5 ms·
Facebook to Remove Misinformation That Leads to Violence
- magnetic 8y ago"Under the new rules, Facebook has said it will create partnerships with local civil society groups to identify misinformation for removal." - how do these "civil society groups" determine what is information vs misinformation?
- Larrikin 8y agoI assume they will not operate in a vacuum and weigh sources according to their track record of human rights abuses. Despite attempts in recent years by abusers to convince everyone that all sources are equally bad, human history is recorded and not all organizations and governments are egregiously as bad as others
- MrLeap 8y agoIf it hasn't already happened, the internal policies will devolve to removing anything it determines will lead to violence. I have no strong opinions on this.
- ghosterrific 8y agoHaha. Welcome to your new Hate Speech Overlords
- pcunite 8y ago"FB has said it will create partnerships with local civil society groups to identify misinformation" Thank goodness FB is not the real Internet. Imagine winding up on the wrong side of a secret rule-making group who marks your free speech as unacceptable.
- vkou 8y agoImagine winding up on the wrong side of a lynch mob that Facebook abets. Actually, you don't need to imagine, this happens every once in a while in India. If Facebook wants to be responsible for curating content on their platforms (Which they absolutely do, wrt, say, pornography, stalking, harassment, etc), then they can't shirk that responsibility, either.
- saas_sam 8y agoThis article isn't about any of the examples you just listed, which are already policed by Facebook and, you know, the actual police.
- vkou 8y agoMy understanding of the lynchings is that they work by someone sharing a 'Billy is a pedophile' on FB/WA, the 'news' going viral, and a few hours later, concerned citizens show up at Billy's house, with axes and tire irons. Not that different from the pizzagate bullshit back in 2016. [1] [1] https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/06/22/533941689/pizzagate-gunman-sentenced-to-4-years-in-prison https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/06/22/533941689...
- saas_sam 8y agoThe assumption you are making that seems so obviously wrong I am shocked anyone on Earth would make it: that concerned citizens with axes and tire irons will stay home as long as certain things aren't said. They're showing up anyway, buddy. You can walk on eggshells all you want, force everyone on the Internet to walk along with you, and they will still be out there. If your goal in life is to live as long as possible with as little violence as possible, I suggest you buy a nice farm somewhere safe and live out your years in quiet solitude. If, on the other hand, you want a rich life that is worth living, I suggest you learn to tolerate people publishing lies on the Internet and install a good deadbolt.
- spork12 8y agoCensorship is wrong, it's impossible for anyone to have an unbiased opinion.
- AnimalMuppet 8y agoTotally unbiased? Correct, that's impossible. Unbiased enough to approximately block calls for violence from all sides? That's realistically possible.
- spork12 8y agoWhat do you define as "unbiased enough"?
- stale2002 8y agoExplicit calls to violence are already against the law. We have good laws that cover these situations already.
- AnimalMuppet 8y agoSure, if you call for violence on FB, they can arrest you after the violence has already been triggered. That's good, if it keeps you from being able to do it again. It's better to keep it from happening the first time, though.
- spork12 8y ago"after the violence has already been triggered" no... there are laws on the books targeting threats. If you make a bomb threat you can be prosecuted.
- AnimalMuppet 8y agoI think you miss my point. I make a post on FB calling for all right-thinking citizens to beat up spork12. I get arrested after the post has been made on FB, and after it has been read by too many people. Sure, I've been arrested. But you can't make people un-read it. How many people read it and think I was right, and will try to put my suggestion into action? Note well: This is post is not an actual threat, nor is it a call to violence.
- martin1975 8y agoThe only thing that can and ought to be realistically removed is illegal speech and SCOTUS has already defined what that is... Any other attempts, while well intentioned, will probably backfire. FB seems to take one step forward and two steps back each time they try to take some moral high ground when it comes to free speech... I like the fact they recently increased transparency behind who is paying for ads - whether they are advertising fake or true info, the reader gets to decide what's veritable vs what isn't ultimately, as it should be. Now, they will "identify misinformation".. in other words, they will appoint themselves as adjudicators of what is truth (e.g. "mis-information") vs what is not... they are a medium for free speech - not a scientific, peer-review type of website where consensus kills off or approves publishing of content. This continuous grasping at straws by FB, Twitter, google, whomever really - of determining what is acceptable in the realm of opinion/1st Amendment speech is really exhausting and will mean the death of their platforms.
- saas_sam 8y agoThere are always loud fringe groups who, unable to persuade the majority to their line of thinking, instead focus their efforts on coercing leaders of institutions to force their line of thinking onto the majority. Tattle-tales in school turn into busy-bodies on HOA boards and professional protestors outside of Twitter HQ. There is no "victory" for these people, only goal posts that can be pushed ever further until they are 6ft under.
- stale2002 8y agoIt seems like our current laws already cover the dangerous stuff that needs to be taken down. If someone makes an explicit call to violence, that is already illegal and should be covered under our existing laws. No need to change any policies when the existing policies work well enough for stopping the obviously dangerous content.
- StanislavPetrov 8y ago"Leads to" Anyone can claim anything leads to anything. This is nothing but a blanket censorship policy for Facebook to stifle any speech it wants and claim that it could possibly have led to violence, which is entirely impossible to prove or disprove. Not at all surprising give the track record of Facebook.
- skookumchuck 8y ago[deleted]
- jjulius 8y agoFacebook is not a government entity (I can hear the jokes about that coming in 3... 2...) and therefore is completely capable of deciding what speech is and isn't allowed on its network. The actual right to free speech is not eroded in any way just because Facebook decides it doesn't want something on its platform. Edit: This is no different than, say, a shopping mall saying that they will kick out anybody who tries to spread information that incites violence.
- spork12 8y agoWhile I agree with you, this is a private platform and has nothing to do with the 1st amendment, which restricts govt. from policing speech, not private corps.
- youssrf 8y agooky
- charbdyx 8y agoIn PR terms we call this a classic “non concession.” It’s a diversionary, empty news announcement a company like Facebook puts out to mask bad news. It is a higher order advanced PR technique. Only the best do things like this. In this case they are masking the documentary about far right groups being allowed to exist on Facebook. So the counter is to make a low value, obvious announcement to bury the documentary news or counteract it with other news. I actually am mostly on Facebook’s side here. I think the media are generally out to get them and they deserve to ensure free speech of all kinds happens. Let’s be clear though: This is a classic non concession to mask other news.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- Certhas 8y agoThis is the most American comment section. Somehow the fact that Facebook might remove lies that lead to violence is objectionable on free speech grounds. That they remove pictures of nipples is somehow not a matter of great concern...
- anothergoogler 8y agoNobody's talking about pictures of nipples because the submission has nothing to do with them.
- LMYahooTFY 8y agoYou're saying that you hold these two circumstances to be of equal importance in regards to freedom of speech? If I have to choose one of your suggestions to put time and effort behind having properly defined by governance, I'm going to go with Facebook's authority in determining a "potential for violence" threshold.
- Certhas 8y agoI am saying you chose what you regard as a legitimate ground to restrict speech on private platforms. It's not ok to try to create a platform where people don't incite violence by lying. It is ok to create a platform where people can't express anything of a sexual nature. It's cultural of course. After all in the US it is ok to have games where you shoot prostitutes but not where you sleep with one.
- rainbowmverse 8y agoWorking with local communities to come up with culture-fit solutions is exactly the right thing to do. Most of the problems people seem to have with Facebook is their past attempts to apply a single concept of decorum to a global population. It's usually fine to let police handle threats, but they can quickly spiral in places on the brink of erupting, or in populations the police aren't always good about protecting.
- LarryDarrell 8y agoI hope none of you have to deal with the pain of a loved one going deep down the right-wing conspiracy rabbit hole. This isn't just people getting convinced Obama wasn't born in America. This is people going behind their spouses back to convert retirement savings into gold coins and survivalist paraphernalia. These are people who will cut off friends and family because they don't "understand what's really going on".