FB slow to act in Myanmar

[paul]

Zuckerberg has Buddhist sympathies, but supports extremists with slow action in Myanmar:
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/ ... ech-spread

https://www.lionsroar.com/facebook-usin ... ech-burma/

[retrofuturist]

Greetings,

Zuckerberg's caught between a rock and a hard place at the moment.

Leftists hate him for not doing enough to stamp out views that they disbelieve or are intolerant of.
Rightists hate him for operating a biased left-wing platform, which blatantly discriminates against conservative members.
Those on all sides of the spectrum hate him for using their personal data for private gain and political use.

I would question why Facebook has any obligation to "act" in Myanmar. I thought they were a social media platform?... Or is there an implication they are or should be something more?



Metta,
Paul.

[paul]

In SE Asian countries with a small police force compared to the population size, social media has assumed great power:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/ ... ate-speech

[Kamran]

Facebook is the democratization of the media.

Those that are complaining simply don't understand how to leverage the platform.

Anyone with knowledge and a few hundred dollars in facebbok ads can accomplish what once only governments and large corporations could do.

The pressure on Facebook is just making facebbok ad prices cheaper for those that know how to use the platform.

It's an opportunity.

[DooDoot]

Facebook was not slow to act when it suspended or banned those reporting a different version of events from Syria (which were shown to be the true events). FB appears to be political & not impartial. To expect FB to act is to support FB as an arm of tyranny. The reality is democracy, education & mass-media do not significantly change the apathy of the general population; be it in regards to domestic or international events. If enough people in democratic & informed nations do not really care about the Rohingya then FB can't do much.

[retrofuturist]

Greetings,



As for apathy, it's not merely apathy but also the reality that there is so much going on in the world, that there's not the time to keep abreast of it all, even if you do have trusted sources.

Metta,
Paul.

[chownah]

Facebook was not slow to act when it suspended or banned those reporting a different version of events from Syria (which were shown to be the true events). FB appears to be political & not impartial. To expect FB to act is to support FB as an arm of tyranny. The reality is democracy, education & mass-media do not significantly change the apathy of the general population; be it in regards to domestic or international events. If enough people in democratic & informed nations do not really care about the Rohingya then FB can't do much.

The media has always had political bias on all sides of all issues. Nice that you point out that fb is the same as it ever was.....but I don't see why there should be surprise about it. Hard to mandate that all media will be unbiased.....of course we could jettison free speech and just have trump (or whoever) dictate what views are unbiased.

Maybe fb can't change the apathy of the general public. IF this is your position then I guess you see them as being pretty ineffectual and thus why worry about them? Mostly dealing with ineffectual things is a waste of time.

chownah

[Kamran]

I don't think facebook is politically motivated but since it is a US based company it comes under pressure from US interest groups and the US government.

This is why what Telegram, the free chat app, did might be a good model for establishing social media platforms that can operate more freely from the US or other government pressure.

[paul]

10th April:

https://edition.cnn.com/2018/04/10/asia ... index.html