4 ms·
There's a peculiar "Facebook style" in their public communications. On the surface, their words appear simple, straightforward and open, as if there's nothing
by panarky 8y ago
There's a peculiar "Facebook style" in their public communications.
On the surface, their words appear simple, straightforward and open, as if there's nothing to hide.
But when you read closely, their words obscure the truth and distort reality. They quote highly specific and heavily lawyered facts that may be technically true, while remaining silent on facts that would give real insight.
Facebook's words support their strategy to "delay, deny and deflect" [0]. Here are a few examples from this post.
> We removed the attacker’s video within minutes of their outreach to us
The word "their" refers to the New Zealand Police. This is Facebook's deflection strategy in action.
Facebook is responsible for what they disseminate on their platform, not the NZ police.
Facebook doesn't disclose exactly how long they continued to distribute this poison, from start to end. Instead they hide behind the NZ police, shirking their own responsibility for their own platform.
The truth is that Facebook continued to disseminate this material for many hours, not mere "minutes" as they would have us believe.
> Including the views during the live broadcast, the video was viewed about 4000 times in total before being removed from Facebook
Seems straightforward but it's anything but. Facebook wants uncritical journalists to quote "4000 times" but that's a meaningless number if "the video" only refers to the original livestreamed video.
Facebook's carefully worded statement may be technically true but it's highly misleading.
What about the hundreds of thousands of copies that Facebook disseminated? How many views did they get, almost certainly orders of magnitude greater than 4,000.
And what is the definition of a "view"? Is Facebook getting tricky with definitions, so it only counts as a view if the user watched 20% or 50% or 100% of it?
> In the first 24 hours, we removed about 1.5 million videos of the attack globally. More than 1.2 million of those videos were blocked at upload
So 300,000 copies were NOT blocked. Facebook doesn't tell us how many views the copies got because they want you to assume it's only 4000.
Facebook doesn't disclose long it took to identify and remove the copies because they want us to anchor on misleading stats like "4000" and "minutes".
> Before we were alerted to the video, a user on 8chan posted a link to a copy of the video on a file-sharing site.
Deflection. See, it's an industry-wide problem, it's not just Facebook.
> This incident highlights the importance of industry cooperation
More deflection. Don't regulate Facebook, even though we're responsible for 90% or more of the weaponization of social media. Instead, waste more years searching for "industry-wide" solutions and self-regulation.
> We identified abusive content on other social media sites
Even more deflection.
[0] https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/14/technology/facebook-data-russia-election-racism.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/14/technology/facebook-data-...
- nervousvarun 8y agoAll true but said more succinctly: Facebook communications are vetted by their legal team.
- jacquesm 8y agoFacebook's legal team is not in charge of their ethics, the CEO is, and the CEO determines what gets posted. The legal team serves at the pleasure of the CEO and they're free to hire a lawyer that would come up with language more in line of what the CEO desires. So you can take it to the bank that just like the legal team vetted the text the CEO in turn vetted the legal team and they are operating under some kind of mandate.
- panarky 8y ago"Vet" implies they're ensuring it's true. Instead Facebook is publishing PR that does more to mislead than inform. And they're doing it with simple language that makes it appear they're being open and honest when they're actually hiding the important bits in order to deceive.
- rconti 8y ago1.5 million videos of the attack? As in, not Shares, but someone downloading or capping the video somehow, and re-uploading it? Damn, that's a LOT of people with access to the original source, or a copy of a copy, having a really strong desire to share the video on their personal or throwaway account.
- panarky 8y agoThis is what gets lost in Facebook's statement, by design. The killer livestreamed to Facebook and people captured that video and re-uploaded back to Facebook 1,500,000 times. A cursory read of their statement would have you believe it was only viewed 4,000 times. This is criminally dishonest.
- parliament32 8y agoThat number also strikes me as odd; it's improbably high. They're most likely referring to removing shares/links to the video, not re-uploads.