Social media and the law 社交媒體和法律

Accounting for algorithms

Is Facebook liable for pogroms against Rohingyas in Myanmar?

第一段：

THAT FACEBOOK was used to spread rhetoric that incited carnage in Myanmar is hardly up for debate. According to the lead author of a UN report published in 2018 the firm’s platform played a “determining role” in the violence inflicted on Rohingya Muslims by marauding Buddhists. Facebook acknowledges that it did not do enough to prevent its services from being abused. But whether it is liable for what happened is a trickier question.

臉書被用于傳播煽動緬甸大屠殺的言論，這點(diǎn)幾乎無可爭議。在2018年發(fā)表的一份聯(lián)合國報(bào)告中，其主要作者指出，在佛教徒對羅興亞穆斯林的暴力洗劫行為中，臉書平臺起到了“關(guān)鍵作用”。臉書也承認(rèn)在防止其服務(wù)被濫用方面做得不夠。但它是否應(yīng)對所發(fā)生的事件負(fù)責(zé)，則是一個更復(fù)雜的問題。

第二段：

It may soon be answered. A legal campaign is under way on both sides of the Atlantic. It claims that Facebook, now renamed Meta, should be held liable for allowing users to spread such content during the Rohingya genocide. A letter delivered to Facebook’s London offices on December 6th gave the firm notice of intent to sue it in the High Court. That suit will be on behalf of Rohingyas living everywhere in the world outside America, including Bangladesh, where 1m or so dwell as refugees.

也許這個問題很快就能得到解答。一項(xiàng)法律戰(zhàn)正在大西洋兩側(cè)同時(shí)展開。訴訟提出，臉書（現(xiàn)已更名Meta）應(yīng)為在羅興亞種族滅絕期間允許用戶傳播這類內(nèi)容而負(fù)責(zé)。12月6日，臉書倫敦辦事處收到了一封通知函，將代表居住在除美國外的所有羅興亞人，包括暫居在孟加拉國的約1百萬羅興亞難民，向最高法院提出訴訟。

第三段：

The American complaint, filed on the same day in California, is a class action on behalf of Rohingyas living in America. It is seeking “at least” $150bn in compensation for “wrongful death, personal injury, pain and suffering, emotional distress and loss of property”. Although American internet companies typically are shielded from liability for content that is disseminated through their platforms, the suit argues that the court must apply Burmese law for harms done in Myanmar. American courts can theoretically apply foreign laws in this way, though there is little precedent for it.

同一天在加利福尼亞，代表居住在美國的羅興亞人，也遞交了訴訟書，要求臉書為造成“非正常死亡、人身傷害、痛苦與苦難、精神損害以及財(cái)產(chǎn)喪失”賠償“至少”1500億美元。盡管通常來說，美國互聯(lián)網(wǎng)公司無需對通過其平臺所傳播的內(nèi)容負(fù)責(zé)，但訴訟方認(rèn)為，對在緬甸造成的傷害，法院必須采用緬甸法律。雖然幾乎沒有先例，但理論上說，在這種情況下美國法院可以應(yīng)用外國法律。

第四段：

Meta did not comment on the lawsuit when asked, but said that it was “appalled by the crimes committed against the Rohingya people”. It added that it has improved its capacity to moderate Burmese content.

Meta對此未做回應(yīng)，但表示“針對羅興亞人犯下的罪行感到震驚”，并補(bǔ)充說已提高了緬甸版內(nèi)容的審核能力。

第五段：

The allegations fall into two categories. The first is that since 2010 Facebook failed actively and effectively to moderate content on its network that was contributing to the incitement of genocide in Myanmar, despite being aware of what was happening. The second is that Facebook’s own content-recommendation algorithms amplified the spread of this content. (Meta has been approached for comment.)

指控分為兩類。第一，自2010年以來，盡管完全清楚當(dāng)時(shí)事態(tài)，臉書卻沒能積極有效地審核自己網(wǎng)絡(luò)上助長在緬甸實(shí)施種族滅絕的內(nèi)容。第二，臉書自己的內(nèi)容推薦算法助長了這類內(nèi)容的傳播。（已聯(lián)系Meta要求做出評論）

第六段：

No precedent exists for such a case, at least when it comes to social-media companies. One distant parallel is with Radio Mille Collines, a Rwandan radio station that was instrumental in inciting the Rwandan genocide of 1994, in which perhaps 500,000 people, mostly Tutsis, were killed. Some of those who ran the station were convicted of incitement to genocide. The difference is that that was Radio Mille Collines’s main purpose. (Its former chairman is also accused of financing the import of machetes.) International courts went after those who urged the killing, not the manufacturers of the radio equipment.

至少在涉及社交媒體公司時(shí)，這類案件沒有先例。稍微有些類似的是米勒·科林斯電臺。1994年在盧旺達(dá)，約50萬人，其中主要是圖西人，慘遭殺害。這家盧旺達(dá)電臺在這場種族滅絕中發(fā)揮了關(guān)鍵作用。部分電臺經(jīng)營者被判處種族滅絕煽動罪。與此次案件不同，米勒·科林斯電臺的主要目的就是煽動種族滅絕。（其前主席還被指控為進(jìn)口砍刀提供資金。）國際法庭懲罰的是教唆謀殺者，而非電臺設(shè)備制造商。

第七段：

The current lawsuits argue that Facebook is both manufacturer and, to some extent, messenger: its algorithms decide what people see. Whether and how the firm is liable for what its algorithms do will now be tested.

本次訴訟認(rèn)為，臉書既是制造商，在某種程度上也是傳信人：臉書的算法決定人們所看到的內(nèi)容。公司是否該為自己的算法負(fù)責(zé)，怎么負(fù)責(zé)，現(xiàn)在將面臨考驗(yàn)。