top | item 40148987

(no title)

No, just agitated a genocide campaign against minorities in Myanmar:

https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2022/09/myanmar-faceb...

Morality aside, I do like the open source work coming out of Meta. It's possible for a company to be "bad guys" in one area, and "good guys" in another.

discuss

nozzlegear|1 year ago

Preposterous, it’s not like Zuck got on the horn with his algorithm devs and was like “let’s get rid of some people in Myanmar in a really roundabout way.” Do you hold the guy behind Curl to the same standard every time his software gets used in a way he didn’t intend?

theultdev|1 year ago

That article is extremely biased.

Basically it's accusing Meta of should have knowing that their algorithm and their user generated stickers was spreading this content.

Yes in an ideal world they should catch any campaign of this sort, but global moderation is difficult and they offer no proof that Meta knew about this.

It's disingenuous to say that Meta agitated this event. Those specific users of Meta agitated it and Meta did not catch it.

atwrk|1 year ago

> Yes in an ideal world they should catch any campaign of this sort, but global moderation is difficult

It really isn't, it just is expensive to do it. They could just hire people to do that. Thats the accusation. Of course they don't catch it if they don't try.

Meta (or TikTok or Twitter or any other social media company/product) can't both algorithmically create specific types of discourse (because higher engagement means more ad views) and deny responsiblity for the side effects of said discourse.