Facebook’s Secret Censorship Rules Protect White Men from Hate Speech But Not Black Children. - Sensationalist Headlines

[IMG]http://i.imgur.com/HkOVZE7.jpg[/IMG] [QUOTE]In the wake of a terrorist attack in London earlier this month, a U.S. congressman wrote a Facebook post in which he called for the slaughter of “radicalized” Muslims. “[URL="https://archive.is/95FO1"]Hunt them, identify them, and kill them,” declared U.S. Rep. Clay Higgins, a Louisiana Republican. “Kill them all. For the sake of all that is good and righteous. Kill them all[/URL].”Higgins’ plea for violent revenge went untouched by Facebook workers who scour the social network deleting offensive speech. But a May posting on Facebook by Boston poet and Black Lives Matter activist Didi Delgado drew a different response. [URL="https://www.facebook.com/THEDiDiDelgado/photos/a.271621723285520.1073741828.268977940216565/278984872549205/?type=1&theater"]“All white people are racist. Start from this reference point, or you’ve already failed[/URL],” Delgado wrote. The post was removed and her Facebook account was disabled for seven days. A trove of internal documents reviewed by ProPublica sheds new light on the secret guidelines that Facebook’s censors use to distinguish between hate speech and legitimate political expression. The documents reveal the rationale behind seemingly inconsistent decisions. For instance, Higgins’ incitement to violence passed muster because it targeted a specific sub-group of Muslims — those that are “radicalized” — while Delgado’s post was deleted for attacking whites in general. Over the past decade, the company has developed hundreds of rules, drawing elaborate distinctions between what should and shouldn’t be allowed, in an effort to make the site a safe place for its nearly 2 billion users. The issue of how Facebook monitors this content has become increasingly prominent in recent months, with the rise of “fake news” — fabricated stories that circulated on Facebook like “[URL="https://www.buzzfeed.com/craigsilverman/the-strangest-fake-news-empire"]Pope Francis Shocks the World, Endorses Donald Trump For President, Releases Statement[/URL]” — and growing concern that terrorists are using social media for recruitment. While Facebook was credited during the 2010-2011 “Arab Spring” with facilitating uprisings against authoritarian regimes, the documents suggest that, at least in some instances, the company’s hate-speech rules tend to favor elites and governments over grassroots activists and racial minorities. In so doing, they serve the business interests of the global company, which relies on national governments not to block its service to their citizens.[/QUOTE] [IMG]http://i.imgur.com/AVRGpEv.jpg[/IMG] [URL="https://www.propublica.org/article/facebook-hate-speech-censorship-internal-documents-algorithms"]Source: ProPublica[/URL] [sp]Geez, I wonder how Palmer Luckey could have lasted so long at Facebook... I can't come up with any explanation.[/sp]

As stupidly sensationalist that title is, there is a point to be made against the rules. If I said "those goddamn fuckin' [race]s need to stop being so lazy" I'd be censored. "those goddamn fuckin' [B]lazy[/B] [race]s need to stop being so lazy" then I'd technically be following the rules because I'm qualifying the race with the word "lazy" making it a subset - specifically, only lazy members of that race. I don't think that's a very sensible rule, honestly. It's so subject to extreme abuse from both sides that it's worthless.

For fucks sake does it matter? Why does everything have to be a huge race deal these days or cotton wooled. This mentality of expecting the companies to do everything for you is only going to end badly when they control everything. Whatever happened to sorting things out yourself or just blocking people?

[QUOTE=orcywoo6;52410534]For fucks sake does it matter? Why does everything have to be a huge race deal these days or cotton wooled. This mentality of expecting the companies to do everything for you is only going to end badly when they control everything. Whatever happened to sorting things out yourself or just blocking people?[/QUOTE] [QUOTE]All these unemployed nig punks at the basketball court deserve to die[/QUOTE] Facebook censors: [IMG]https://facepunch.com/fp/ratings/tick.png[/IMG] [QUOTE]Fucking white people are so dumb[/QUOTE] Facebook censors: :blaze: I made those examples up so maybe they're just a bit extreme, but are you saying there isn't anything wrong here? How does a given Facebook user who feels threatened by harassing messages going to "sort things out" against systemic discrimination? If the "report abuse" button doesn't do anything, what do you suggest they do? Dox the guy, drive to his house, and punch him in the face when he opens the door? Blocking people doesn't fix systemic racism on the platform. That's like telling people to just shut their eyes and pretend they don't see the things that upset them. As a private company, Facebook has every right to be entirely lopsided in policing its platform but its users and the general public/media are entirely justified in calling it out as a disgustingly blind and baffling practice.

I know this is called sensationalist headlines but come on. This title seems more than a little excessive, and while the claims that it doesn't specifically protect "black children" are true, it doesn't protect "white children" either.

[QUOTE=elixwhitetail;52410633]Facebook censors: [IMG]https://facepunch.com/fp/ratings/tick.png[/IMG] Facebook censors: :blaze: Are you saying there isn't anything wrong here? How does a given Facebook user who feels threatened by harassing messages going to "sort things out" against systemic discrimination? If the "report abuse" button doesn't do anything, what do you suggest they do? Dox the guy, drive to his house, and punch him in the face when he opens the door? Blocking people doesn't fix systemic racism on the platform. That's like telling people to just shut their eyes and pretend they don't see the things that upset them. As a private company, Facebook has every right to be entirely lopsided in policing its platform but its users and the general public/media are entirely justified in calling it out as a disgustingly blind and baffling practice.[/QUOTE] Well then they can act on the reports by actually banning said person if they get reported. If something upsets someone they can press the button to hide it or block that person. Yes they might have views that are wrong but that doesn't make it the responsibility of facebook and it doesnt make it right to censor it. If that person wants to post horrible stuff, then let them, its their freedom of speech. But it shouldn't exclude them from being banned. Facebook is a platform for everyone, not just people who don't want their feelings hurt. Censoring everything that upsets someone is a terrible idea.

-snip I didn't read the full article and accused orcywoo of not reading the op lmao-

I can kind of see where they're coming from. If you're going to run a global platform you need ironclad rules on how to handle censorship, and allowing 'subset' statements but not 'universal' statements, while abusable, is a consistent rule. The problem is that it's not something that people will intuitively or emotionally agree with, so they had to keep it hidden or they'd run into a backlash like this. And now it's public. Oops. Maybe there's a better way to handle censorship, I don't know, but the thread title is [i]extremely[/i] misleading.

universal censorship rules are needed, if there are going to be any. not ones that affect one group but not another

[QUOTE=catbarf;52410846]I can kind of see where they're coming from. If you're going to run a global platform you need ironclad rules on how to handle censorship, and allowing 'subset' statements but not 'universal' statements, while abusable, is a consistent rule. The problem is that it's not something that people will intuitively or emotionally agree with, so they had to keep it hidden or they'd run into a backlash like this. And now it's public. Oops. Maybe there's a better way to handle censorship, I don't know, but the thread title is [i]extremely[/i] misleading.[/QUOTE] I only put through the title that the article had in the first place. Take it up with ProPublica.

The media bias website says this source is legit, but from what I've seen in this article it looks horribly speculative.