3 ms·

My wife (an American) also got flagged for saying "Americans are selfish". She then made a post about our RV (camper) asking about sewer "hook ups" at a campgr

My wife (an American) also got flagged for saying "Americans are selfish". She then made a post about our RV (camper) asking about sewer "hook ups" at a campground and was flagged for posting what looked like a sex ad. We (the kids and I) now lovingly call her "hate speech Mom".

adolph 5y ago
> asking about sewer "hook ups" at a campground No lie, that is dirty talk.
bambax 5y ago
> We (the kids and I) now lovingly call her "hate speech Mom". Hook-up mom would be better.
shadowgovt 5y ago
Especially after Jan 6, there are a couple of things you can say in an ordinary spirited political debate that will cop you a ban on FB. One is several flavors of "Americans are X," another is variants on "Kill the filibuster" (which I assume is pattern-matching to '[violence-word] the [congress-word], which they probably up-sampled in the threat modeling for, uh, obvious reasons).
- josefresco 5y ago
  The worse part is that in her eagerness to close the "prompt" on her phone she "agreed" she had posted this content (instead of appeal), which probably put some sort of permanent mark on her record. One can only hope she gets kicked off for good one of these days!
  - IggleSniggle 5y ago
    wtf?? I haven't been on FB for about 10 years now and every now and then a comment like this comes along which makes me realize just how out of touch with the global bureaucracy I've become
    - shadowgovt 5y ago
      So Facebook now has an independent review board to determine whether their decisions to ban somebody follow their own policies. You can flag a decision to suspend your account for review by that board, but most decisions so flagged will not be reviewed.
      - tlear 5y ago
        FB lied to their own board about this, it is in the article
        shadowgovt 5y ago
        I see it, and I note that (a) that's editorializing by the WSJ based on their interpretation of comments from law professor Kate Klonick and (b) the underlying facts are that Facebook claimed XCheck is used in "a small number of decisions" and the evidence in that article doesn't contradict that claim. Nothing in the article gives hard numbers, so (unless WSJ has those numbers and forgot to report them), we have to extrapolate. XCheck-flagged accounts grew to 5.8 million users, but Facebook has 1.9 billion daily actives. If we assume about equal numbers of issues from the XCheck and non-XCheck accounts, XCheck accounts would make up less than 0.5% of all incidents. That's "a small number" if you're thinking in ratios. If you're thinking in absolute numbers, well, we don't have enough data to know what the absolute count looks like. Could be that a lot of XCheck'd accounts have zero incidents. Insufficient data.
q1w2 5y ago
"hate speech" has become so watered down.
Sunspark 5y ago
I got warned for hate speech on FB for saying in a comment that Americans have the memory of a goldfish. I appealed it, the appeal was declined and my hate speech warning remains on my permanent FB record as being against community standards. Pretty comical, considering it was accurate in context, and while you'd think American 1st amendment free speech rights would count, they don't, because FB is the private property of Zuckerberg. No need for someone to point out that it's a publicly traded company. Zuckerberg controls 57.9% of the voting shares of FB. It is his personal property that he allows others to have an inconsequential piece of and everything that is wrong on the platform is because of him.

adolph 5y ago

> asking about sewer "hook ups" at a campground No lie, that is dirty talk.

bambax 5y ago

> We (the kids and I) now lovingly call her "hate speech Mom". Hook-up mom would be better.

shadowgovt 5y ago

Especially after Jan 6, there are a couple of things you can say in an ordinary spirited political debate that will cop you a ban on FB. One is several flavors of "Americans are X," another is variants on "Kill the filibuster" (which I assume is pattern-matching to '[violence-word] the [congress-word], which they probably up-sampled in the threat modeling for, uh, obvious reasons).

josefresco 5y ago
The worse part is that in her eagerness to close the "prompt" on her phone she "agreed" she had posted this content (instead of appeal), which probably put some sort of permanent mark on her record. One can only hope she gets kicked off for good one of these days!
- IggleSniggle 5y ago
  wtf?? I haven't been on FB for about 10 years now and every now and then a comment like this comes along which makes me realize just how out of touch with the global bureaucracy I've become
  - shadowgovt 5y ago
    So Facebook now has an independent review board to determine whether their decisions to ban somebody follow their own policies. You can flag a decision to suspend your account for review by that board, but most decisions so flagged will not be reviewed.
    - tlear 5y ago
      FB lied to their own board about this, it is in the article
      - shadowgovt 5y ago
        I see it, and I note that (a) that's editorializing by the WSJ based on their interpretation of comments from law professor Kate Klonick and (b) the underlying facts are that Facebook claimed XCheck is used in "a small number of decisions" and the evidence in that article doesn't contradict that claim. Nothing in the article gives hard numbers, so (unless WSJ has those numbers and forgot to report them), we have to extrapolate. XCheck-flagged accounts grew to 5.8 million users, but Facebook has 1.9 billion daily actives. If we assume about equal numbers of issues from the XCheck and non-XCheck accounts, XCheck accounts would make up less than 0.5% of all incidents. That's "a small number" if you're thinking in ratios. If you're thinking in absolute numbers, well, we don't have enough data to know what the absolute count looks like. Could be that a lot of XCheck'd accounts have zero incidents. Insufficient data.

q1w2 5y ago

"hate speech" has become so watered down.

Sunspark 5y ago

I got warned for hate speech on FB for saying in a comment that Americans have the memory of a goldfish. I appealed it, the appeal was declined and my hate speech warning remains on my permanent FB record as being against community standards. Pretty comical, considering it was accurate in context, and while you'd think American 1st amendment free speech rights would count, they don't, because FB is the private property of Zuckerberg. No need for someone to point out that it's a publicly traded company. Zuckerberg controls 57.9% of the voting shares of FB. It is his personal property that he allows others to have an inconsequential piece of and everything that is wrong on the platform is because of him.