With roosters crowing in the background as he speaks from the crowded refugee camp in Bangladesh that’s been his home since 2017, Maung Sawyeddollah, 21, describes what happened when violent hate speech and disinformation targeting the Rohingya minority in Myanmar began to spread on Facebook.
“We were good with most of the people there. But some very narrow minded and very nationalist types escalated hate against Rohingya on Facebook,” he said. “And the people who were good, in close communication with Rohingya. changed their mind against Rohingya and it turned to hate.”
For years, Facebook, now called Meta Platforms Inc., pushed the narrative that it was a neutral platform in Myanmar that was misused by malicious people, and that despite its efforts to remove violent and hateful material, it unfortunately fell short. That narrative echoes its response to the role it has played in other conflicts around the world, whether the 2020 election in the US or hate speech in India.
But a new and comprehensive report by Amnesty International states that Facebook’s preferred narrative is false. The platform, Amnesty says, wasn’t merely a passive site with insufficient content moderation. Instead, Meta’s algorithms “proactively amplified and promoted content” on Facebook, which incited violent hatred against the Rohingya beginning as early as 2012.
Despite years of warnings, Amnesty found, the company not only failed to remove violent hate speech and disinformation against the Rohingya, it actively spread and amplified it until it culminated in the 2017 massacre. The timing coincided with the rising popularity of Facebook in Myanmar, where for many people it served as their only connection to the online world. That effectively made Facebook the Internet for a vast number of Myanmar’s population.
More than 700,000 Rohingya fled into neighboring Bangladesh that year. Myanmar security forces were accused of mass rapes, killings and torching thousands of homes owned by Rohingya.
“Meta — through its dangerous algorithms and its relentless pursuit of profit — substantially contributed to the serious human rights violations perpetrated against the Rohingya,” the report says.
A spokesperson for Meta declined to answer questions about the Amnesty report. In a statement, the company said it “stands in solidarity with the international community and supports efforts to hold the Tatmadaw accountable for its crimes against the Rohingya people.”
“Our safety and integrity work in Myanmar remains guided by feedback from local civil society organizations and international institutions, including the UN Fact-Finding Mission on Myanmar; the Human Rights Impact Assessment we commissioned in 2018; as well as our ongoing human rights risk management,” Rafael Frankel, director of public policy for emerging markets, Meta Asia-Pacific, said in a statement.
Like Sawyeddollah, who is quoted in the Amnesty report and spoke with the AP on Tuesday, most of the people who fled Myanmar — about 80 percent of the Rohingya living in Myanmar’s western state of Rakhine at the time — are still staying in refugee camps. And they are asking Meta to pay reparations for its role in the violent repression of Rohingya Muslims in Myanmar, which the US declared a genocide earlier this year.
Amnesty’s report, out Wednesday, is based on interviews with Rohingya refugees, former Meta staff, academics, activists and others. It also relied on documents disclosed to Congress last year by whistleblower Frances Haugen, a former Facebook data scientist. It notes that digital rights activists say Meta has improved its civil society engagement and some aspects of its content moderation practices in Myanmar in recent years. In January 2021, after a violent coup overthrew the government, it banned the country’s military from its platform.
But critics, including some of Facebook’s own employees, have long maintained such an approach will never truly work. It means Meta is playing whack-a-mole trying to remove harmful material while its algorithms designed to push “engaging” content that’s more likely to get people riled up essentially work against it.
“These algorithms are really dangerous to our human rights. And what happened to the Rohingya and Facebook’s role in that specific conflict risks happening again, in many different contexts across the world,” said Pat de Brún, researcher and adviser on artificial intelligence and human rights at Amnesty.
“The company has shown itself completely unwilling or incapable of resolving the root causes of its human rights impact.”
After the UN’s Independent International Fact-Finding Mission on Myanmar highlighted the “significant” role Facebook played in the atrocities perpetrated against the Rohingya, Meta admitted in 2018 that “we weren’t doing enough to help prevent our platform from being used to foment division and incite offline violence.”
In the following years, the company “touted certain improvements in its community engagement and content moderation practices in Myanmar,” Amnesty said, adding that its report “finds that these measures have proven wholly inadequate.”
In 2020, for instance, three years after the violence in Myanmar killed thousands of Rohingya Muslims and displaced 700,000 more, Facebook investigated how a video by a leading anti-Rohingya hate figure, U Wirathu, was circulating on its site.
The probe revealed that over 70 percent of the video’s views came from “chaining” — that is, it was suggested to people who played a different video, showing what’s “up next.” Facebook users were not seeking out or searching for the video, but had it fed to them by the platform’s algorithms.
Wirathu had been banned from Facebook since 2018.
“Even a well-resourced approach to content moderation, in isolation, would likely not have sufficed to prevent and mitigate these algorithmic harms. This is because content moderation fails to address the root cause of Meta’s algorithmic amplification of harmful content,” Amnesty’s report says.
The Rohingya refugees are seeking unspecified reparations from the Menlo Park, California-based social media giant for its role in perpetuating genocide. Meta, which is the subject of twin lawsuits in the US and the UK seeking $150 billion for Rohingya refugees, has so far refused.
“We believe that the genocide against Rohingya was possible only because of Facebook,” Sawyeddollah said. “They communicated with each other to spread hate, they organized campaigns through Facebook. But Facebook was silent.”
Rohingya seek reparations from Facebook for role in massacre
https://arab.news/bgp3s
Rohingya seek reparations from Facebook for role in massacre
- “Meta — through its dangerous algorithms and its relentless pursuit of profit — substantially contributed to the serious human rights violations perpetrated against the Rohingya,” the report says
Meta Oversight Board says wrong to remove Moscow attack posts
- Non-binding board ruling argues news value justified exemption from platform rules
- Daesh claims responsibility for Moscow concert hall attack that killed over 140 people
SAN FRANCISCO: The Meta Oversight Board on Tuesday said the social network was wrong to remove three Facebook posts showing images from a deadly attack on a Moscow concert hall in March.
The posts did violate Meta rules against showing victims during an attack, but their news value should have made them exempt from those rules, according to the independent board.
“In a country such as Russia with a closed media environment, accessibility on social media of such content is even more important,” the board said in a written decision.
“Suppressing matters of vital public concern based on unsubstantiated fears it could promote radicalization is not consistent with Meta’s responsibilities to free expression.”
Each of the posts clearly condemned the attack, expressing solidarity with or concern for victims, according to the board.
Meta should restore the posts — adding a warning that the content could be disturbing to viewers, the board ruled.
Four gunmen stormed the Crocus City venue before the start of a rock concert, opened fire on the audience and set fire to the building, in an assault claimed by the Daesh group.
The assault claimed more than 140 lives, the deadliest attack in Russia for almost 20 years.
The board is referred to as a top court for content disputes at Meta, and the social media giant has agreed to abide by its decisions.
Media watchdog condemns Israeli labelling of Gaza journalists as ‘terrorists’
- Reporters Without Borders director general says move is part of troubling trend to control narrative of the ongoing conflict
LONDON: Reporters Without Borders has condemned Israel for labeling journalists in Gaza as “terrorists,” describing the move as part of a troubling trend to control the narrative of the ongoing conflict.
Speaking in Geneva, RSF Director General Thibaut Bruttin voiced alarm over the Israeli Defense Forces’ portrayal of Palestinian journalists, calling it a blatant disregard for press freedom.
“We’re seeing Israeli defense forces trying to portray Palestinian journalists as terrorists. So we’re very worried about that trend too,” said Bruttin.
“In the past we had responses which were not satisfying … but still they were trying to pretend that they were abiding by international standards in terms of protection of the press. Today, now they’re outrageously lying and trying to portray journalists in Gaza as terrorists.”
Since the conflict began on Oct. 7 last year, Israel has been accused of waging a “retaliatory campaign” against media workers in Gaza.
According to the Committee to Protect Journalists, at least 137 journalists — mostly Palestinians — have been killed so far, though the actual toll is believed to be significantly higher.
“Not only have they not been able to protect them, but also we have good reasons to believe that a fair amount of the about 140 journalists that have been killed have been deliberately killed, have been targeted,” Bruttin said.
Bruttin, who succeeded Christophe Deloire in July, highlighted the dire conditions faced by Palestinian journalists, noting severe shortages of essential resources such as food, water and electricity.
He emphasized that Gaza remained closed to international press, forcing global news outlets to rely heavily on exhausted local journalists who faced dual risks as both civilians and potential targets.
“We’re very worried about what’s happening there,” Bruttin said, describing the circumstances as “unprecedented.”
He urged the international community to hold Israel accountable for its treatment of journalists, stressing the need for genuine pressure on Tel Aviv to change its policies.
Despite the dangers, journalists continue to report on the conflict, said Bruttin.
“In such a short period of time, I think it’s fairly unprecedented. But we have seen wars in the beginning of the 21st century which have been very violent and rough too.
“The war in Iraq has been a nightmare for journalists and hundreds of journalists have been killed there. So we are aware of the specific nature of the conflict in Gaza.”
Publisher defends prize-winning French novel after Algerian victim’s claims
- Kamel Daoud’s novel “Houris” centered on Algeria’s civil war between the government and Islamists in the 1990s
- Survivor of a massacre alleged on Algerian TV that the main character in the book is based on her experiences
PARIS: The publisher of the novel that won France’s top literary price has strongly defended its French-Algerian author after an Algerian survivor of a 1990s massacre in the North African country claimed the book is based on her story used without her consent.
French-Algerian writer Kamel Daoud this month won the Goncourt for his novel “Houris” centered on Algeria’s civil war between the government and Islamists in the 1990s.
The novel, banned in Algeria, tells the story of a young woman who loses her voice when an Islamist cuts her throat as she witnesses her family being massacred during the civil war.
However the survivor of a massacre during the period has alleged on Algerian TV that the main character in the book is based on her experiences.
The woman, Saada Arbane, said she had told her story during a course of treatment to a psychotherapist who is now Daoud’s wife. She accused Daoud of then using the details narrated during their therapy sessions in his book.
Publishers Gallimard however said Daoud and his wife were the victims of orchestrated attacks after the banning of the book in Algeria, adding that the publishing house had also been banned from Algeria’s main book fair earlier this month.
“Although Houris is inspired by tragic events that occurred in Algeria during the civil war of the 1990s, its plot, characters and heroine are purely fictional,” said publisher Antoine Gallimard who heads the Gallimard publishing house.
“Since the publication of his novel, Kamel Daoud has been the subject of violent defamatory campaigns orchestrated by certain media close to a regime whose nature is well known,” he added.
Arbane has alleged that she told the psychotherapist not to reveal her story but has found that there are details in the life of the main character in the book — Aube — that would only have been known to the doctor.
Speaking on television with a speech aid, she has described the book as a “violation of my intimacy” and accused the psychotherapist of going back on a promise that her story would not feature in Daoud’s work.
But Gallimard said: “It is now the turn of his wife — who in no way is a source for ‘Houris’ — to be attacked over her professional integrity.”
Daoud, who used to work as a journalist and columnist in Algeria, has stirred controversy with his analyzes of society in Algeria and elsewhere in the Arab world in French and international media.
Associated Press to lay off 8 percent of staff
- Move is part of efforts to modernize its operations and products
LONDON: The Associated Press said on Monday it would lay off about 8 percent of its workforce as it looks to modernize its operations and products.
The news publisher said affected employees will be notified over the next few weeks. It will offer a voluntary separation plan to a small number of eligible staff, based on department, role and tenure.
The Associated Press has reached a tentative agreement — subject to ratification — with the News Media Guild to extend this offer to some union staff in the US.
Under the agreement, a maximum of 116 people in the editorial unit and five people in the technology unit would be eligible for a voluntary buyout package, News Media Guild administrator Tony Winton said in an emailed response.
Founded in 1846 as a news cooperative, the Associated Press has journalists in nearly 100 countries and in all 50 US states, according to its website.
“We are taking proactive steps, including making some staff reductions, as we focus on meeting the evolving needs of our customers,” AP said in a statement.
The news publisher’s CEO Daisy Veerasingham said in a memo to employees that those eligible for the voluntary plan will be notified by the end of the day.
AP was among the first news organizations to sign a deal with OpenAI. It had licensed a part of its archive of news stories to the ChatGPT-maker last year, setting a precedent for similar partnerships.
US to call for Google to sell Chrome browser: report
- Determining how to address Google’s wrongs is the next stage of a landmark antitrust trial that saw the company in August ruled a monopoly by US District Court Judge Amit Mehta
SAN FRANCISCO: The US will urge a judge to make Google-parent company Alphabet sell its widely used Chrome browser in a major antitrust crackdown on the Internet giant, according to a media report Monday.
Antitrust officials with the US Department of Justice declined to comment on a Bloomberg report that they will ask for a sell-off of Chrome and a shake-up of other aspects of Google’s business in court Wednesday.
Justice officials in October said they would demand that Google make profound changes to how it does business — even considering the possibility of a breakup — after the tech juggernaut was found to be running an illegal monopoly.
The government said in a court filing that it was considering options that included “structural” changes, which could see them asking for a divestment of its smartphone Android operating system or its Chrome browser.
Calling for the breakup of Google would mark a profound change by the US government’s reglators, which have largely left tech giants alone since failing to break up Microsoft two decades ago.
Google dismissed the idea at the time as “radical.”
Adam Kovacevich, chief executive of industry trade group Chamber of Progress, released a statement arguing that what justice officials reportedly want is “fantastical” and defies legal standards, instead calling for narrowly tailored remedies.
Determining how to address Google’s wrongs is the next stage of a landmark antitrust trial that saw the company in August ruled a monopoly by US District Court Judge Amit Mehta.
Requiring Google to make its search data available to rivals was also on the table.
Regardless of Judge Mehta’s eventual decision, Google is expected to appeal the ruling, potentially prolonging the process for years and possibly reaching the US Supreme Court.
The trial, which concluded last year, scrutinized Google’s confidential agreements with smartphone manufacturers, including Apple.
These deals involve substantial payments to secure Google’s search engine as the default option on browsers, iPhones and other devices.
The judge determined that this arrangement provided Google with unparalleled access to user data, enabling it to develop its search engine into a globally dominant platform.
From this position, Google expanded its tech empire to include the Chrome browser, Maps and the Android smartphone operating system.
According to the judgment, Google controlled 90 percent of the US online search market in 2020, with an even higher share, 95 percent, on mobile devices.
Remedies being sought will include imposing measures curbing Google artificial intelligence from tapping into website data and barring the Android mobile operating system from being bundled with the company’s other offerings, according to the report.
