Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
It would depend upon the person reading if such is hate speech. What is hate speech to a person may be
an eye opener to another.
The possibility if not yet a fact that facebook is being used by political manipulators cannot be ignored.
The internet is a virtual world where jurisdiction and territory does not apply. If such system is being
limited by jurisdiction or territory as being related to states and countries, that would not be called
internet but only widely known as INTRANET.
Whenever a controversy like this arises, there's always the danger that
Congress's response will be to step and overregulate.
Cambridge Analytica (CA) is a British political consulting firm which combines data mining,
data brokerage, and data analysis with strategic communication for the electoral process. It was
started in 2013 as an offshoot of the SCL Group.
The second is around giving people complete control. This is the most
important principle for Facebook: Every piece of content that you share on
Facebook, you own and you have complete control over who sees it and — and
how you share it, and you can remove it at any time.
Internet cannot and should not be regulated. Regulation of such would tantamount to data breach by
the government itself. The differentiation of the ISP and the platform would be very important.
People of the older generation are totally aware that whatever information they enter, pictures they
upload, messages they send, and speeches they post, are vulnerable to being copied. The people of the
new generation, relying too much in technology, stupidly crying like a baby over information that they
themselves entered.
I asked your general counsel about Facebook's role as a breeding ground for
hate speech against Rohingya refugees. Recently, U.N. investigators blamed
Facebook for playing a role in inciting possible genocide in Myanmar. And
there has been genocide there.
Can facebook be blamed? No. The platform cannot be blamed as facebook is a media open for
all. Facebook is not the same as the traditional media wherein the information comes from the
media themselves but from the individual contributions of its users.
Even if Facebook is stopped by the U.S. Government, it would still work somewhere else because
the internet cannot be regulated.
Beyond that, would you agree that Facebook ought not be putting its thumb on
the scale with regard to the content of speech, assuming it fits out of one of
those categories that — that's prohibited?
ZUCKERBERG: Senator, yes. There are generally two categories of content
that — that we're very worried about. One are things that could cause real
world harm, so terrorism certainly fits into that, self-harm fits into that, I
would consider election interference to fit into that and those are the types of
things that we — I — I don't really consider there to be much discussion
around whether those are good or bad topics.
The issue revolves in the data breach by Cambridge analytica of personal informations of facebook.
Mr. Zuckerberg, thanks for being here. At current pace, you're due to be done
with the first round of questioning by about 1:00 a.m., so congratulations.
I — I like Chris Coons a lot, with his own family, or with Dan Sullivan's family.
Both are great photos. But I want to ask a similar set of questions from the
other side, maybe.
I think the line — the conceptual line between mirror-tech company, mirror
tools, and an actual content company, I think it's really hard. I think you guys
have a hard challenge. I think regulation over time will have a hard challenge.
And you're a private company so you can make policies that may be less than
First Amendment full spirit embracing in my view. But I worry about that. I
worry about a world where when you go from violent groups to hate speech in
a hurry — and one of your responses to the opening questions, you may
decide, or Facebook may decide, it needs to police a whole bunch of speech,
that I think America might be better off not having policed by one company
that has a really big and powerful platform.
ZUCKERBERG: Yes.
Guess what? There are some really passionately held views about the abortion
issue on this panel today. Can you imagine a world where you might decide
that pro-lifers are prohibited from speaking about their abortion views on
your content — on your platform?
==
On the flip side, we've seen with Rohingya, that example of, you know, where
the state could use similar data or use this platform to go after people. You
talked about what you're doing in that regard, hiring more, you know,
traditional — or, local-language speakers. What else are you doing in that
regard to ensure that these states don't — or, these governments go after
opposition figures or others?
ZUCKERBERG: Senator, there are three main things that we're doing, in
Myanmar specifically, and that will apply to — to other situations like that.
The first is hiring enough people to do local language support, because the
definition of hate speech or things that can be racially coded to incite violence
are very language-specific and we can't do that with just English speakers for
people around the world. So we need to grow that.
The second is, in these countries there tend to be active civil society, who can
help us identify the figures who are — who are spreading hate. And we can
work with them in order to make sure that those figures don't have a place on
our platform.
The vastness of Facebook’s reach makes hate speech monitoring entirely difficult if not impossible. Its
like trying to monitor the conversation of the whole population of a continent. AI cannot distinguish and
can never identify if such speech would be categorized as hate speech.
It comes to my attention that if the government would try to monitor and regulate facebook, its like
regulating and monitoring all of the activities of all users of the facebook platform.