Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Facebook bans Holocaust film for violating race policy

rollingstone.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

311–320 of 407 posts

Re: Facebook bans Holocaust film for violating race policy

#311

Post by Calvin02 »

triceratops wrote: post #266
commandlinefan wrote: post #258

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If they can not moderate then their service is defective Well wait a minute, couldn't you say the same about the ISPs that host websites in the first place? Isn't the standard pro-big-tech-censorship position "if you don't like it, make your own website"? If Facebook has to moderate content (according to any standard) in order to exists, why don't hosting providers also have to moderate? (FWIW I'm anti-censorship)

Because Facebook and the hosting provider are at different levels of the networking stack?

I’m guessing that you didn’t hear about Cloudflare and Kiwi Farms?

There is no stopping.

Re: Facebook bans Holocaust film for violating race policy

#312

Post by ok_dad »

saurik wrote: post #212
cmrdporcupine wrote: post #172

Here we are, deep down in the dystopia of Automatic Content Classification by robots. Far less important of an example, but I was just put in "Facebook jail" for 24 hours for posting a picture of my son at the beach in his bathing suit with no shirt. Y'know, as one does at the beach. I can only assume it's because my son has long hair and the Convolutional Neural Network or whatever decided he was a girl and therefor…

If you are only using Facebook for its original purpose of keeping up with old friends and family, then it doesn't actually have the scaling problem: if one of your friends or someone in your family starts posting a ton of racist bullshit you either confront them about it or drop them as a friend (preferably bilaterally), and either result is actually better for society than having Facebook attempt to present a skewe…

Facebook was originally gated to just university students from specific universities, then they started to open it to everyone. It was basically a university bulletin board.

Re: Facebook bans Holocaust film for violating race policy

#313

Post by protomyth »

cmrdporcupine wrote: post #172

Here we are, deep down in the dystopia of Automatic Content Classification by robots. Far less important of an example, but I was just put in "Facebook jail" for 24 hours for posting a picture of my son at the beach in his bathing suit with no shirt. Y'know, as one does at the beach. I can only assume it's because my son has long hair and the Convolutional Neural Network or whatever decided he was a girl and therefor…

I sometimes wonder what would happen (it won't) if some fed-up Congressperson drafted a bill that would allow folks to sue Facebook, etc. for libel when it accused you of being a ped0, criminal, or other malcontent. Perhaps they would be a bit less happy to accuse their users of vile things.

Re: Facebook bans Holocaust film for violating race policy

#314

Post by invisible »

Veserv wrote: post #291
commandlinefan wrote: post #258

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If they can not moderate then their service is defective Well wait a minute, couldn't you say the same about the ISPs that host websites in the first place? Isn't the standard pro-big-tech-censorship position "if you don't like it, make your own website"? If Facebook has to moderate content (according to any standard) in order to exists, why don't hosting providers also have to moderate? (FWIW I'm anti-censorship)

I am responding to the article and the poster’s response in context. The article asserts that Facebook’s moderation is defective. The person I was responding to presented a standard generic argument that is of the form: “Yes, it is defective, but the problem is too hard for anybody to produce a non-defective solution. Therefore, the provider has no choice but to provide a defective service.” I am arguing that is untr…

I think the contention is that hosting is a service. Just as you are suggesting Facebook is offering a defective service (that you said should not be offered), then so are hosting providers as they similarly can't moderate granularly.

Re: Facebook bans Holocaust film for violating race policy

#315

Post by lupire »

liampulles wrote: post #188

Why not put the power in the hands of the users? If a person does not want to see a film that deals with race (generally), let them go and flip a switch in their settings to hide these from their view (and similar for whatever other subject may be of potential concern).

The issue has (almost) nothing to do with the film content. The issue is with the verbiage in the title, used in the ad. And it's not about who wants to see the content, it's about censoring potential race warriors.

Re: Facebook bans Holocaust film for violating race policy

#316

Post by humanrebar »

Kerrick wrote: post #129
lbriner wrote: post #93

There still seem to be some many basics that FB and YouTube get wrong with their "automatic" video moderation. Use people's "report" button clicks as an early indicator that something should be looked at - a big flag. Look at certain words or phrases that are either unambiguously bad or possibly like "kill" or "why I hate ..." - a medium flag Phrases that are less certain, = a small flag. Block some things proactivel…

"Why I hate killing spiders & how to ethically rid your house of pests" -- Not flag-worthy at all.

Browse urbandictionary and you'll find a lot of benign nouns that are insulting or that are slurs. Prediction: there's a definition of 'spider' that is offensive up there... be right back.

Let's see... almost? There's one referring to an unattractive and disproportionate person: https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Spider

I know urbandictionary has a lot of made up stuff, but the point is that slang is sometimes coded intentionally. Especially in unpopular niche subcultures.

Re: Facebook bans Holocaust film for violating race policy

#317

Post by lupire »

mynameisvlad wrote: post #161
prvc wrote: post #16

Title (and headline of TFA) is misleading, as Facebook didn't ban a film, it rejected a user from using its ads program based on the film's title. Will be interesting to see if the lawsuit goes anywhere.

It banned a film from its ad program. And the user who tried to advertise it. And the composer of the title track. I mean, they're not banned from Facebook, but the title didn't say that either. It said that the company Facebook banned a film. Which it did.

They can presumably advertise the film under a different title, with a clickthrough to info with the proper title.

Facebook should have better credibility vetting, for things like movies distributed by recognized distributors with a good reputation.

Re: Facebook bans Holocaust film for violating race policy

#319

Post by lupire »

Bakary wrote: post #102
noneeeed wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The FB feed has become utterly drenched in suggested content, 99% of which is trash. I'm sure they will see some short term bump but I've got to wonder if this is finally the end for them. I'm certainly not bothering to check it any more.

Facebook still has billions of users. It's just that its hope lies outside of the West

The money isn't outside the West...yet.

Re: Facebook bans Holocaust film for violating race policy

#320

Post by nradov »

cmrdporcupine wrote: post #172

Here we are, deep down in the dystopia of Automatic Content Classification by robots. Far less important of an example, but I was just put in "Facebook jail" for 24 hours for posting a picture of my son at the beach in his bathing suit with no shirt. Y'know, as one does at the beach. I can only assume it's because my son has long hair and the Convolutional Neural Network or whatever decided he was a girl and therefor…

"We" don't need to retreat back into smaller forums. Despite the huge number of false positives flagged by content review systems, they still impact less than 1% of active users. So everyone else will continue using it. Facebook is terrible and unethical in many ways but it's still the fastest, most convenient way to share pictures and updates with friends and family scattered across the world. I don't have enough hours in my day to pursue other options.
Post reply on HN