Would you mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and following the rules when posting here?

They include: "Don't be snarky. Comments should get more civil and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive."

> In other developing countries it lead to a massacre.

That's like saying that telephones or the postal service lead to massacres when evil people call each other or mail propaganda flyers to the public. Yes Facebook should have done more to remove that content, but you can't really say Facebook caused the problems, and they probably would have happened on other platforms if Facebook didn't exist or had better moderation.

I feel that human beings are not evolved enough to withstand a connected global consciousness. Weak minds are influenced, and atrocious deeds done.

Personal attacks will get you banned on HN, regardless of how wrong or provocative another comment was or you feel it was.

If you'd please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and follow the rules when posting here, we'd be grateful.

Rather than a 2 word post how about you write a balanced comment on the reported events in India and Myanmar which the parent post referenced giving a more nuanced account of events.

The right way to counter a brief, sweeping comment isn't an even briefer and more sweeping comment.

It's actually well documented that Facebook enabled and inflamed the Rhingya genocide in Myanmar. Here is an example article but there are many more:

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2018/03/facebook-role-rohingy...

Twitter, YouTube, Facebook, and Whatsapp have all been (and continue to be) exploited to spread messages of hate and ignorance. It seems strange to me that Facebook is coming under so much criticism relative to the other platforms when, from my perspective, they've also been the most proactive about trying to address these issues. I haven't heard anything from Twitter recently regarding trying to minimize hate speech and ignorance on its platform (and its the worst service for divisiveness, in my opinion). Google only just recently demonetized anti-Semitic and anti-vax material on YouTube and only after significant backlash from its advertisers (not its users who have been calling for a response for years). Why is this?

That article doesn't really say what Facebook's "role" was. The closest thing is this:

> "It was used to convey public messages but we know that the ultranationalist Buddhists have their own Facebooks and are really inciting a lot of violence and a lot of hatred against the Rohingya or other ethnic minorities," she said.

It basically sounds like the bad guys were using Facebook groups to communicate. They could have done the same thing on IRC or anywhere else on the internet.