Can anyone with a background in law comment on whether or not this is serious? Because it doesn't seem serious. Primarily the amount asked for, but also the question of jurisdiction as well as the question collective culpability. For example, Facebook wasn't alone in this. YouTube, Twitter, and others had similar issues in varying intensities.
They would have to prove that FB caused the genocide, and then they would have to prove the damages caused by FB alone. Doubt they will be able to do either.
> then they would have to prove the damages caused by FB alone
INAL, but that doesn't sound correct. See for example, several liability[1], in which responsibility is divided among parties.
> They would have to prove that FB caused the genocide
That doesn't sound right either. For example, Facebook could have exacerbated the situation, in which case they are responsible for some portion of the harm done.
Moral responsibility for a genocide doesn't imply any legal liability. Those are entirely separate issues. If you think Facebook is liable then please cite a specific precedent.
The previous poster isn't definitively stating there is legal liability - but they are setting the stage and providing evidence as to why such liability might be legally considered. It isn't the job of internet commentators to litigate - and, Facebook is one of the rather new cohort of companies involved with social media on a global scale. There have been cases in the past when local social clubs and media outlets have incited violence - but nothing of this scale exists in precedent to my knowledge because this is an entirely novel scale.
I'd also mention that there AFAIK was no intentional effort on Facebook's part to make the situation worse specifically - but building a system that causes harm can cause liability even if that harm is unintended. No factory owner ever intended for their employees to lose limbs in heavy machinery, but they have been repeatedly held liable for it. I personally think the case against Facebook is weak - but I am certainly aware that I don't have nearly enough visibility on the internals to make any sort of definitive statement.
It's obviously not serious. This is a PR stunt intended to produce media attention and pressure Facebook into changing corporate policies. There is no way that Facebook will ever have to pay damages. The plaintiffs are essentially abusing the court system. However I don't really blame them since there's no other way to get the attention of Facebook management.
If you have some time, I recommend reading An Ugly Truth (https://www.indiebound.org/book/9780062960672). That book gave me a new realization - Facebook (and other companies) are not victims of their surroundings. There are some very intentional, very impactful decisions that are made at the highest level.
They have a lot of insider information about specifically the Myanmar genocide and how Facebook contributed to it. It's infuriating!
> nearly 7,000 Rohingyas killed and 750,000 forced out of the country
Why is this not widely known, when e.g. Haiti, Palestine, and Ethiopian human rights issues are brought up incessantly?
The problem here does not seem to be Facebook, hate the company as I might. The problem here is the larger media, the media that _does_ actively contribute to the content it distributes.
> Why is this not widely known, when e.g. Haiti, Palestine, and Ethiopian human rights issues are brought up incessantly?
Closer to the peak of the events, Rohingya human rights were brought up far more “incessantly” than, say, Ethiopian human rights were at the time (heck, even more than Ethiopian human rights are now.) Its not a current focus of attention the way current events in Ethiopia are, so you don’t hear as much about it today, and if you have a short attention span maybe you’ve forgotten about the coverage.
How do you measure widely known? How do you measure brought up incessantly? I'm not asking a rhetorical question. I mean literally how are you measuring this?
I browse the news headlines in English, Hebrew, Russian, Greek, and Arabic. I'm trying to add Spanish to the list. Though to be honest I don't usually read the whole articles and could only really do so comfortably in 40% of those languages.
Subjectively, the Rohingya genocide is not major world news.
My cynical opinion - it doesn't have the emotional "hooks" that Haiti (very close to the U.S., mostly Black, etc.) or Palestine (U.S. / European involvement via Israel) have. And the script (an officially Buddhist country killing Muslims) does not [$Bitter_Disapproval_Comment] strike many Americans / Europeans / etc. as being particularly evil. Nor as likely to cause any problems for Westerners.
As someone who regularly watches the News Hour - I heard quite a deal about Rohingyas fleeing Myanmar for years, I'm not certain what news feeds you subscribe to but maybe it's an issue with the media you're consuming?
I mean, this is kinda the exemplar of a case where only the catalysts can make a difference - the perpetrators have since staged a coup and now run Myanmar's government.
My tinfoil hat theory is that these kinds of lawsuits are actually GOOD for Meta and they want them. Because they add to the image of FB/Meta as a world-shaping power with nation like reach instead of a high-tech listserv for a declining user base of credulous Boomers.
33 comments
[ 3.3 ms ] story [ 95.1 ms ] threadINAL, but that doesn't sound correct. See for example, several liability[1], in which responsibility is divided among parties.
> They would have to prove that FB caused the genocide
That doesn't sound right either. For example, Facebook could have exacerbated the situation, in which case they are responsible for some portion of the harm done.
1. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/several_liability
I'd also mention that there AFAIK was no intentional effort on Facebook's part to make the situation worse specifically - but building a system that causes harm can cause liability even if that harm is unintended. No factory owner ever intended for their employees to lose limbs in heavy machinery, but they have been repeatedly held liable for it. I personally think the case against Facebook is weak - but I am certainly aware that I don't have nearly enough visibility on the internals to make any sort of definitive statement.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/17/health/jnj-risperdal-verd... - $8B down to $6.8M, "Large jury verdicts are frequently reduced after trial".
How do you figure? What else can they do to seek restitution or reform?
If you have some time, I recommend reading An Ugly Truth (https://www.indiebound.org/book/9780062960672). That book gave me a new realization - Facebook (and other companies) are not victims of their surroundings. There are some very intentional, very impactful decisions that are made at the highest level.
They have a lot of insider information about specifically the Myanmar genocide and how Facebook contributed to it. It's infuriating!
The problem here does not seem to be Facebook, hate the company as I might. The problem here is the larger media, the media that _does_ actively contribute to the content it distributes.
Closer to the peak of the events, Rohingya human rights were brought up far more “incessantly” than, say, Ethiopian human rights were at the time (heck, even more than Ethiopian human rights are now.) Its not a current focus of attention the way current events in Ethiopia are, so you don’t hear as much about it today, and if you have a short attention span maybe you’ve forgotten about the coverage.
Subjectively, the Rohingya genocide is not major world news.
It is an old recommendation but "Manufacturing Consent" by Noam Chomsky is a great read for an introduction to the topic.
News outlets should be responsible for the negative outcomes of their publishing.
Rohingya sue Facebook for £150bn over Myanmar genocide - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29463573 - Dec 2021 (16 comments)
Class-action suit filed against Meta for facilitating Rohingya Genocide [pdf] - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29462176 - Dec 2021 (156 comments)