Read on Twitter
Thread: Last week, I wrote in @Article14live how Facebook has been shielding the BJP for over the year, and the deep, commercial ties between them.
On Monday, I deposed before the Delhi Assembly's committee investigating Facebook's role in fanning hate.
On Monday, I deposed before the Delhi Assembly's committee investigating Facebook's role in fanning hate.
For over 3 years, I have tracked how FB and WhatsApp have normalised hate. This is crucial because hate is a slow-trickling tap and it builds up overtime, solidifying biases and prejudice. FB and WA have played a very damaging role in this.
This slow, everyday hate can then be easily activated in communally tense situations into actionable hate.
So, FB's failure to stop that everyday hate speech on its platforms lays the foundation for hate crimes and clashes.
So, FB's failure to stop that everyday hate speech on its platforms lays the foundation for hate crimes and clashes.
Just after CAA was passed, I reported this for @thewire_in : a very concerted, organised campaign to target and villify Indian Muslims. Then, when the anti-CAA protests started, posts incited violence against protesters were rampant on WA. https://thewire.in/media/cab-bjp-whatsapp-groups-muslims
All this needs THIS crucial context: As the Article 14 piece details, the BJP is the BIGGEST advertiser on Facebook. Plus, FB is in partnerships with various Modi Govt ministries that allow it to expand its base. https://www.article-14.com/post/inside-facebook-s-bjp-bond-key-tie-ups-with-modi-govt-its-special-interests
This is a clear conflict of interest here. The party that does the most severe violations of its standards is also FB's biggest patroniser. Then, FB employs those who are aligned towards the BJP.
Will FB be able to act fairly against hate speech by the BJP?
Will FB be able to act fairly against hate speech by the BJP?
I have said that FB's role in ensuring that hateful content flourishes on its platforms must be investigated. There must be an impartial, non-partisan investigation into this, which arrives at actionable points.
Let there be no doubt: FB needs to do a lot more and CAN do a lot.
Let there be no doubt: FB needs to do a lot more and CAN do a lot.
Lastly, one must ask. World over, governments have demanded more of Facebook and even thrown the rule book at it.
Why do we have a government which either keeps mum or attacks the opposition, when asked to act against FB?
Why do we have a government which either keeps mum or attacks the opposition, when asked to act against FB?
