Facebook, Nick Clegg, Sucker Berg discussed on Today in Focus

Today in Focus
|

Automatic TRANSCRIPT

Few days later, we saw kind of the debut of. Another kind of aggressive move in this PR campaign, Nick Clegg, who is now facebook's top executives for policy and communications, and formerly our Deputy Prime Minister of course, of course he published an OP. Ed In a trade publication for the advertising industry where he was making the case that actually facebook is a hate and kind of attempting to recast our kind of general consideration of facebook to say. Let's stop focusing so much on what's bad and start really calculating and paying attention to all of the good things that happen on facebook, which to me kind of suggests that they have come up with some kind of moral calculus and moral algorithm. And that that on balance facebook is is coming out on top. How did you imagine that working when I was reading? The Clegg's Abed just have this a mental image of him. You know sitting down with his balance sheet at the end of the quarter, and saying well I see that in the red. We have this murder of a security officer who allegedly was carried out by extremists who met and coordinated their attack on facebook. But look here's one for the black and adorable grandmother just liked a photo posted by grandson who lives five hundred miles away I'm sort of joking, but there is a very serious side to this the the most kind of notable being that face, because actually been implicated by the United Nations for playing a role in the genocide of the Rohingya in Myanmar has been used to incite violence against Rohingya refugees living in the country's routine state. Rohingyas are a Muslim minority group. Myanmar's Buddhists led military launch brutal crackdown on the group last summer, forcing around seven hundred thousand Rohingyas to flee their homes. FACEBOOK is trying to deal with this blow to its reputation. It's not just appetizers themselves it some of the groups you mentioned the NGOs who are cooling on appetizers to boycott, a platform groups like color of change and. They actually have had a meeting with. Zia Mark Zuckerberg I. How did that guy? Yes so they had a meeting with Sucker Berg. You know the number one word that the leaders who were part of that meeting kept repeating after it was just disappointing. These groups have been talking and talking and talking and talking with facebook facebook. Keep saying well. Let's keep having a dialogue. Let's keep having a dialogue and at this point they seem pretty pretty fed up and kind of just over the idea that dialogue is going to is going to move the needle because they've been in dialogue for several years now it seems to me that the maybe many reasons why facebook don't act more on this I'm just interested in whether. In their minds, it's a practical thing that they think it's too hard to do because of the size of their platform, or if it's a conscious moral decision, they think it's not their job to intervene I think that with facebook and this this is just speculation, but I do think that there is a way in which they have taken a pragmatic approach, and then kind of Jerry rigged a moral argument on top of it at scale that facebook operates. It is probably impossible for facebook to be. Responsible and vigilant about hate on the platform. You know they are in more than one hundred countries. This is more than a hundred languages every single. kind of local context is different and hate. Speech is not something that can be algorithm. Mickley determined it is. You know in almost every case. It is expressed through context so there are plenty of kind of you know statements that would sound completely benign if they were made in a context of total equality that suddenly become very frightening. If you can understand the historic racist dog whistles, for example in the US, where there's you know, there's a whole vocabulary of how racism in the US can be expressed without using slurs. The idea that facebook could do an effective job of being a a moderator of of all of those different communities. Is probably just fundamentally unrealistic. It should not be controversial among people that are thinking seriously about free expression that if you only pay attention to not censoring and don't pay any attention to the ways in which those you are choosing not to censor might be using speech to silence others. You are failing to protect the freedom of expression of vulnerable groups, because there are groups that are subject to harassment campaigns and subject to pressure to be silenced. And facebook has time and time again. Just kind of fill to acknowledge. That failed to see that. If you have white nationalist on your platform that are doing everything they can to silence people that say that white nationalism is bad. That you're not creating an environment for free expression. You're actually just letting your platform behind jacked by hate. And Julia that sounds. Like exactly what happened to you that groups who you spoke up against sought to silence you in the most horrifying way. All Ye sometimes tempted to pull back and not right about this. Yes. We haven't done not yet..

Coming up next