Facebook, human rights and Myanmar

I believe I've previously made my position on Facebook clear but if not, here's a disclaimer: I despise Facebook and all its works. So you won't be surprised to find my endorsement of the comments made in yesterday's Grauniad (Oliver's favourite newspaper) about Facebook generally and its coverage of Burma in particular:

"This is the latest in a series of strategic mishaps as the social network blunders its way through the world like a giant, uncoordinated toddler that repeatedly soils its diaper and then wonders where the stench is coming from*. It enters markets with wide-eyed innocence and a mission to “build [and monetise] communities”, but ends up tripping over democracies and landing in a pile of ethnic cleansing.

"When the Guardian asked how the notoriously metrics-focused company would measure the success of the policy, the answer was characteristically mealy-mouthed: 'Our goal is to get better at identifying and removing abuses of our platform that spread hate and can contribute to offline violence or harm, so people in Myanmar can safely enjoy the benefits of connectivity.'

"When pushed again to specify how it would measure this, a spokeswoman said “that’s difficult”." Indeed

* pretty much a description of Mark Zuckerberg's face every time he appears in a public forum such as a Congressional hearing IMHO. What's wrong with him? Autism?

endorsement of the comments made in yesterday's GRAUNIAD (Oliver's favourite newspaper) about Facebook generally and its coverage of Burma in particular:

I hope overly exacting people don't constantly bring this minor typo to your attention.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paborn

endorsement of the comments made in yesterday's GRAUNIAD (Oliver's favourite newspaper) about Facebook generally and its coverage of Burma in particular: I hope overly exacting people don't constantly bring this minor typo to your attention.

---

As an American (poor you) you will be unaware of the context. At one point in its history the Guardian's sub-editors were so poor at their job that the paper was littered with spelling errors. The satirical magazine Private Eye has always since then called it "The Grauniad" in reference to those times

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by frequent

As an American (poor you) you will be unaware of the context. At one point in its history the Guardian's sub-editors were so poor at their job that the paper was littered with spelling errors. The satirical magazine Private Eye has always since then called it "The Grauniad" in reference to those times

---

God, it must be a terrible burden being you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paborn

God, it must be a terrible burden being you.

---

Yes, but someone has to do it. Noblesse oblige and all that. For Americans (and arsenal who liked paborn's post so much) here's a link to Private Eye's in-jokes

I suppose it has never occurred to you that Americans have little to no interest in "Private Eye" . I pause now and await your latest rant about Americans secure in the knowledge that those who broadly judge nationalities and ethnicities are on the losing side of history - not to mention manners.

Huge companies in general and American ones in particular rarely claim to be guardians of morals and ethics. Facebook is simply following the well worn path.