Creating ways to allow users to control their own groups and block content they don't want is cheaper, less controversial, and probably more effective in terms of user satisfaction.
Internal documents shed light on the guidelines that Facebook’s censors use
11–20 of 71 posts
Re: Internal documents shed light on the guidelines that Facebook’s censors use
#12> Now the German government is considering legislation that would allow social networks such as Facebook to be fined up to 50 million euros if they don’t remove hate speech and fake news quickly enough. As an American I can't imagine being arrested for speaking my mind about a race or religion whether it's considered hate speech or not. It's just unfathomable. Thanks to our forefathers for putting free speech on such…
From the very begining of free speech theorization, limits such as hate speech were mentionned, just saying.
Mentioned how? In which countries? In the USA, 'hate speech' is simply not a category of unprotected speech under the 1st amendment as it's understood today:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/201...
https://www.popehat.com/2015/05/19/how-to-spot-and-critique-...
An example of a category that is not protected in the USA would be death threats or false & defamatory statements.
Re: Internal documents shed light on the guidelines that Facebook’s censors use
#13I get the theory behind that quiz 'trick question', but does it make any actual legal sense? If the discrimination against a subset happens because of the component of the subset that's protected, then surely it's an attack on a protected category. So if you say "black children are all stupid" the likely implication is that you're saying "unlike white children" (otherwise why would you include black). Is this even tr…
It's not generally speaking a matter of law, since the context is that of a US-based private company moderating the behavior of its voluntary users, and we generally treat this in a very laissez-faire fashion by default. The extent to which Facebook heeds the laws of those countries other than the US, in which it does business and would like to continue doing so, is determined almost entirely by the value it places on that business.
Of course, this situation changes in any such case as new legislation is made to address perceived or actual need, but that hasn't really happened yet here. The same is not true of, say, refusing trade to members of a specific ethnic group because of that ethnicity - a case in which laws of the sort I describe have indeed been made.
(And, to be clear, I have serious qualms with pretty much every facet of the way in which Facebook does business, from its content moderation choices, to the fashion in which it monetizes its userbase, to the extent to which the scale of userbase it's deliberately developed - in support of that questionable style of monetization - might make "voluntary" an inaccurate way to describe the choice people have of whether or not to participate there. My description above is not normative, but positive, and should be regarded as such.)
Re: Internal documents shed light on the guidelines that Facebook’s censors use
#14I get the theory behind that quiz 'trick question', but does it make any actual legal sense? If the discrimination against a subset happens because of the component of the subset that's protected, then surely it's an attack on a protected category. So if you say "black children are all stupid" the likely implication is that you're saying "unlike white children" (otherwise why would you include black). Is this even tr…
From my interpretation, it's not so much a legal worry as it is a statement of company beliefs -- for starters, according to the reproduced slides, religion is not a protected category for Facebook, even though it enjoys federal protections, while gender identity is, even though there's no federal law. Additionally those legal protections are for certain categories. Age has federal protections when it comes to employment, but not for housing.
None of those statuses enjoy special protection when it comes to free speech, so FB is making its own decisions here. In the slide titled "Subsets", you see a rough algorithm that censors are supposed to use:
PC + PC = PC (protected class, I assume)
PC + NPC = NPC (non-protected class)
Irish women = PC
Irish teens = NPC
-------------
These guidelines presumably help censors have a quick test to tell between hate speech and controversial speech, so that posting a Chris Rock stand-up segment won't get you banned. It's obviously imperfect and in flux. The slides note that migrants became a "quasi protected category" after the Syrian refugee crisis "triggered a global conversation around the role Facebook plays in protecting migrants"
Re: Internal documents shed light on the guidelines that Facebook’s censors use
#15> Now the German government is considering legislation that would allow social networks such as Facebook to be fined up to 50 million euros if they don’t remove hate speech and fake news quickly enough. As an American I can't imagine being arrested for speaking my mind about a race or religion whether it's considered hate speech or not. It's just unfathomable. Thanks to our forefathers for putting free speech on such…
Different cultures, different laws, different values.
I know Americans mostly are very absolutist when it comes to free speech and its limitations. However consider that other countries do have different priorities or a different understanding of freedom and/or how to preserve it (see positive vs. negative freedom).
Restrictions on speech do not necessarily turn a country fascist, just like any restriction on general freedom.
Re: Internal documents shed light on the guidelines that Facebook’s censors use
#16> Now the German government is considering legislation that would allow social networks such as Facebook to be fined up to 50 million euros if they don’t remove hate speech and fake news quickly enough. As an American I can't imagine being arrested for speaking my mind about a race or religion whether it's considered hate speech or not. It's just unfathomable. Thanks to our forefathers for putting free speech on such…
From the very begining of free speech theorization, limits such as hate speech were mentionned, just saying.
[deleted]
Re: Internal documents shed light on the guidelines that Facebook’s censors use
#17When you consider what Facebook is trying to accomplish, which is to establish a universal code for acceptable content across multiple cultures and languages - this looks a lot more acceptable to me, than it would be otherwise.
Re: Internal documents shed light on the guidelines that Facebook’s censors use
#18Creating ways to allow users to control their own groups and block content they don't want is cheaper, less controversial, and probably more effective in terms of user satisfaction.
A simple check mark in the settings would suffice. Or a "see less content like this" button.
But of course, that's not what they want. Mark Zuckerberg is a pretty political guy himself, and FB is a great tool for him to influence the world.
Re: Internal documents shed light on the guidelines that Facebook’s censors use
#19Creating ways to allow users to control their own groups and block content they don't want is cheaper, less controversial, and probably more effective in terms of user satisfaction.
A simple check mark in the settings would suffice. Or a "see less content like this" button. But of course, that's not what they want. Mark Zuckerberg is a pretty political guy himself, and FB is a great tool for him to influence the world.
Yeah this seems like an attempt to demonstrate that Facebook can act as a supranational regulatory institution which seems like a bit of an overreach.
Re: Internal documents shed light on the guidelines that Facebook’s censors use
#20Context is important here. I'm guessing it got lost on you?