Hacker News Reader

I'm surprised this statement emerged from a UN "fact-finding mission". Regardless of how popular Facebook is in any given location, it's obviously not a factual statement. If Facebook wasn't available, Myanmar people wouldn't shrug shoulders and say "oh well, the internet is down".

> Regardless of how popular Facebook is in any given location, it's obviously not a factual statement.

Perception need not be a factual statement, but is still relevant.

https://www.technologyreview.com/2021/10/05/1036479/facebook... ("For huge parts of the world, Facebook is synonymous with the internet.")

https://medium.com/swlh/in-the-developing-world-facebook-is-... ("In the Developing World, Facebook Is the Internet")

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2022/jan/20/facebook-... ("How Facebook took over the internet in Africa – and changed everything")

https://qz.com/333313/milliions-of-facebook-users-have-no-id... ("Millions of Facebook users have no idea they’re using the internet")

No objections to relevancy. I argued against emotive exaggerated statements forming the conclusions of fact-finding.

Another one: "Dangerous algorithms". Can an algorithm be dangerous? Too late to debate, the fact-finding says they are. Any posts that counter the facts should be blocked right?

These horrendous crimes are a human problem, not an algorithm problem. Five years on from the atrocities, no member of the Myanmar security forces has yet been prosecuted for their crimes, according to amnesty. So not just a human problem, a legal problem too.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com