5 ms·

> "Of the deleted comments examined across platforms and countries, between 87.5% and 99.7%, depending on the sample, were legally permissible. The highest prop

by ch4s3 2y ago

> "Of the deleted comments examined across platforms and countries, between 87.5% and 99.7%, depending on the sample, were legally permissible. The highest proportion of legally permissible deleted comments was observed in Germany, where 99.7% and 98.9% of deleted comments were found to be legal on Facebook and YouTube, respectively. Wow, that's quite a bit worse than I would have guessed even as a critic of these types of laws.

TulliusCicero 2y ago
People see the instances of megacorps blatantly flouting laws and assume this must be their default behavior, but really the default is typically conservatism and caution with regards to regulations (with an occasional flout where they feel they can get away with it or they can make a ton of money off of the flouting). This is an area where it's gonna be pretty subjective whether many comments are law breaking, so the internal guidelines for censors will likely err on the side of caution, which means removal.
- southernplaces7 2y ago
  >People see the instances of megacorps blatantly flouting laws and assume this must be their default behavior, but really the default is typically conservatism and caution with regards to regulations (with an occasional flout where they feel they can get away with it or they can make a ton of money off of the flouting). This is exactly the worst hypocrisy of these very same megacorps, and particularly notable in mega tech corps, which have a particular tendency towards preaching loudly while practicing very differently. On the one hand, they play themselves as arbiters of moral values and display a nearly (no scratch that, overtly, blatantly) preachy attitude towards their users and customers and even the wider public about social responsibility, fighting "incorrect" thinking or conduct, following proper regulations and etc and etc. With this attitude in mind, they essentially forcibly (at least within their reach as platforms) "guide" average people into certain types of behavior. They also make public speeches, blog posts, PR releases and all sorts of endless vomit about the de jure moral or social crusades of our time, depending on each company's specific context. Aaand then, they also simultaneously perform nearly every kind of legal, social and financial malfeasance you can imagine, often blatantly for the sake of their real bottom line, which is market dominance and more financial power. (looking at just a few examples: OpenAI's blatantly predatory behavior toward pretty much everyone else's content, or its obviously dishonest crap about the supposed dangers of AI in its efforts to scare regulators in its favor, or Meta's too-numerous-to-count scandals across many years, or Google's intense quest to utterly destroy search for the sake of further ad dollars, or Amazon's indifference to an absolute avalanche of consumer fraud on its product sales platform while at the same time squeezing sellers as often and much as possible) All of the above is to not even mention the completely presumptuous attitude among nearly all modern tech companies, and more recently, most other major consumer-oriented companies of all kinds (these days any large company is really a tech company at heart) that they have an absolute right to not only pry into everything you do no matter how private, but also store and distribute or sell that information as they please to nearly anyone at all with zero consequence. This last has been taken to the point where for all their talk of "valuing your privacy" the default behavior is the diametric opposite, and the default response to anyone who really tries to dial it back is overt hostility. It's all quite grotesque. How anyone could take seriously a single major major techcorp leader's preaching on any social issue is beyond me.
Tomte 2y ago
> were legally permissible Says who? Right, the think tank. How would you possibly evaluate such a claim seriously?
- shadowgovt 2y ago
  And indeed, is the think tank going to fund the lawyers to argue the point if Meta leaves a post-up and the nation of Germany brings suit? Or is the think tank going to find Meta new users if Meta leaves the post up and individuals decide to stop using Facebook because they don't want to see that crap? Companies drop posts for violations of community terms that have nothing to do with what is legal.
- ch4s3 2y ago
  According to the article, most removed comments were about current events. You can access the report here[1][2] and see if you think the comments they highlight comport with European speech laws or not. If you check their methodology, their coding guidelines were developed by legal experts who are native speakers in each of the target countries, so to answer "Says who?", lawyers. [1] https://futurefreespeech.org/preventing-torrents-of-hate-or-stifling-free-expression-online/ https://futurefreespeech.org/preventing-torrents-of-hate-or-... [2]https://futurefreespeech.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/Preventing-Torrents-of-Hate-or-Stifling-Free-Expression-Online-The-Future-of-Free-Speech.pdf https://futurefreespeech.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/Prev...
aniviacat 2y ago
The article does not state that the removed comments were removed for legal reasons. The ad industry tends to be a lot more sensitive to certain content than governments are. (For example simple insults can easily get a Youtube video demonitized.) There's a good chance that the removal of comments regarding killing and war is caused purely by ad regulations. Without further information, these numbers tell nothing about the actual effects of censorship laws.
- ch4s3 2y ago
  > The article does not state that the removed comments were removed for legal reasons. This is correct but they do show large national variation in the report. > There's a good chance that the removal of comments regarding killing and war is caused purely by ad regulations. This doesn't explain the Facebook deletions.
  - itishappy 2y ago
    Please note that CSAM is categorized as a "legally permissible expression of general opinion" as defined by this study. I'm not sure we can draw too many conclusions about the reason for deletion here.
    - ch4s3 2y ago
      I didn’t see that in the methodology section. Can you point to that?
      - itishappy 2y ago
        > General expressions of opinion > Comments fell into this category if meaning could be interpreted from them, they were not illegal, did not contain linguistic attacks or fell outside the scope of the report (e.g. CSAM, revenge porn, marketing). Most comments belonged to this category. https://futurefreespeech.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/Preventing-Torrents-of-Hate-or-Stifling-Free-Expression-Online-The-Future-of-Free-Speech.pdf https://futurefreespeech.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/Prev...
michaelmrose 2y ago
If I were to begin this response with a string of insults and swear words that would turn your ears red questioning everything from your continence to your sexual history nothing about it would be illegal but it would be unfit for this forum and it would be fitting to remove it. If I were to launch into a tirade about a particular race (pick one) if I phrased it reasonably enough to avoid falling afoul of hate speech laws it would be legal. It would also still be hate. If I were to spread heinous lies about a group to inspire stochastic terrorism most places it would be legal. Legality is a meaningless standard to apply to this situation.
itishappy 2y ago
I wonder what those numbers would be for HackerNews! I doubt most content removed from here breaks laws either.
- krapp 2y ago
  Most content moderated by most sites isn't strictly illegal. On Hacker News you can be modded down for being impolite, or insufficiently substantive, for mere disagreement, for being repetitive or any number of reasons including "just because," since there are no real guidelines for voting here, and people tend to use flagging as a "super downvote" rather than for content that just violates the ever increasing list of guidelines. The number of sites that limit moderation to strictly illegal material are few and far between, and they tend to degenerate into cesspools where only the worst elements prefer to gather. Even Gab recently learned this lesson[0,1]. [0] https://news.gab.com/2024/03/were-cleaning-up-gab-and-its-long-overdue/ https://news.gab.com/2024/03/were-cleaning-up-gab-and-its-lo... [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39686704 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39686704
oliwarner 2y ago
They don't know why they were deleted. They don't know who they were deleted by. They don't actually know how many automatically-deleted bad comments they missed because they rely on scraping every ~10 minutes. It's flaw on flaw on flaw. I wouldn't trust any percentage in the report
- blackeyeblitzar 2y ago
  Sure but these platforms are not very examinable. Does that mean they should get a pass and escape accountability? I think it’s okay to assume the worst in the face of secrecy.
  - oliwarner 2y ago
    No, but when you don't even know if it's a platform or a volunteer community moderator, or even the user deleting their comment, making any claims is flawed. You can distil the factual elements of the report to: "Comments that were available to us are now no longer available to us, but we don't know why" > Does that mean they should get a pass and escape accountability? What? My pointing out extreme flaws in data collection and analysis shouldn't mean anything other than there are problems with this report. Why are you trying to extrapolate a motive for me?

by ch4s3 2y ago

TulliusCicero 2y ago

People see the instances of megacorps blatantly flouting laws and assume this must be their default behavior, but really the default is typically conservatism and caution with regards to regulations (with an occasional flout where they feel they can get away with it or they can make a ton of money off of the flouting). This is an area where it's gonna be pretty subjective whether many comments are law breaking, so the internal guidelines for censors will likely err on the side of caution, which means removal.

southernplaces7 2y ago
>People see the instances of megacorps blatantly flouting laws and assume this must be their default behavior, but really the default is typically conservatism and caution with regards to regulations (with an occasional flout where they feel they can get away with it or they can make a ton of money off of the flouting). This is exactly the worst hypocrisy of these very same megacorps, and particularly notable in mega tech corps, which have a particular tendency towards preaching loudly while practicing very differently. On the one hand, they play themselves as arbiters of moral values and display a nearly (no scratch that, overtly, blatantly) preachy attitude towards their users and customers and even the wider public about social responsibility, fighting "incorrect" thinking or conduct, following proper regulations and etc and etc. With this attitude in mind, they essentially forcibly (at least within their reach as platforms) "guide" average people into certain types of behavior. They also make public speeches, blog posts, PR releases and all sorts of endless vomit about the de jure moral or social crusades of our time, depending on each company's specific context. Aaand then, they also simultaneously perform nearly every kind of legal, social and financial malfeasance you can imagine, often blatantly for the sake of their real bottom line, which is market dominance and more financial power. (looking at just a few examples: OpenAI's blatantly predatory behavior toward pretty much everyone else's content, or its obviously dishonest crap about the supposed dangers of AI in its efforts to scare regulators in its favor, or Meta's too-numerous-to-count scandals across many years, or Google's intense quest to utterly destroy search for the sake of further ad dollars, or Amazon's indifference to an absolute avalanche of consumer fraud on its product sales platform while at the same time squeezing sellers as often and much as possible) All of the above is to not even mention the completely presumptuous attitude among nearly all modern tech companies, and more recently, most other major consumer-oriented companies of all kinds (these days any large company is really a tech company at heart) that they have an absolute right to not only pry into everything you do no matter how private, but also store and distribute or sell that information as they please to nearly anyone at all with zero consequence. This last has been taken to the point where for all their talk of "valuing your privacy" the default behavior is the diametric opposite, and the default response to anyone who really tries to dial it back is overt hostility. It's all quite grotesque. How anyone could take seriously a single major major techcorp leader's preaching on any social issue is beyond me.

Tomte 2y ago

> were legally permissible Says who? Right, the think tank. How would you possibly evaluate such a claim seriously?

shadowgovt 2y ago
And indeed, is the think tank going to fund the lawyers to argue the point if Meta leaves a post-up and the nation of Germany brings suit? Or is the think tank going to find Meta new users if Meta leaves the post up and individuals decide to stop using Facebook because they don't want to see that crap? Companies drop posts for violations of community terms that have nothing to do with what is legal.
ch4s3 2y ago
According to the article, most removed comments were about current events. You can access the report here[1][2] and see if you think the comments they highlight comport with European speech laws or not. If you check their methodology, their coding guidelines were developed by legal experts who are native speakers in each of the target countries, so to answer "Says who?", lawyers. [1] https://futurefreespeech.org/preventing-torrents-of-hate-or-stifling-free-expression-online/ https://futurefreespeech.org/preventing-torrents-of-hate-or-... [2]https://futurefreespeech.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/Preventing-Torrents-of-Hate-or-Stifling-Free-Expression-Online-The-Future-of-Free-Speech.pdf https://futurefreespeech.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/Prev...

aniviacat 2y ago

The article does not state that the removed comments were removed for legal reasons. The ad industry tends to be a lot more sensitive to certain content than governments are. (For example simple insults can easily get a Youtube video demonitized.) There's a good chance that the removal of comments regarding killing and war is caused purely by ad regulations. Without further information, these numbers tell nothing about the actual effects of censorship laws.

ch4s3 2y ago
> The article does not state that the removed comments were removed for legal reasons. This is correct but they do show large national variation in the report. > There's a good chance that the removal of comments regarding killing and war is caused purely by ad regulations. This doesn't explain the Facebook deletions.
- itishappy 2y ago
  Please note that CSAM is categorized as a "legally permissible expression of general opinion" as defined by this study. I'm not sure we can draw too many conclusions about the reason for deletion here.
  - ch4s3 2y ago
    I didn’t see that in the methodology section. Can you point to that?
    - itishappy 2y ago
      > General expressions of opinion > Comments fell into this category if meaning could be interpreted from them, they were not illegal, did not contain linguistic attacks or fell outside the scope of the report (e.g. CSAM, revenge porn, marketing). Most comments belonged to this category. https://futurefreespeech.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/Preventing-Torrents-of-Hate-or-Stifling-Free-Expression-Online-The-Future-of-Free-Speech.pdf https://futurefreespeech.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/Prev...

michaelmrose 2y ago

If I were to begin this response with a string of insults and swear words that would turn your ears red questioning everything from your continence to your sexual history nothing about it would be illegal but it would be unfit for this forum and it would be fitting to remove it. If I were to launch into a tirade about a particular race (pick one) if I phrased it reasonably enough to avoid falling afoul of hate speech laws it would be legal. It would also still be hate. If I were to spread heinous lies about a group to inspire stochastic terrorism most places it would be legal. Legality is a meaningless standard to apply to this situation.

itishappy 2y ago

I wonder what those numbers would be for HackerNews! I doubt most content removed from here breaks laws either.

krapp 2y ago
Most content moderated by most sites isn't strictly illegal. On Hacker News you can be modded down for being impolite, or insufficiently substantive, for mere disagreement, for being repetitive or any number of reasons including "just because," since there are no real guidelines for voting here, and people tend to use flagging as a "super downvote" rather than for content that just violates the ever increasing list of guidelines. The number of sites that limit moderation to strictly illegal material are few and far between, and they tend to degenerate into cesspools where only the worst elements prefer to gather. Even Gab recently learned this lesson[0,1]. [0] https://news.gab.com/2024/03/were-cleaning-up-gab-and-its-long-overdue/ https://news.gab.com/2024/03/were-cleaning-up-gab-and-its-lo... [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39686704 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39686704

oliwarner 2y ago

They don't know why they were deleted. They don't know who they were deleted by. They don't actually know how many automatically-deleted bad comments they missed because they rely on scraping every ~10 minutes. It's flaw on flaw on flaw. I wouldn't trust any percentage in the report

blackeyeblitzar 2y ago
Sure but these platforms are not very examinable. Does that mean they should get a pass and escape accountability? I think it’s okay to assume the worst in the face of secrecy.
- oliwarner 2y ago
  No, but when you don't even know if it's a platform or a volunteer community moderator, or even the user deleting their comment, making any claims is flawed. You can distil the factual elements of the report to: "Comments that were available to us are now no longer available to us, but we don't know why" > Does that mean they should get a pass and escape accountability? What? My pointing out extreme flaws in data collection and analysis shouldn't mean anything other than there are problems with this report. Why are you trying to extrapolate a motive for me?