Facebook bans white nationalism and separatism on its platforms

quadraginta said:
The boy's in a rough spot.

If he lets Facebook choose what to publish he's an arrogant prick who's censoring the Internet.

If he let's anyone else do it he's offloading his responsibilities.

Classic rock and a hard place.
Click to expand...



Exactly. Some people think blaming Facebook solves having to think any further themselves.


Zuckerberg on 4 types of new regulations required to regulate the internet:



1.Harmful content.

“Lawmakers often tell me we have too much power over speech, and frankly I agree. I’ve come to believe that we shouldn’t make so many important decisions about speech on our own. So we’re creating an independent body so people can appeal our decisions. We’re also working with governments, including French officials [Australian bill proposal https://www.pm.gov.au/media/tough-new-laws-protect-australians-live-streaming-violent-crimes ] , on ensuring the effectiveness of content review systems.”


2.Protect elections, regulate political ads. ( https://newsroom.fb.com/news/2019/03/ads-transparency-in-the-eu/ )


3.Global framework for internet privacy and data protection. (See European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation.)


4.Data portability. (See Open Source Transfer Project.)
 
mgidm86 said:
That may be how you see your atheism but others may disagree, and that is my point.

That doesn't stop people from wanting to silence Atheists or any other group they don't agree with. Again, the church has historically held back science and imprisoned and killed people for teaching it. Scientists aren't inherently violent.

Jews aren't inherently violent and look how that went for them. Sorry to Godwin but that is a perfect example of what I'm trying to say.
Click to expand...

Yes, that's the point. Social media sites are very well-known for being hostile to, for example, transgender groups, frequently putting absurd restrictions on them, or banning them outright. Youtube was shutting down makeup and ASMR channels for a while - but leaving up Holocaust deniers and Nazi wannabes. And nobody even knows how or why some people get suspended from Twitter.

If they can do that, they can certainly ban Neo-Nazis, instead of letting them organize violent meetups.
 
Stout said:
It's actually not that difficult. Wikipedia itself actually cites sources, they're the little numbers in the square brackets that look like this [#].

If you click on those numbers they take you to the bottom of the page and highlight those cited sources in a nice shade of blue. You can actually click on those sources and view the content yourself. :)

if you don't like those sources there's always the option of doing your own research. Googling the guy's name for instance. I know this is a lot more labour intensive and emotionally taxing but it may actually produce something with which to refute my claim.
Click to expand...

I did look at them, they are new paper sources.
And more like 'neighbors say they acted strange'
:)
 
dudalb said:
I think Facebook is at least trying to do the right thing of their own free will;
I would have a huge, gigantic problem if the Government was ordering them to do this.
Click to expand...


No, Facebook is making a token show of doing the right thing in order to fend of imminent threats of government regulation and maintain their unregulated status.

In practice, a whole lot of those content moderators behind the scenes are white nationalist sympathizers and their ilk, and have been removing content and closing accounts critical of white nationalism, racism, and sexism. I don't see that changing anytime soon.
 
luchog said:
In practice, a whole lot of those content moderators behind the scenes are white nationalist sympathizers and their ilk, and have been removing content and closing accounts critical of white nationalism, racism, and sexism. I don't see that changing anytime soon.
Click to expand...

Say what?
 
luchog said:
No, Facebook is making a token show of doing the right thing in order to fend of imminent threats of government regulation and maintain their unregulated status.

In practice, a whole lot of those content moderators behind the scenes are white nationalist sympathizers and their ilk, and have been removing content and closing accounts critical of white nationalism, racism, and sexism. I don't see that changing anytime soon.
Click to expand...

The Serfs apparently had their entire Youtube channel removed after posting a handful of videos critical of white nationalism and channels that direct people to such, as one example.
 
As Serfs, they must have realized that they didn’t own their little plot of YouTube, and the Lord could do with their work as he wishes.
 
What a childish world we`ve become. I can hear it now, Reported, reported!
Change the channel if you dont like whats being done or said.
 
luchog said:
In practice, a whole lot of those content moderators behind the scenes are white nationalist sympathizers and their ilk, and have been removing content and closing accounts critical of white nationalism, racism, and sexism. I don't see that changing anytime soon.
Click to expand...

Err, WTF?
 
Jimmy9 said:
What a childish world we`ve become. I can hear it now, Reported, reported!
Change the channel if you dont like whats being done or said.
Click to expand...

This cuts both ways. If you don't like what Facebook is doing, change the channel.
 
Jimmy9 said:
What a childish world we`ve become. I can hear it now, Reported, reported!
Change the channel if you dont like whats being done or said.
Click to expand...

A video showing what happens when people take this attitude towards white nationalists:

 
carlitos said:
Say what?
Click to expand...
smartcooky said:
Err, WTF?
Click to expand...


I have many friends and acquaintances (mostly female, oddly enough) who have had their critiques of white nationalism/supremacism and violently misogynistic content on Facebook removed, and one had her account suspended for reposting her criticism There was nothing violent or inflammatory about their critiques, but it was still labeled "hate speech" for the sole reason that it invoked "white privilege" (apparently, Facebook moderators consider any mention of "white privilege" to be hate speech). The person who was suspended did get their account restored after disputing the suspension, but is still getting her anti-white-supremacism content removed by moderators. Complaints about white supremacist and other racist content routinely gets ignored, or complainers are told flat out that the content does not violate Facebook's policies.

I've also been personally targeted for the same thing, so I have personal experience with this.

Oh, and apparently Facebook is still perfectly fine with having white nationalist content on their site, despite their claim they will be removing it:

Facebook Says White Nationalist Video Doesn’t Break New Policy Against White Nationalism

Excerpt:
Facebook vowed last week to curb hateful content on its platform by extending its policies against white supremacy to cover posts that praise white nationalism and separatism.

Now it’s unclear what that new policy actually means, if anything. On Tuesday, HuffPost showed a Facebook spokesperson a video on Facebook in which prominent Canadian white nationalist Faith Goldy laments white “replacement” and demands that Jews and people of color repay the white European countries they’ve “invaded.”

The spokesperson said that no policy had been broken, not even the social media giant’s new policy banning the promotion or praise of white nationalism.
Click to expand...


Of course, this is nothing new, Facebook has long protected white privilege while allowing harassment of minorities.

Facebook’s Secret Censorship Rules Protect White Men From Hate Speech But Not Black Children
Civil rights groups urge Facebook to fix 'racially biased' moderation system

It doesn't matter what they claim their policies to be, when their actual practices haven't changed, and their moderators are perfectly fine with white nationalism/supremacism.
 
Last edited:
luchog said:
I have many friends and acquaintances (mostly female, oddly enough) who have had their critiques of white nationalism/supremacism and violently misogynistic content on Facebook removed, and one had her account suspended for reposting her criticism There was nothing violent or inflammatory about their critiques, but it was still labeled "hate speech" for the sole reason that it invoked "white privilege". The person who was suspended did get their account restored after disputing the suspension, but is still getting her anti-white-supremacism content removed by moderators. Complaints about white supremacist and other racist content routinely gets ignored, or complainers are told flat out that the content does not violate Facebook's policies.

Oh, and apparently Facebook is still perfectly fine with having white nationalist content on their site, despite their claim they will be removing it:

Facebook Says White Nationalist Video Doesn’t Break New Policy Against White Nationalism

Excerpt:



Of course, this is nothing new, Facebook has long protected white privilege while allowing harassment of minorities.

Facebook’s Secret Censorship Rules Protect White Men From Hate Speech But Not Black Children
Civil rights groups urge Facebook to fix 'racially biased' moderation system
Click to expand...

****, even AIs are racist.
 
Belz... said:
****, even AIs are racist.
Click to expand...


No, it's not AIs doing the moderating. Facebook actually has real people who make these decisions. AIs just scan for keywords.

The typical process is, once content is posted, a user reports it to Facebook using the built-in reporting feature. A person reviews it, then decides whether to remove the content, let it stand, or if severe enough to suspend or delete the entire account.

The problem with this is the majority of moderators at Facebook are white men, who apparently have no problem with white nationalism/supremacism; but do have problems with criticism of white privilege.

And even if it was an AI doing it, if you have racists programming the AI and feeding it the parameters it uses to make decisions, it wouldn't be at all surprising if those decisions reflect the racism of the programmers.
 
Belz... said:
****, even AIs are racist.
Click to expand...


You may be saying that as a joke, but it isn't all that wrong.

AI's have to be trained on data, and how that data is selected is very much a factor in the decisions the AI's end up making. Sort of a GIGO problem. They will learn to react the way they are taught. (Not unlike children.)

This isn't just hypothetical, there are lots of researchers looking into ... and finding ... bias in algorithms caused by exactly that issue.
 
Here is the policy:

https://www.facebook.com/communitystandards/dangerous_individuals_organizations


This woman has got away with it due to this:


We do not allow the following people (living or deceased) or groups to maintain a presence (for example, have an account, Page or group) on our platform:

[...]

Hate organisations and their leaders and prominent members

A hate organisation is defined as:

Any association of three or more people that is organised under a name, sign or symbol and that has an ideology, statements or physical actions that attack individuals based on characteristics, including race, religious affiliation, nationality, ethnicity, gender, sex, sexual orientation, serious disease or disability.
Click to expand...

The search results made it look like she's working on her own, but I really don't know anything about her.


Facebook's announcement about its policy last week said:

"Unfortunately, there will always be people who try to game our systems to spread hate. Our challenge is to stay ahead by continuing to improve our technologies, evolve our policies and work with experts who can bolster our own efforts."

I wonder if that's what she set out to do, and if/how Facebook can amend/enforce the policy, and if AI can keep ahead of the bots that try to game it.
 
luchog said:
Of course, this is nothing new, Facebook has long protected white privilege while allowing harassment of minorities.

Facebook’s Secret Censorship Rules Protect White Men From Hate Speech But Not Black Children
Civil rights groups urge Facebook to fix 'racially biased' moderation system

It doesn't matter what they claim their policies to be, when their actual practices haven't changed, and their moderators are perfectly fine with white nationalism/supremacism.
Click to expand...
Thanks for this, especially the ProPublica link. I saved it for later reading.
 
Globally, Facebook say they acted on more than 1.5 billion fake accounts between April-Sept 2018, either during the registration process or within minutes of the account being created, & found 99.6% of these accounts using technology before anyone reported them.

Facebook "now have more than 30,000 people working on safety and security across Facebook, three times as many as we had in 2017. We have also improved our machine learning capabilities around political content and inauthentic behavior, which lets us to better find and removing violating behavior."

Are we safe? Have we ever been safe? Do you fear anything on Facebook?

https://newsroom.fb.com/news/2019/04/safeguard-elections-in-australia/
 
"The Global Internet Forum to Counter Terrorism (GIFCT) was formally established by Facebook, Microsoft, Twitter and YouTube with the objective of disrupting terrorist abuse on their respective platforms. Since then, the consortium has grown with new global technology companies joining GIFCT, and now Amazon, LinkedIn and WhatsApp are joining. An even broader group collaborates closely on critical initiatives focused on tech innovation, knowledge-sharing and research. Most recently, we reached our 2019 goal of collectively contributing more than 200,000 hashes , or unique digital fingerprints, of known terrorist content into our shared database, enabling each of us to quickly identify and take action on potential terrorist content on our respective platforms."

https://newsroom.fb.com/news/2019/09/next-steps-for-gifct/
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom