In the face of mounting evidence that Meta Platforms Inc (formerly Facebook Inc) is a bad actor on the global social media stage, it remains a puzzle as to why so many well-intentioned community groups still use the Facebook platform

 

Amnesty International, What’s New, 28 September 2022:

MYANMAR: FACEBOOK’S SYSTEMS PROMOTED VIOLENCE AGAINST ROHINGYA – META OWES REPARATIONS

Facebook owner Meta’s dangerous algorithms and reckless pursuit of profit substantially contributed to the

atrocities perpetrated by the Myanmar military against the Rohingya people in 2017, Amnesty International said in a new report published today.

The Social Atrocity: Meta and the right to remedy for the Rohingya, details how Meta knew or should have known that Facebook’s algorithmic systems were supercharging the spread of harmful anti-Rohingya content in Myanmar, but the company still failed to act.

“In 2017, the Rohingya were killed, tortured, raped, and displaced in the thousands as part of the Myanmar security forces’ campaign of ethnic cleansing. In the months and years leading up to the atrocities, Facebook’s algorithms were intensifying a storm of hatred against the Rohingya which contributed to real-world violence,” said Agnès Callamard, Amnesty International’s Secretary General.

“While the Myanmar military was committing crimes against humanity against the Rohingya, Meta was profiting from the echo chamber of hatred created by its hate-spiralling algorithms.

AGNÈS CALLAMARD, AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL’S SECRETARY GENERAL

“Meta must be held to account. The company now has a responsibility to provide reparations to all those who suffered the violent consequences of their reckless actions.”

Sawyeddollah, a 21-year-old Rohingya refugee, told Amnesty International: “I saw a lot of horrible things on Facebook. And I just thought that the people who posted that were bad… Then I realized that it is not only these people – the posters – but Facebook is also responsible. Facebook is helping them by not taking care of their platform.”

The Rohingya are a predominantly Muslim ethnic minority based in Myanmar’s northern Rakhine State. In August 2017, more than 700,000 Rohingya fled Rakhine when the Myanmar security forces launched a targeted campaign of widespread and systematic murder, rape and burning of homes. The violence followed decades of state-sponsored discrimination, persecution, and oppression against the Rohingya that amounts to apartheid.

An anti-Rohingya echo chamber

Meta uses engagement-based algorithmic systems to power Facebook’s news feed, ranking, recommendation and groups features, shaping what is seen on the platform. Meta profits when Facebook users stay on the platform as long as possible, by selling more targeted advertising. The display of inflammatory content – including that which advocates hatred, constituting incitement to violence, hostility and discrimination – is an effective way of keeping people on the platform longer. As such, the promotion and amplification of this type of content is key to the surveillance-based business model of Facebook.

In the months and years prior to the crackdown, Facebook in Myanmar had become an echo chamber of anti-Rohingya content. Actors linked to the Myanmar military and radical Buddhist nationalist groups flooded the platform with anti-Muslim content, posting disinformation claiming there was going to be an impending Muslim takeover, and portraying the Rohingya as “invaders”.

In one post that was shared more than 1,000 times, a Muslim human rights defender was pictured and described as a “national traitor”. The comments left on the post included threatening and racist messages, including ‘He is a Muslim. Muslims are dogs and need to be shot’, and ‘Don’t leave him alive. Remove his whole race. Time is ticking’.

Content inciting violence and discrimination went to the very top of Myanmar’s military and civilian leadership. Senior General Min Aung Hlaing, the leader of Myanmar’s military, posted on his Facebook page in 2017: “We openly declare that absolutely, our country has no Rohingya race.” He went on to seize power in a coup in February 2021.

In July 2022, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) ruled that it has jurisdiction to proceed with a case against the Myanmar government under the Genocide Convention based on Myanmar’s treatment of the Rohingya. Amnesty International welcomes this vital step towards holding the Myanmar government to account and continues to call for senior members of the Myanmar military to be brought to justice for their role in crimes against the Rohingya.

In 2014, Meta attempted to support an anti-hate initiative known as ‘Panzagar’ or ‘flower speech’ by creating a sticker pack for Facebook users to post in response to content which advocated violence or discrimination. The stickers bore messages such as, ‘Think before you share’ and ‘Don’t be the cause of violence’.

However, activists soon noticed that the stickers were having unintended consequences. Facebook’s algorithms interpreted the use of these stickers as a sign that people were enjoying a post and began promoting them. Instead of diminishing the number of people who saw a post advocating hatred, the stickers actually made the posts more visible.

The UN’s Independent International Fact-Finding Mission on Myanmar ultimately concluded that the “role of social media [was] significant” in the atrocities in a country where “Facebook is the Internet”.

Mohamed Showife, a Rohingya activist, said: “The Rohingya just dream of living in the same way as other people in this world… but you, Facebook, you destroyed our dream.”

Facebook’s failure to act

The report details how Meta repeatedly failed to conduct appropriate human rights due diligence on its operations in Myanmar, despite its responsibility under international standards to do so.

Internal studies dating back to 2012 indicated that Meta knew its algorithms could result in serious real-world harms. In 2016, Meta’s own research clearly acknowledged that “our recommendation systems grow the problem” of extremism.

Meta received repeated communications and visits by local civil society activists between 2012 and 2017 when the company was warned that it risked contributing to extreme violence. In 2014, the Myanmar authorities even temporarily blocked Facebook because of the platform’s role in triggering an outbreak of ethnic violence in Mandalay. However, Meta repeatedly failed to heed the warnings, and also consistently failed to enforce its own policies on hate speech.

Amnesty International’s investigation includes analysis of new evidence from the ‘Facebook Papers’ – a cache of internal documents leaked by whistleblower Frances Haugen.

In one internal document dated August 2019, one Meta employee wrote: “We have evidence from a variety of sources that hate speech, divisive political speech, and misinformation on Facebook… are affecting societies around the world. We also have compelling evidence that our core product mechanics, such as virality, recommendations, and optimizing for engagement, are a significant part of why these types of speech flourish on the platform.”

‘Meta must pay’

Amnesty International is today launching a new campaign calling for Meta Platforms, Inc. to meet the Rohingya’s demands for remediation.

Today marks the first anniversary of the murder of prominent activist Mohib Ullah, chair of the Arakan Rohingya Society for Peace and Human Rights. Mohib was at the forefront of community efforts to hold Meta accountable.

Rohingya refugee groups have made direct requests to Meta to provide remedy by funding a USD $1 million education project in the refugee camp in Cox’s Bazar, Bangladesh. The funding request represents just 0.002% of Meta’s profits of $46.7 billion from 2021. In February 2021, Meta rejected the Rohingya community’s request, stating: “Facebook doesn’t directly engage in philanthropic activities.”

Showkutara, a 22-year-old Rohingya woman and youth activist, told Amnesty International: “Facebook must pay. If they do not, we will go to every court in the world. We will never give up in our struggle.”

There are at least three active complaints seeking remediation for the Rohingya from Meta. Civil legal proceedings were filed against the company in December 2021 in both the United Kingdom and the USA. Rohingya refugee youth groups have also filed an OECD case against Meta which is currently under consideration by the US’ OECD National Contact Point.

“Meta has a responsibility under international human rights standards to remediate the terrible harm suffered by the Rohingya that they contributed to. The findings should raise the alarm that Meta risks contributing to further serious human rights abuses, unless it makes fundamental changes to its business model and algorithms,” said Agnès Callamard.

“Urgent, wide-ranging reforms to their algorithmic systems to prevent abuses and increase transparency are desperately needed to ensure that Meta’s history with the Rohingya does not repeat itself elsewhere in the world, especially where ethnic violence is simmering.”

“Ultimately, States must now help to protect human rights by introducing and enforcing effective legislation to rein in surveillance-based business models across the technology sector. Big Tech has proven itself incapable of doing so when it has such enormous profits at stake.”

On 20 May 2022, Amnesty International wrote to Meta regarding the company’s actions in relation to its business activities in Myanmar before and during the 2017 atrocities. Meta responded that it could not provide information concerning the period leading up to 2017 because the company is “currently engaged in litigation proceedings in relation to related matters”.

On 14 June 2022, Amnesty International again wrote to Meta regarding the relevant allegations contained in the report, and to give the company the opportunity to respond. Meta declined to comment.

BACKGROUND

North Coast Voices:

Friday, 12 May 2017

You're not on Facebook? Why not?!

Wednesday, 28 March 2018

Turns out that Facebook Inc is the biggest baddie of all on the Internet

Wednesday, 11 April 2018

Almost right from its very beginning Facebook Inc was not the benign Internet presence it pretended to be

Rex Express Chairman Lim Kim Hai likes to dish it out but does not respond well to even mild criticism

Grafton Airport in the Clarence Valley is predominately used by state authorities and local government. 

Rex Express is also the only commercial air passenger service into the Clarence Valley even if it is virtually only a skeleton service and, it is heavily subsidised by federal and state governments during the COVID-19 pandemic to the tune of at least $77.9 million.

ABC News, 16 October 2018

The executive chairman and largest single shareholder in Rex Express Holdings Ltd is Lim Kim Hai (left) and apparently at his instigation Rex is cutting Grafton Airport from its NSW routes from 3 July 2020 - allegedly on the grounds his feeling have been hurt.

This is the latest example of how this somewhat aggressive businessman responds to even the mildest of criticism of the company he heads.



The Daily Examiner, 13 June 2020, p.10:

Clarence Valley Council has called an extraordinary meeting to deal with the fallout from Rex’s shock decision to quit the region. 

In a report to be tabled at the meeting on Tuesday, council general manager Ashley Lindsay detailed correspondence he’d had with national airports manager for Regional Express, David Brooksby. 

“He advised that executive chairman Lim Kim Hai took great offence to Cr Novak calling on Rex to ‘pull their finger out’,” Mr Lindsay said. 

“Unless a public apology is provided by Cr Novak, he would not reconsider his decision for Rex to cease services to Grafton effective 3 July.” 

The move comes as Regional Express Airlines offered a little more on its decision to cancel the Grafton route with a message to councillors, the community and local media. 

“Council has chosen to discuss the Rex matter in open session and some councillors have voiced pejorative remarks about Rex with the full expectation that these remarks will be reported in the media,” the statement said. 

“As elected representatives, they need to know that their official statements will have consequences and they need to take full responsibility for these consequences. The community and the media should turn to these representatives for comments and their plans for the future.” 

The issue arose at the May council meeting when councillor Debrah Novak used strong language toward Rex while speaking against a motion to issue it a $8908 credit note for 2021. 

In response to those words, Rex announced it would cease services to Grafton from July 3. 

Ms Novak had since posted a statement via her Facebook page and spoken to media outlets, clarifying that her comments were underpinned with “no malice or contempt”. 

Ms Novak, whose post referred to other financial dealings and business decisions Rex has made in the recent past, suggested there was a cultural misunderstanding in part due to its foreign ownership. 

She said the term ‘pull your finger out’ was an “Australian colloquialism” that she had heard “most people use in my lifetime and in council”. 

“How locals or international people interpret what I say is not my responsibility and I will not be apologising.” 

Mr Lindsay in his report before the council said her comments in the previous meeting had fallen foul of council rules and the officer recommendation was for her – and the mayor on behalf of the council – to apologise to Rex and to Lim Kim Hai. 

“I have reviewed the recording of the meeting and I believe Cr Novak has breached Council’s Code of Meeting Practice during her debate on this item (6a.20.011),” he said. 

“Cr Novak’s commentary on REX and their board was contemptuous and in accordance with Clause 15.12 (c) of the Code of Meeting Practice Council can call on Cr Novak to “retract and apologise without reservation” to REX and in particular the apology should be to REX’s executive chairman Lim Kim Hai.” ......

A decision on the matter will be made in the meeting, at 1pm on June 16.

One has to supect the reason given for the airline's decision to withdraw services, when much harsher criticism was levelled at its business practices in The Australian newspaper on 27 May 2020:

"But the response did not satisfy Senator Sheldon, who wrote to ASIC chairman James Shipton requesting an investigation. He said the level of detail provided by Rex to the media could reasonably be expected to affect the share price. 

“Rex’s plans to expand into markets in direct competition with Qantas and Virgin, after having received a disproportionate share of government financial support, are inappropriate and exploitative,” wrote Senator Sheldon over the $54m paid to Rex out of a $100m regional aviation assistance fund. 

“Their failure to inform the ASX of these plans per the ASX listing rules flies in the face of Australian corporate standards. If Rex or any officer of Rex has contravened the Act, I further request that ASIC take appropriate enforcement action against them.”

The chairman does not appear to have overreacted to the NSW senator's comments as he has to the shire councillor's remark.

Lim Kim Hai is not adverse to hitting out at what he perhaps sees as easy targets and the following is a previous example of the Rex Express chairman's response to criticism:

Area News, excerpts from page one articles in 27 and 30 June 2012 newspaper
issues: 

# "A VISITING cardiologist has threatened to abandon his Griffith clinic because of "arrogant and offensive" treatment by Regional Express (Rex). 

Dr Charles Thorburn, who has been travelling from Sydney for more than 20 years to conduct an outpatient clinic at Griffith hospital, was so incensed with the declining service of the Griffith-Sydney flights he wrote a complaint letter to Rex chairman Lim Kim Hai. 

But in an extraordinary response from the Singapore-based chairman, Dr Thorburn was questioned and ridiculed, in a letter critics have seized on as evidence of Rex's contempt for its customers. 

"If, as you say, you find the conditions unsatisfactory, why did you accept them in the first place?" the letter, written on instruction by Mr Kim Hai, read. 

"I would be curious to know if you would reimburse any of your patients who do not get well after seeing you?" 

The chairman's goading continued after Dr Thorburn asked for data on how often the Sydney-Griffith flights were delayed or cancelled. "We are not providing you with the statistics you are requesting for (sic)," he said. 

"Perhaps in the medical profession you are used to dispensing information on how long you make your patients wait or how often you misdiagnosed." 

He went on to say Rex was "still much better than all the airlines in Australia and most of the airlines in the world". 

The exchange comes at a time when a new airline is poised to break the company's monopoly stranglehold on the city, set to operate the Griffith-Melbourne leg dumped by Rex this month. 

An incredulous Dr Thorburn said he was now seriously considering pulling the pin on his long-standing Griffith outpatient clinic. "If the service does not improve, I really need to assess whether I will continue to fly down to Griffith," he said. 

"I found the letter I received arrogant and offensive and quite extraordinary." 

He has since written to Rex board members individually to demand an apology and express his disgust at the treatment. Dr Thorburn's original letter was prompted by a chaotic return flight from Griffith on May 25....... 

# "Local leaders have demanded Rex issue an immediate apology to a visiting cardiologist rebuked by the airline’s chairman during a public relations crash-landing last week. 

Leading Sydney cardiologist Dr Charles Thorburn has threatened to boycott Rex and end his 20-year relationship with Griffith after a valid complaint letter to the airline’s Singapore-based boss was met with an “arrogant and offensive” response.....

BACKGROUND

Wednesday, 10 June 2020

Rex Express walks away from its Clarence Valley airline route trying to blame others for its decision