Support NeoGAF

[Par Score]

An investigation by the Pulitzer Prize winning non-profit ProPublica.

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. ”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."

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.

”All white people are racist. Start from this reference point, or you've already failed," 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.

The reason is that Facebook deletes curses, slurs, calls for violence and several other types of attacks only when they are directed at ”protected categories"—based on race, sex, gender identity, religious affiliation, national origin, ethnicity, sexual orientation and serious disability/disease. It gives users broader latitude when they write about ”subsets" of protected categories. White men are considered a group because both traits are protected, while female drivers and black children, like radicalized Muslims, are subsets, because one of their characteristics is not protected. (The exact rules are in the slide show at the link)

Far more at the link.

This sort of rules-based moderation can never and will never work. Some of this shit reads like a parody, but these are the actual rules actually enforced by the biggest website in the world.

All a racist has to do to game the system is say "All poor Blacks should be killed".
All a sexist has to do to game the system is say "All ugly women should be raped".
If you hate immigrants it's even easier!

Any strict system can and will be gamed to the advantage of the worst sections of society, at the expense of the genuinely marginalised.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

i read this this morning.

burn silicon valley to the ground

these people are so tone deaf. i hope the eu starts fining the hell out of them till they learn

 

[Jonnax]

Wow. That quiz is like satire.

 

[DonShula]

Your own examples wouldn't fly as killing and sex crimes are removable. But your point still stands. These people are operating in a vacuum and are ill-equipped to handle this.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

i imagine twitter's is even worse

 

[kinoki]

White men, as a group on the internet, don't need anyone's protection. On the whole white men are the problem of the internet

 

[Fireblend]

Uh, wow.

 

[collige]

Similar to the gore/child porn issue Facbook has, my bet is that the long term solution to this is automation.

i imagine twitter's is even worse

Twitter's is probably just "don't delete anything"

 

[HazySaiyan]

What is with these big social media companies turning a blind eye to this shit? Twitter is an absolute cesspool because of it

 

[Darryl M R]

Trash. Pure trash.

 

[Saint Gregory]

White men, as a group on the internet, don't need anyone's protection. On the whole white men are the problem of the internet

Hey now, that kind of statement will get you banned on FB.

 

[ClosingADoor]

You don't get to two billion users without allowing some racism it seems.

Facebook (and other social networks) need to get their shit together when it comes to this.

 

[backlot]

Your own examples wouldn't fly as killing and sex crimes are removable. But your point still stands. These people are operating in a vacuum and are ill-equipped to handle this.

You say that, but then there's the example of the politician calling for the murder of all radicalized Muslims that didn't get removed.

 

[IamDodongo]

Social media has failed us all.

 

[Darryl M R]

Hey now, that kind of statement will get you banned on FB.

Spoiler

No lies detected

Best watch where you step 'round these parts, boi.

 

[benicillin]

What is with these big social media companies turning a blind eye to this shit? Twitter is an absolute cesspool because of it

Silicone Valley techno-libertarians run all the major social media platforms and historically don't care or are actively hostile to women and minorities.

 

[DonShula]

You say that, but then there's the example of the politician calling for the murder of all radicalized Muslims that didn't get removed.

Yeah I got nothing for that one. Makes zero sense.

 

[The Last Wizard]

Why does this surprise anyone?

Y’all given constant reminders and reinforcement that black and brown don’t matter.

 

[Par Score]

Your own examples wouldn't fly as killing and sex crimes are removable. But your point still stands. These people are operating in a vacuum and are ill-equipped to handle this.

The whole thing is bad but in this you're wrong.

Killing and raping are two of the three crimes they remove!

They absolutely would fly, because I included in a Non-Protected Characteristic.

In Facebook's fucked up rules-based "protection" system, Protected + Non-Protected = Non-Protected.

Calling for the murder of all Gay Christians? Not OK.

Calling for the murder of all Gay Children? Totally fine.

The specificity of crimes only applies to Quasi-Protected Characteristics, i.e. Immigrants.

 

[SpaceWolf]

Utterly grotesque. Facebook better sort this out sharpish.

 

[Nazgul_Hunter]

All a racist has to do to game the system is say "All poor Blacks should be killed".
All a sexist has to do to game the system is say "All ugly women should be raped".
If you hate immigrants it's even easier!

The whole thing is bad but in this you're wrong.



Killing and raping are two of the three crimes they remove!

 

[Timeaisis]

Yikes.

 

[Ushojax]

What is with these big social media companies turning a blind eye to this shit? Twitter is an absolute cesspool because of it

If Twitter and Facebook didn't allow hate speech they would go out of business.

 

[gcubed]

What is with these big social media companies turning a blind eye to this shit? Twitter is an absolute cesspool because of it

you know how much money there is in allowing this?

 

[Ryuuroden]

The whole thing is bad but in this you're wrong.



Killing and raping are two of the three crimes they remove!

I don't think he is wrong based on the entire sentence and the way they look at sentences overall. In those instances killing and rape are allowed.
Fucked up shit it is.

 

[sphagnum]

Zuck better change some things fast if he wants to win the Democratic primary.

 

[bachikarn]

What the fuck

 

[Ushojax]

Zuck better change some things fast if he wants to win the Democratic primary.

Don't be silly, a socially inept billionaire could never win an election.

 

[TumblingHippo]

And if Facebook blocks the hate speech of white men they'll get up in arms over the guise of "muh free speech".

True free speech is such a lie. The speech of a neo-Nazi will be protected more than the speech of any oppressed group.

Clan marches will be escorted by police while the protestors are intimidated and beaten.

Twitter is going through the same thing. Say a race needs to be exterminated and Twitter will say no rules are broken when you report them, but dare that you say "fuck you" to them (the racist) and Twitter shadowbans you for violating their terms of service.

 

[Ivan 3414]

"All Turks on Facebook"? What does that mean?

 

[Widdle Puppy]

Silicon Valley; Republicam oligarchs that believe in climate change

 

[CertifiedFP]

And people wonder how Palmer Luckey lasted so long at Facebook.

NEWSFLASH: Zuckerberg and Co. were in on the take.

 

[Par Score]

"All Turks on Facebook"? What does that mean?

It's the opposite of "No Turks on Facebook" as it's intended to demonstrate that inclusion is fine, where exclusion isn't.

Despite being a garbage sentence fragment, it somehow manages to be one of the least stupid things about this.

 

[geestack]

zuckerberg is gonna win the republican nomination in 2020

 

[swarley64]

That first image is real? Like from a Facebook employee training slide? Really?

 

[MetroidPrimeRib]

i imagine twitter's is even worse

Pretty much.

You get banned for saying "Fuck you" in the replies of a verified neo Nazi account because you were rude.

Not because there are neo Nazis on twitter, that's not the problem. Youre impolite, which is the real issue here

 

[Somnid]

This smells of just constantly adding rules to address the thousands of nuances that have been reported. It's too complex and and producing "Can't bathe your horse on a Thursday" type things.

 

[Poor GRIMES]

White men are probably the most fragile out of those three, facebook just tryna stay out of mess

edit: are those the Backstreet Boys 💀

 

[Par Score]

That first image is real? Like from a Facebook employee training slide? Really?

Really really. I spent a good 10 minutes making extra sure this wasn't fake or satire before posting.

Poe's law on steroids.

 

[Imm0rt4l]

My Facebook is primarily curated around activism. I see this CONSTANTLY.

 

[LinkAndEpona]

That quiz is certainly unfair but there is a stark difference between what Higgins and Delgado said.

An emotional outburst vs a petty generalization.

 

[tokkun]

That first image is real? Like from a Facebook employee training slide? Really?

Yes, but the point is that it is a trick question that is meant to see if you understand the policy. It's not that they are specifically protecting white men; the policy would also have protected "black men" or "white women". It also would NOT have protected "white children" or "male drivers".

The key is that both gender and race are protected categories, therefore any blanket statement that only references gender and/or race qualifies as protected. But if you throw any other non-protected qualifier in there (like age), then it is no longer protected.

 

[OG Shaka Zulu]

Its not rocket science. This place does moderation well IMO. How hard is it to moderate posts?

 

[tokkun]

Its not rocket science. This place does moderation well IMO. How hard is it to moderate posts?

2 billion active users vs 200K registered users.

 

[Maintenance]

Zuck better change some things fast if he wants to win the Democratic primary.

Haha, you think he will run as a Democrat?

 

[n00bsauce87]

This is why I always advocate for at least two racial minorities in every decision making group. Because if you have one, the others may just drown them out and force them into being yes-people. Bonus if they are a double minority.

 

[Somnid]

Its not rocket science. This place does moderation well IMO. How hard is it to moderate posts?

NeoGaf is also a fairly siloed platform with very strong on-topic regulations, it's not an outlet for free speech and makes no guarantee that you can just say whatever.

 

[Kill Your Masters]

2 billion active users vs 200K registered users.

Add to that only 4500 moderators. For 2 billion people. Thats basically nothing.

 

[Nightbird]

This gotta be a joke.

 

[ZackieChan]

Yes, but the point is that it is a trick question that is meant to see if you understand the policy. It's not that they are specifically protecting white men; the policy would also have protected "black men" or "white women". It also would NOT have protected "white children" or "male drivers".

The key is that both gender and race are protected categories, therefore any blanket statement that only references gender and/or race qualifies as protected. But if you throw any other non-protected qualifier in there (like age), then it is no longer protected.

Also, children of any race using Facebook would be against their ToS 😉😎