Rohingya Ethnic Cleansing (Once Again) Demonstrates Why Demanding Platforms Censor Bad Speech Creates Problems
from the happens-again-and-again dept
We keep pointing to examples like this, but the examples are getting starker and more depressing. Lots of people keep arguing that internet platforms (mainly Facebook) need to be more aggressive in taking down "bad" speech -- often generalized under the term "hate speech." But, as we've pointed out, that puts tremendous power into the hands of those who determine what is "hate speech." And, while the calls for censorship often come from minority communities, it should be noted that those in power have a habit of claiming criticism of the powerful is "hate speech." Witness the news from Burma that Rohingya activists have been trying to document ethnic cleansing, only to find Facebook deleting all their posts. When questioned about this, Facebook (after a few days) claimed that the issue was that these posts were coming from a group it had designated a "dangerous organization."
So, is it a dangerous organization or a group of activists fighting against ethnic cleansing? Like many of these things, it depends on which side you stand on. As the saying goes, one person's terrorist is another's freedom fighter. And this just highlights the tricky position that Facebook has taken on -- often at the urging of people who demand that it block certain content. Facebook shouldn't be the ones determining who's a terrorist v. who's a freedom fighter and when we keep asking the site to be that final arbiter, we're only inviting trouble.
The real issue is how we've built up these silos of centralized repositories of information -- rather than actually taking advantage of the distributed web. In the early days of the web, everyone controlled their own web presence, for the most part. You created your own site and posted your own content. Yes, there were still middlemen and intermediaries, but there were lots of options. But centralizing all such content onto one giant platform and then demanding that platform regulate the content -- these kinds of problems are going to happen again and again and again.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: activism, burma, censorship, filters, free speech, freedom, platforms, rohingya, terorrism
Companies: facebook
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Definitions Matter
Did Facebook find that these groups were dangerous to them, or the impaneled hierarchy? If the hierarchy, then what did they say to Facebook to explain the danger? Did Facebook accept, we feel threatened as an excuse?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Definitions Matter
I'm quite sure that Facebook (like most other internet giants such as Google) have to balance a fine line between being open and unrestrictive, and not pissing off the leaders of the so-called civilized world. It would just take a small handful of leaders against them to reach a tipping point, and Facebook would be dead in the water.
They have to comply to survive... to a point.
I'm more concerned with the point raised in the piece: Facebook shouldn't be the ones determining who's a terrorist v. who's a freedom fighter - a point I agree with wholeheartedly but am not able to answer the question it raises; If not Facebook, then who?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The courts, and only those with jurisdiction over their head office.
demands to censor should be met with demands to get a court order.
Imagine how much censoring that would stop. ;]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Definitions Matter
If we hypothetically try to answer this question then: I think it's us and the platforms like facebook should be absolved of all implications of their content. as they are not supposed to be regulators of information or thought rather just like billboards to broadcast them.
But actually fb/etc. are not free as you rightly said. they have to please a lot of masters to be so big as they are. they are not like wikileaks otherwise they would too end up in the dustbin. it's a sad world i think.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I'm not entirely sure a platform that won't allow removal of content unless very high and collective bars are reached because minorities may actually be minorities in numbers instead of simple rights and respect issues like black people and the majority can still drown those. I believe we'll need a mix of a good system paired with better education and more tolerance. So we won't see a solution anytime soon.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The problem with the distributed web is that while the like of email and Newsnet work, individuals are not capable of dealing with the immense amount of traffic that can hit a single server. Also, those services have a slower pace of interaction.
The services like Facebook, YouTube, twitter etc, can much more efficiently service large volume of traffic, while offering near real time interactions between users.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Seems King George disagreed with you.
King George most certainly would have called Washington and Co. Terrorists. In fact, he did. Go figure.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
is evidence that he was right.
The world would have been a better place if the American revolution had failed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
https://ipfs.io/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I'm sorry, but no. That's a very disgusting saying, a stark example of false equivalence if there ever was one.
A freedom fighter fights for freedom against an oppressive regime. Those last four words are important.
A terrorist doesn't fight against the regime; a terrorist attacks civilian targets in the hopes of instilling terror among the populace.
You want to know the difference between a terrorist and a freedom fighter? That's a bright-line difference right there. When they cross the line and begin attacking civilians, they're terrorists.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Except that in the eyes of the oppressive regime, the person fighting for freedom against them is a terrorist, and once they've decided that it's easy for them to portray said "terrorist" as attacking civilians and attempting to instill terror. We've seem police in the US doing it on a regular basis to justify their violent treatment of any gathering of people they don't like. We witnessed Trump trying to do it with Charlottesville. It isn't a matter of whether it's a bright line or not but of where exactly that line is painted, and in cases like this that often depends heavily on which side is pointing at it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Turkey's Erdogollum labeling jailed journalists "terrorists"
Assad/Russia labeling Syrian citizens "terrorists" to justify bombing them
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Don't over analyze it. Like Newton's 3rd law, when philosophy is involved... for every saying, there is an equal an opposite saying.
If someone defends their life against a government that is threatening it, there will be some that call them a terrorist while there will be others calling them liberators.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The saying is meant to relay a simple notion: “It’s a matter of perspective, really.”
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
That's a bright-line difference right there. When they cross the line and begin attacking civilians, they're terrorists.
and on that basis the Rohinga ARE terrorists - see the evidence.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2g2DLk8sSdQ
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ethnic cleansing
After the ethnic cleansing that drove out the Rohingya, Myanmar is finding mass graves of Hindus. As always in war, there is more to the story.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Ethnic cleansing
there is nothing clean about it .. in fact it is itself quite dirty, disgusting and stupid. It does nothing to clean the ethnicity of anyone, group, whatever. It should be called what it is .. genocide
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Ethnic cleansing
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Ethnic cleansing
However everyone should be clear that the obective of the Rohinga militant groups who triggered all this is the expulsion of Buddhists, Hindus etc from Rakhine province and the establishment of an islamic state there (or incorporation into Bangladesh).
So either way it is a battle for survival.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Don't ban hate speech...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Seems like the right in the US and EU is fighting against another slower kind of ethnic cleansing but you don't seem that upset about it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]