Verge: It took a genocide for Facebook to ban a country’s military leadership
Facebook’s actions in Myanmar set an important new line in the evolving battle over content moderation
The United Nations issued a report today alleging that the military in Myanmar had “genocidal intent” when it committed mass murders and gang rapes of the minority Muslim Rohingya population. It called for generals to be punished for human rights atrocities. And it also implicated Facebook.
“The role of social media is significant,” the report’s authors wrote. “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.”
Read more ....
WNU Editor: Aung San Suu Kyi's Facebook site is still on (link here), even though she has come out in support of the Generals and their actions .... Nobel Laureate Aung San Suu Kyi Defends Her Country's Policies Toward Rohingya Muslims (August 21, 2018).
More News On Facebook Moving To Ban Myanmar's Military Leadership From Its Platform
Facebook ban on army chief silences Myanmar's military mouthpiece -- Reuters
Facebook bans Myanmar military chief, others to stop hate -- National Post/AP
Facebook just banned Myanmar's top army official for 'serious human rights abuses' -- Business Insider
Mea culpa?: Facebook covers its tracks in Myanmar -- Kayleigh Long, Asia Times
Myanmar Rohingya: Why Facebook banned an army chief -- BBC
5 comments:
Another highlight of CNN's journalistic capabilities and how they shape opinions with clearly misleading headlines:
"Trump says Google search is rigged. It's not"
Feature Headline. BOLD. BIG.
How do they know? They cannot.
But they say Trump lies.
Takeaway=Don't question the company that together with Facebook and Twitter can completely alter election outcomes (in favour of democrats, as their display selection and content review bias has shown again and again and for which CEOs had to appologise again and again - not reported on CNN, of course)
>>>>> CNN. Telling you what to think. Shut up and obey.
"CNN. Telling you what to think. Shut and obey."
This is not just CNN. It seems almost unfair to just single them out. Examples of this are as follows but my no means limited to:
"Trump colluded with Trump to win the 2016 presidential election."
"The Russians interfered in our election."
"The Russian government poisoned their former agent in the UK."
"Assad used chemical weapons."
All four claims are nonsensical as can be easily proven to anyone except for the ideologically blind or those who either don't have the time to pay attention or are to lazy to do so. Sometimes nonsensical claims are actually true!! In such a case, extraordinary evidence will need to be presented to support the claim. Such evidence has not been forthcoming. In fact, there hasn't been ANY evidence presented other than essentially "because we said so" and/or "trust us." 1.)The people making the claims have a history of bad judgment and perhaps even outright lies and 2.)they are making nonsensical extraordinary claims. In such a case, just trust us and because we said so simply are not enough.
The Trump news claim is easily testable as to Google's search engine. I did the search. Based upon headlines it appears to be about 87.5% slanted against Trump. I've always known Google to be biased. As such, this comes as no surprise. Google has started a fight with POTUS. They went out of their way to start this fight. He is best understood as a counterpuncher. He seldom if ever throws the first "punch" but does often respond with devastating effectiveness against those who attack him.
Sorry but the nerve agent and assad thing are different. Russia has a long history of killing its political opponents with nerve agents and radioactive agents. So please stop conflating those two, comrade
The problem with this is that Russia was in the midst of the World Cup and was heavily involved in diplomatic efforts with the west at that time all while being closely monitored. They would have little opportunity to carry this out and even less incentive. The most likely culprits I believe would be 1.)agents of former Soviet or Eastern bloc countries looking to draw us further into their conflicts with Russia. Such people face little scrutiny and are generally trusted as face value. Given the ideological makeup of the west, we make easy prey for such manipulation. Such people could have easily gained access to the knowhow for this during Soviet days and would have been able to easily make off with the knowledge on how to do this or 2.)rogue elements within the Russian government. While 2 is certainly plausible, it seems unlikely as the Russian leadership appears to be more competent than to allow rogue agents to have access to this sort of thing.
Any prudent investigator would have started with these two assumptions. When we investigate a crime, we eliminate the most likely causes first. After that we move on to the exotic ones. For example, medical personnel are trained that when diagnosing a disease and they see "hoof prints" look for the "horse" first then once the "horse" is eliminated look for the "zebra." The Putin government being behind this is a "zebra." We didn't even bother with an investigation!!
Additional evidence that something is not quite right: 1.)a couple miles away from the poisoning of the Russian agents who had no contact with Russians were poisoned and one of them died. The story of the gentleman that he found this in a perfume bottle seems EXTREMELY bizarre. This suggests either a rogue agent who wasn't very bright or something more nefarious such as "western" agents being behind this. At this point, I do NOT want to entertain the thought that our own people are behind this. 2.)A former Russian agent was interviewed who was living in the US. He stated "only Russia" could be behind this. A.)A former agent is a traitor regardless which country they betrayed. As such, they can be relied upon for information only if it can be corroborated by a more reliable source. They should never be treated as a primary source. As the technology dates from the Cold War 1 era, "only Russia" is nonsensical. By now this will be very rudimentary. It's as though someone is trying to plant a thought into the minds of those who are harried in order to deceive. Did someone fall victim to ideological blindness in running with this? Perhaps.
Now for the assertion that Russia has a long history of this sort of behavior, remember Saddam had a history of chemical weapons use. Part of this was used to justify a conclusion. It's important to also look in the current context when formulating a hypothesis. The same kind of shoddy analysis that went into Iraqi WMD appears to be being employed here. In this case, the stakes are far higher.
Bottom line: the assertion that the Russian government is behind this is, on its face, nonsensical. As an extraordinary claim, it will require extraordinary evidence. None was supplied. No evidence at all was supplied. We didn't even bother with an investigation as it is a mathematical impossibility that one could have been conducted in the time it took to reach the conclusion and to decide on the next round of sanctions to be imposed on Russia and the Russian people.
I'm sorry. I am going to need more evidence than simply "because we said so" or "trust us." Given the nature of claim, the lack of evidence presented, and the lack of credibility of the sources acting in such a manner is imprudent. The lives and security of the American people are VERY important. They are NOT to be used as pawns on the chessboards of sleazy politicians and their propaganda arms in the news media.
"What can Trump do against Google?" There probably is no legal recourse as a private company can choose publish or not publish what they want to. As the editor has often pointed out, the problem is not necessarily what they cover but what they don't cover. Essentially I tend to agree.
By bringing attention to the problem, people will now likely be more skeptical of what Google provides them in their searches and being called out for such disreputable acts could negatively affect Google's bottom line. I think the main thing Trump was hoping to accomplish by calling Google out was to make people aware of the problem and it seems to have worked which will make it more difficult to spread misinformation.
Post a Comment