seems that Facebook's "crime" is not censoring people enough and not not their reccomendation algorithm was configured to boost an opinion the article's author did not agree with. Since the problem is with the contents I see it as relating to free speech.
>Even in the US, where freedom of speech is protected in the Amendments to the Consitution
While the constitution makes it hard to write laws that limit speech the US does not have full freedom of speech.
FB could set the baseline visibility level of each post and comment to 0, and selectively boost specific ones to be seen by people other than the poster. Not boosting, is not censorship after all.
Words can't put someone in danger. Sharing people's words doesn't limit other's liberty.
I'd say, the freedom of speech can't contain concept that put third party in danger, or that could limit the liberties of others, because bad ideas have always become sufference
I am not arguing about what is the safest thing. A free society should be free to make themselves unsafe if they so wish.
>the freedom of speech can't contain concept that put third party in danger, or that could limit the liberties of others
If a free society is not capable of relinquishing their freedom, then are they truly free?
I think we can't go anywhere with our conversation, also because you've ignored the part about "putting someone else in danger"