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

141–150 of 407 posts

Re: Facebook bans Holocaust film for violating race policy

#141

Post by scarmig »

bwb wrote: post #2

I was just talking to an author who published an ad on Facebook for their sci fi book. They had the word "beat" in the ad. The FB algo said that words intills people to violence, banned her account for 2 months, and kept all the ad money. Funny enough, her book is about the dangers of an algorithm-based AI supersystem... Facebook is the worst.

I don't know anything at all about FB advertising, but is there any way someone could use canary accounts to rollout an ad to prevent this? I.e. start with a small ad buy in a low follower/whatever account, wait 24 hours for it to be flagged, and if it doesn't trigger any reviews, roll it out to the main/real account?

Not that that's practical for a mom and pop shop.

Re: Facebook bans Holocaust film for violating race policy

#142

Post by nradov »

jscipione wrote: post #138
nradov wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So what? "Publisher" isn't a defined legal category in this context. Even if Facebook is a publisher that doesn't create any legal obligations.

Publishers are liable for any libel they publish while platforms are not, that’s the legal distinction. When Facebook chooses to editorialize their content like they did in this instance they forfeit the legal protections of the Communications Decency Act. The first Amendment limits the power of the federal government to provide liability protection for publishers.

Bullshit. There is no such liability provision in the Communications Decency Act. You should read the actual text of the law instead of making things up.

Re: Facebook bans Holocaust film for violating race policy

#143

Post by kcplate »

skizm wrote: post #131
nova22033 wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://www.techdirt.com/2020/06/23/hello-youve-been-referre...

Devil's advocate here (I won't comment on if I agree with the argument or not), but this article seems to miss the point of the section 230 debate. All of the stuff here is about what the law is now. The objection most people have is that it shouldn't be like this and we need to change or remove section 230. It specifically allows sites to be biased while also not holding them legally accountable for anything they ch…

> to miss the point of the section 230 debate. All of the stuff here is about what the law is now

This is something that kind of irritates me about Mike Masnick (who I generally enjoy reading). He always seems so focused on the current state of the law that he seems blind to the debate.

Re: Facebook bans Holocaust film for violating race policy

#144

Post by nradov »

Beltalowda wrote: post #111
piokoch wrote: post #34

The problem is that no automatic method we have now will catch context. There is a difference between "Jews were murdered by Germans during war" and "Jews destroyed German economy before the war" that will not be recognized by any machine we have nowadays. The first is true, the second is bullshit, how algorithm can now this? More, even if Facebook employees humans to do moderation still for some contractor from Asia…

Furthermore, you can publish "The effects of the Jewish population on the 1930s German economy" which can be either a genuine bona-fide analysis, or something which essentially boils down to "Jews destroyed German economy before the war". I think the "reddit model" where you have smaller communities with community mods works much better than the Facebook or Twitter model where there's one "global community". Not that…

The Reddit model allows paid foreign agents to become volunteer community (subreddit) moderators and then use that platform to sow division or push a biased narrative. How much do you think the Chinese government would pay to subtly emphasize or de-emphasize certain stories on a huge community like r/news or r/politics?

Re: Facebook bans Holocaust film for violating race policy

#145

Post by pessimizer »

ls15 wrote: post #66
herbst wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I realize this was a weird time and masks have been a complicated topic. However: I advertised some masks my grandma has sewn on FB. It was ok, expansive clicks like always but ok. This was running for at least a week or two. But when I changed some text it triggered a new ad review and within no hour my account was banned. It didn't even took a hour to deny my appeal as well and my account was lost forever (without…

> This is the reason I completely ignore Facebook and all its platforms for whatever reason these days. I don't care if it could help my business, it's not worth the trouble. That's basically my stance since 2004 when I first heard about them. I lost some opportunities, I guess, but it also allowed me to tell everyone how I feel about data privacy while keeping a straight face.

> it also allowed me to tell everyone how I feel about data privacy while keeping a straight face.

Same here. I not only don't condemn people for using Facebook, I almost always defend their use of Facebook. But since I mean what I say when I'm talking about the site, I haven't had an account in at least a decade and I block the domains. I dislike the site, not its users.

Re: Facebook bans Holocaust film for violating race policy

#146

Post by jscipione »

nradov wrote: post #142
jscipione wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Publishers are liable for any libel they publish while platforms are not, that’s the legal distinction. When Facebook chooses to editorialize their content like they did in this instance they forfeit the legal protections of the Communications Decency Act. The first Amendment limits the power of the federal government to provide liability protection for publishers.

Bullshit. There is no such liability provision in the Communications Decency Act. You should read the actual text of the law instead of making things up.

"No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider" (47 U.S.C. § 230)

Re: Facebook bans Holocaust film for violating race policy

#148

Post by pessimizer »

SamBam wrote: post #110
Timshel wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ironic ? per the article : "the film’s title, which refers to the eye color of a child who perished at the hands of the Nazis and invokes a key scene in the movie"

That doesn't mean it's not ironic. It strains belief to suggest that the film makers weren't aware of Hitler's belief that being blond and blue-eyed was a mark of the "superior" Aryan race

ITT, both bigots and anti-racists pretending that they know someone's obvious intentions based on no information and with no attempt at research.

Re: Facebook bans Holocaust film for violating race policy

#150

Post by sidewndr46 »

bwb wrote: post #2

I was just talking to an author who published an ad on Facebook for their sci fi book. They had the word "beat" in the ad. The FB algo said that words intills people to violence, banned her account for 2 months, and kept all the ad money. Funny enough, her book is about the dangers of an algorithm-based AI supersystem... Facebook is the worst.

If they report that money as advertising revenue, wouldn't FB be committing securities fraud?
Post reply on HN