Facebook banned white nationalism and white separatism

[47of74]

Some FB news

Quote

In a major policy shift for the world’s biggest social media network, Facebook banned white nationalism and white separatism on its platform Tuesday. Facebook will also begin directing users who try to post content associated with those ideologies to a nonprofit that helps people leave hate groups, Motherboard has learned.

The new policy, which will be officially implemented next week, highlights the malleable nature of Facebook’s policies, which govern the speech of more than 2 billion users worldwide. And Facebook still has to effectively enforce the policies if it is really going to diminish hate speech on its platform.

Last year, a Motherboard investigation found that, though Facebook banned “white supremacy” on its platform, it explicitly allowed “white nationalism” and “white separatism.” After backlash from civil rights groups and historians who say there is no difference between the ideologies, Facebook has decided to ban all three, two members of Facebook’s content policy team said.

“We’ve had conversations with more than 20 members of civil society, academics, in some cases these were civil rights organizations, experts in race relations from around the world,” Brian Fishman, policy director of counterterrorism at Facebook, told us in a phone call. “We decided that the overlap between white nationalism, [white] separatism, and white supremacy is so extensive we really can’t make a meaningful distinction between them. And that’s because the language and the rhetoric that is used and the ideology that it represents overlaps to a degree that it is not a meaningful distinction.”

They didn't do it because it was the right thing to do but because of the backlash. 

[Dreadcrumbs]

It will be interesting to see how this is enforced, especially if white supremacists stay and try to fly under the radar. I don't think FB will have the resources or the savviness to handle them.

[Terrie]

14 minutes ago, 47of74 said:

They didn't do it because it was the right thing to do but because of the backlash. 

I'll still take it.

[Leftitinmysnood]

How will Lori keep her followers? 

[JermajestyDuggar]

Hate speech is all over Facebook. They have a hard time enforcing it because a computer program can’t pick it up. An actual person has to see it to determine if it goes against FB TOS. An example would be the slur “tranny.” People use it as slang for a transmission in a car. So you can’t just run a program to get rid of all English uses of the word tranny. Because a person could be talking about their car and transmission on FB. But tranny also happens to be a slur against transgender individuals. It is against TOS to call a transgender person a tranny. But not your transmission. My opinion is that FB prefers to use computers to do the work that people should do because it’s cheaper. 

[Dreadcrumbs]

23 minutes ago, JermajestyDuggar said:

Hate speech is all over Facebook. They have a hard time enforcing it because a computer program can’t pick it up. An actual person has to see it to determine if it goes against FB TOS. An example would be the slur “tranny.” People use it as slang for a transmission in a car. So you can’t just run a program to get rid of all English uses of the word tranny. Because a person could be talking about their car and transmission on FB. But tranny also happens to be a slur against transgender individuals. It is against TOS to call a transgender person a tranny. But not your transmission. My opinion is that FB prefers to use computers to do the work that people should do because it’s cheaper. 

Not only that, they wouldn't be able to pick up on people like Lori Alexander's tradwife leghumpers.

There are some human moderators for FB, but they struggle and the work takes it's toll on them. ?

[JermajestyDuggar]

36 minutes ago, Dreadcrumbs said:

Not only that, they wouldn't be able to pick up on people like Lori Alexander's tradwife leghumpers.

There are some human moderators for FB, but they struggle and the work takes it's toll on them. ?

I read that pornographic images are pretty easy to spot with a computer program. So that’s why you don’t see a lot of those on FB. They are easier to catch with a program and are taken down quickly. Not so much with hate speech. They really do need more humans working on this problem. 

[Dreadcrumbs]

Just now, JermajestyDuggar said:

I read that pornographic images are pretty easy to spot with a computer program. So that’s why you don’t see a lot of those on FB. They are easier to catch with a program and are taken down quickly. Not so much with hate speech. They really do need more humans working on this problem. 

They'll have to shell out $$$ for proper mental healthcare for those humans. I'm not optimistic enough to believe they'd do that.

An article about the human mods and what they're up against: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/may/04/facebook-content-moderators-ptsd-psychological-dangers

[Lisafer]

2 hours ago, 47of74 said:

Some FB news

They didn't do it because it was the right thing to do but because of the backlash. 

Exactly. Facebook never does anything for moral or ethical reasons, IMO. They do what suits their bottom line. Of course, it's nice to know that the bottom line favors rational humanity in this instance, at least. 

[SilverBeach]

I hate Facebook.

[Briefly]

I think this article is probably about the same thing, but it's worded differently and has names so it may be a later update.

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/janelytvynenko/facebook-bans-faith-goldy-canadian-white-nationalists