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

Internal documents shed light on the guidelines that Facebook’s censors use

propublica.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 71 posts

Re: Internal documents shed light on the guidelines that Facebook’s censors use

#31

Post by dTal »

>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.

That seems disingenuous. Higgins' rant starts by pitching "Christendom" with-a-capital-C against "these heathen animals", before he ever mentions radicalization. And when he does mention it, he says "radicalized Islamic suspect", which is fairly meaningless as a category as no burden of proof is required. Coupled with repeated incitements to "kill them all", I think that's pretty clearly directed at all Muslims.

The trouble with this policy is, I can apparently be as racist and hateful as I like as long as I take care to slip a "non-protected category" in there - even if by doing so I am implying that all members of the protected category are such. For example, "lynch every last one of those baby-raping niggers" is fine, because it only applies to those niggers that rape babies. In fact it is exactly this sort of speech that is the most harmful - "All niggers rape babies and we should lynch them" is far less potent.

Re: Internal documents shed light on the guidelines that Facebook’s censors use

#32

Post by iratewizard »

Zak wrote: post #24

Where they draw the line on some of these things seems... odd . A degrading generalization about a nationality like one of their examples > the Irish suck seems relatively harmless, while the permissible > Keep the horny migrant teenagers away from our daughters seems much more dangerous. The latter is much more likely to spur some sort of antisocial behavior from a reader.

Is the latter dangerous because it is dissent? It sounds like we are now defining a framework for what dissent is acceptable and it seems to align to a dominant political ideology. Sort of defeats the point of dissent.

Re: Internal documents shed light on the guidelines that Facebook’s censors use

#33

Post by SomeStupidPoint »

iratewizard wrote: post #32
Zak wrote: post #24

Where they draw the line on some of these things seems... odd . A degrading generalization about a nationality like one of their examples > the Irish suck seems relatively harmless, while the permissible > Keep the horny migrant teenagers away from our daughters seems much more dangerous. The latter is much more likely to spur some sort of antisocial behavior from a reader.

Is the latter dangerous because it is dissent? It sounds like we are now defining a framework for what dissent is acceptable and it seems to align to a dominant political ideology. Sort of defeats the point of dissent.

Censorship is always a framework for defining acceptable dissent (or deviance, if you prefer).

Re: Internal documents shed light on the guidelines that Facebook’s censors use

#34

Post by danso »

beedogs wrote: post #27

I left facebook last month. I don't miss it, I'm happier for it, and articles like this kinda vindicate that decision. It's nice to see that the things I was observing there are, in fact, exactly what the company is okay with: racism, sexism, homophobia are fine on Facebook as long as you craft your posts and comments with surgical precision. It explains how, nearly every time I reported one of the assholes making th…

I suspect you're being downvoted because your assessment of the issue to "Facebook is okay with racism, sexism, homophobia" etc. is seen as an oversimplification, no different than someone from Germany/Israel saying the U.S. (and the 1st Amendment) is OK with neo-Nazis, or China thinking America as a den of smut and anarchy.

Re: Internal documents shed light on the guidelines that Facebook’s censors use

#35

Post by _jal »

Aloha wrote: post #17

When 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.

Only if you accept the premise in the first place.

There is no set of rules that won't yield absurd results. FB is always going to carve out exceptions for the powerful. The baseline still starts from Zuckerburg's upper-class, U.S. dominant-culture sensibilities. And so on.

Re: Internal documents shed light on the guidelines that Facebook’s censors use

#36

Post by coldtea »

Aloha wrote: post #17

When 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.

Universal? It doesn't get more US-centric than that...

Re: Internal documents shed light on the guidelines that Facebook’s censors use

#37

Post by coldtea »

buckbova wrote: post #6

> 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…

>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.

Yeah, you might just get fired from your (unrelated) job over an internet mob storm.

Re: Internal documents shed light on the guidelines that Facebook’s censors use

#38

Post by beedogs »

danso wrote: post #34
beedogs wrote: post #27

I left facebook last month. I don't miss it, I'm happier for it, and articles like this kinda vindicate that decision. It's nice to see that the things I was observing there are, in fact, exactly what the company is okay with: racism, sexism, homophobia are fine on Facebook as long as you craft your posts and comments with surgical precision. It explains how, nearly every time I reported one of the assholes making th…

I suspect you're being downvoted because your assessment of the issue to "Facebook is okay with racism, sexism, homophobia" etc. is seen as an oversimplification, no different than someone from Germany/Israel saying the U.S. (and the 1st Amendment) is OK with neo-Nazis, or China thinking America as a den of smut and anarchy.

Except Facebook being okay with discrimination and hate speech is literally spelled out in the slide deck. As long as you don't tickle the right combination of "protected class" by using an appropriate modifier (e.g. "black children" instead of "all black people") you can say whatever the hell you want about people.

It's not my fault so many users here are being willfully obtuse about this.

Re: Internal documents shed light on the guidelines that Facebook’s censors use

#39

Post by philovivero »

coldtea wrote: post #37
buckbova wrote: post #6

> 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…

> 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. Yeah, you might just get fired from your (unrelated) job over an internet mob storm.

Admittedly, that's bad, and pretty devastating.

But I think compared to having the gestapo kick in your door, take you away in cuffs, and no-one sees you for 90 days is just a little more egregious.

Re: Internal documents shed light on the guidelines that Facebook’s censors use

#40

Post by badminton1 »

Zak wrote: post #24

Where they draw the line on some of these things seems... odd . A degrading generalization about a nationality like one of their examples > the Irish suck seems relatively harmless, while the permissible > Keep the horny migrant teenagers away from our daughters seems much more dangerous. The latter is much more likely to spur some sort of antisocial behavior from a reader.

"The Birth of a Nation" (Ku Klux Klan propaganda film) for instance, uses that tactic to dehumanize black men... that film is to blame for a temporary expansion of the KKK.

So I think accusing a demographic of being perverted should be considered hate speech in my opinion.

Post reply on HN