Facebook bans Myanmar army chief, others in unprecedented move

[webfact]

Facebook bans Myanmar army chief, others in unprecedented move

By Antoni Slodkowski

 

Myanmar military commander-in-chief, Senior General Min Aung Hlaing, salutes while attending a military exercise at Ayeyarwaddy delta region in Myanmar, February 3, 2018. REUTERS/Lynn Bo Bo/Pool/Files

 

YANGON (Reuters) - Facebook <FB.O> said on Monday it was removing several Myanmar military officials from the social media website and an Instagram account to prevent the spread of "hate and misinformation" after reviewing the content.

 

It was the first time Facebook banned a country's military or political leaders, according to Facebook spokeswoman Ruchika Budhraja. She said the bans could not be appealed.

 

Facebook also said it removed dozens of accounts for engaging in a campaign that "used seemingly independent news and opinion pages to covertly push the messages of the Myanmar military."

 

Facebook's action came hours after United Nations investigators said the army carried out mass killings and gang rapes of Muslim Rohingya with "genocidal intent." Their report said the commander-in-chief of Myanmar's armed forces and five general should be prosecuted for orchestrating the gravest crimes under the law.

 

Facebook's Budhraja said the United Nations findings as well as media reports and advocacy groups such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch informed the company's decision. Facebook declined to make executives available for comment on the bans.

 

Facebook's action means an essential blackout of the military's main channel of public communication, with pages followed by millions of people no longer available to a population that sees the social media app as virtually synonymous with the internet.

 

Government spokesman Zaw Htay was not available for comment. He was quoted by local media as sayingMyanmar had asked Facebook for further details on the reasons for the ban.

 

"Specifically, we are banning 20 Burmese individuals and organisations from Facebook — including Senior General Min Aung Hlaing, commander-in-chief of the armed forces, and the military's Myawady television network," Facebook said in a blog post.

 

"We're removing a total of 18 Facebook accounts, one Instagram account and 52 Facebook Pages, followed by almost 12 million people," the Menlo Park, California-based company added. https://bit.ly/2PHwRZy

 

The UN report said Min Aung Hlaing, commander-in-chief of Myanmar's armed forces, and five generals should be prosecuted for orchestrating the gravest crimes under law.

 

A preview of Min Aung Hlaing's Facebook page was still accessible immediately after the announcement and showed it had been "liked" by 1.3 million people. When Reuters attempted to return to it later it had been removed.

 

The U.N. investigators highlighted the role of social media in Myanmar in Monday's report. "Facebook has been a useful instrument for those seeking to spread hate, in a context where for most users Facebook is the Internet," said the report.

 

HATE SPEECH

Earlier this month, Reuters published an investigative report about how Facebook had failed to combat a campaign of hate speech against the Rohingya and other Muslims.

 

The piece, which found more than 1,000 posts, comments and images attacking Muslims on the platform, demonstrated that Facebook, despite repeated warnings, had devoted scant resources to controlling the problem in Myanmar, where it is the dominant social media force. (For the Reuters investigation on 'Why Facebook is losing the war on hate speech in Myanmar' click, https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/myanmar-facebook-hate/)

 

Facebook said a day after publication of the investigation that it had been "too slow" to address hate speech inMyanmar and it was acting to remedy the problem by hiring more Burmese speakers and investing in technology to identify problematic content.

 

Colonel Zaw Min Tun, an official in the military's public information unit, told Reuters he was not aware the pages had been removed. He declined to comment further.

 

Some of the military's Facebook posts from last year included detailed accounts of clashes with Rohingya militants, often accompanied by pictures.

 

A year ago, government troops led a crackdown in Myanmar's Rakhine State in response to attacks by Rohingya insurgents on 30 police posts and a military base.

 

As a result, some 700,000 Rohingya fled to neighbouring Bangladesh, according to U.N. agencies, bringing stories of rape, arson and arbitrary killings.

 

Myanmar has denied allegations made by refugees, saying its troops engaged in lawful counterinsurgency operations against Muslim militants.

 

Last week, Facebook, along with Twitter Inc <TWTR.N> and Google's Alphabet Inc <GOOGL.O>, removed hundreds of accounts tied to an alleged Iranian propaganda operation. Facebook also said it had removed pages that the U.S. government had previously named as Russian military intelligence services.

 

Russia and Iran rejected Facebook’s accusations.

 

"This is part of our effort to identify and disable networks of accounts that mislead others about who they are. We ban this kind of behaviour because we want people to be able to trust the connections they make on Facebook," Facebook spokeswoman Clare Wareing said.

 

(Reporting by Mekhla Raina in Bengaluru, Simon Lewis, Aye Min Thant and Antoni Slodkowski in Yangon, Paresh Dave in San Francisco; Editing by Gopakumar Warrier, Robert Birsel, Alex Richardson, Toni Reinhold)

 

-- © Copyright Reuters Full story:

[George Bowman]

3 hours ago, webfact said:

Facebook's action came hours after United Nations investigators said the army carried out mass killings and gang rapes of Muslim Rohingya with "genocidal intent."

Funny old world sometimes. Now Facebook apparently has become more powerful than the UN. 

[canopus1969]

Well done Fb - now there's a certain General near home that could do with burying sorry, banning ........

[4evermaat]

Quite a dangerous precedent that Facebook has set.  Perhaps Myanmar will go the route of China and adopt a more isolationist policy when it comes to infrastructural communication channels.

[Odysseus123]

26 minutes ago, 4evermaat said:

Quite a dangerous precedent that Facebook has set.  Perhaps Myanmar will go the route of China and adopt a more isolationist policy when it comes to infrastructural communication channels.

Not a dangerous precedent at all-unless calling out pathological liars (of  which SE Asia abounds) can be termed  "dangerous" of which burying one's heads in the sands will only result in a kick up the rear end sooner or later...

 

Sooner or later,someone has to set boundaries on these people-let's listen to 'em scream..

Edited August 28, 2018 by Odysseus123

[timendres]

29 minutes ago, Odysseus123 said:

55 minutes ago, 4evermaat said:

Quite a dangerous precedent that Facebook has set.  Perhaps Myanmar will go the route of China and adopt a more isolationist policy when it comes to infrastructural communication channels.

Not a dangerous precedent at all-unless calling out pathological liars (of  which SE Asia abounds) can be termed  "dangerous" of which burying one's heads in the sands will only result in a kick up the rear end sooner or later...

 

Sooner or later,someone has to set boundaries on these people-let's listen to 'em scream..

It is most certainly a dangerous precedent. In this particular case, all might agree that the move was warranted. But that slope will get more slippery with each case that comes along. I am not sure what the best answer is, but there is a reason why censorship should always be considered as a last resort.

[Odysseus123]

9 minutes ago, timendres said:

It is most certainly a dangerous precedent. In this particular case, all might agree that the move was warranted. But that slope will get more slippery with each case that comes along. I am not sure what the best answer is, but there is a reason why censorship should always be considered as a last resort.

You are quite correct and I do apologize.

 

I was being sarcastic but I couldn't find the appropriate emoji.

 

 

[timendres]

1 minute ago, Odysseus123 said:

You are quite correct and I do apologize.

I was being sarcastic but I couldn't find the appropriate emoji.

No apology necessary. I did recognize the sarcasm in your post.

However, I cringe at the thought of Facebook, the UN, and others, deciding what I can or cannot read.

[Odysseus123]

2 minutes ago, timendres said:

No apology necessary. I did recognize the sarcasm in your post.

However, I cringe at the thought of Facebook, the UN, and others, deciding what I can or cannot read.

I think that you are correct-there is a thread about this somewhere-but I am totally undecided-ambivalent- about this whole Facebook thing.

 

Thank you for your courteous response.

[Trouble]

I think the evolution of social media has gone in a direction that might be nearly irreversible. When I started using Facebook, it was done for keeping up with friends and their activities.  Unfortunately it became a place for "friends" to start passing along their dislike for this and that. In many cases it turned to negativity or just plain stupidity. Along with that came the reposting of supposed news reports bolstering their ideas.  Then  Facebook started increasing the advertising so that now every 4th or 5th post is some kind of suggested post which is advertising, which I pass right by.  So it is now to the point where I hardly look at Facebook.  Seems like I have to be really bored to tears or I am stuck waiting at the car wash before I look at it.  I have also noticed that many of my "friends" seem to be posting less and less.  Many of the young people are using Instagram, which seems to me to be less negative and political than other social media.  The fact that anyone would use Facebook and other social media as a news source is kind of pathetic in my mind.  Further, it seems crazy in my mind for news sources to be talking about or report what is trending on Facebook, Twitter, etc.  It's like listening to the mindless talk about inane subjects.  Everyone under the sun seems to get into trouble with Twitter posts.  Unfortunately we have now given Facebook, Twitter, etc., the authority to determine what type of speech is appropriate and numerous stories abound with social media censors determining what is or is not proper to post.  What is humorous is that the social media outlets are out of their depth in being able to stop what people post. They can only take it off after it's been posted. They have created their own monster but have made billions doing it. 

[Stargeezr]

Hey Facebook! Why stop there? Remove tRump while you are at it.

  Oh disregard, it is what twitter should do.

Geezer

[sanemax]

3 minutes ago, Stargrazer9889 said:

Hey Facebook! Why stop there? Remove tRump while you are at it.

  Oh disregard, it is what twitter should do.

Geezer

Do please stop mentioning Trump .

[Benmart]

5 hours ago, Trouble said:

I think the evolution of social media has gone in a direction that might be nearly irreversible. When I started using Facebook, it was done for keeping up with friends and their activities.  Unfortunately it became a place for "friends" to start passing along their dislike for this and that. In many cases it turned to negativity or just plain stupidity. Along with that came the reposting of supposed news reports bolstering their ideas.  Then  Facebook started increasing the advertising so that now every 4th or 5th post is some kind of suggested post which is advertising, which I pass right by.  So it is now to the point where I hardly look at Facebook.  Seems like I have to be really bored to tears or I am stuck waiting at the car wash before I look at it.  I have also noticed that many of my "friends" seem to be posting less and less.  Many of the young people are using Instagram, which seems to me to be less negative and political than other social media.  The fact that anyone would use Facebook and other social media as a news source is kind of pathetic in my mind.  Further, it seems crazy in my mind for news sources to be talking about or report what is trending on Facebook, Twitter, etc.  It's like listening to the mindless talk about inane subjects.  Everyone under the sun seems to get into trouble with Twitter posts.  Unfortunately we have now given Facebook, Twitter, etc., the authority to determine what type of speech is appropriate and numerous stories abound with social media censors determining what is or is not proper to post.  What is humorous is that the social media outlets are out of their depth in being able to stop what people post. They can only take it off after it's been posted. They have created their own monster but have made billions doing it. 

I impose a personal "ban", when hate,  politucal rhetoric, bigotry and violence is sent to me on FB. The unfriend and block option is convenient and easy to use.

[Stargeezr]

Oh I forget that because I am not a Yankee,  I should not comment on Trump, or tRump as

I do. Sorry all thin skinned Americans.

Geezer

[4evermaat]

@Trouble Facebook has become a entire content medium for the layman: public/private groups with instant posts/comments, instant messenging, live/recorded video, advertising, "yellow pages" etc.  Plus it is easy to connect to other group members.  Newspapers and even local TV cannot keep up and have larely become obsolete unless they have an online presence. 

 

The gov't does not have control over it.  A blessing or a curse, depending on what the effects of it were.

 

Other marketers have warned about the pitfalls of using facebook groups; mainly that facebook can cut you off at a moments notice.  I think it is great for quickly sharing things locally or even internationally (events, for sale, etc.).  But important contacts and such should be stored privately (on intrastructure you control) 

 

 

 

Edited August 29, 2018 by 4evermaat

[tifino]

 

I wonder if secret Burma has their own Sect44?

 

lucky! ... wouldn't want to be an American tourist over there now eh!

Facebook is US , and probably get banned from there soon... 

as their Junta would see FB becoming an exclusive tool for their opponents' use