Slashdot Mirror
Spotlight on Facebook Groups Affects Microsoft
NewsCloud writes "After Slashdot reported Facebook Exposes Advertisers To Hate Speech, the company removed its F**k Islam group for a day (it's back up now). According to the New York Times, 'Facebook declined to comment on Friday on the subject of hate speech or on what steps had been taken.' It turns out that Microsoft is the digital advertising provider for Facebook serving up ads for companies such as NetFlix, T-Mobile, Sprint, Verizon and Coca Cola. But for now, the Microsoft-served ads for all Facebook group home pages (even those complying with Facebook's Terms of Use) appear to have been taken off the site. For its part, NetFlix told me to address any concerns about its own ad placement along obscene speech with Facebook. T-Mobile said they would look into it."
This problem -- with user-generated content not being properly vetted by marketing departments before being juxaposed with ads -- is common to the "Web 2.0". Nobody has a "solution" to it, and the true solution is that advertisers need to buck up and learn that they can't micromanage every single waking moments of our day. Not to be some kind of bizarre technoutopian, but actually people think and act in ways that may be unpleasant to their fellows. The world doesn't actually look like one of those 1980s "Buy the World a Coke" ads.
Protect your liberties. Donate to the ACLU
You'd think Microsoft would have known that a social networking site comprised mainly of college students would feature at least a few obscenities and outspoken and unpopular opinions. Personally I have no problem with a "Fuck Islam" group, but if Microsoft does, does anyone really think that a Microsoft-served ad provides an endorsement of the groups opinions? If it does, why hasn't anybody been all over Google?
So Microsoft provides the advertising for a site whose users created a group called Fuck Islam. And they're at fault? Typical Slashdot spin...
This isn't just shooting the messenger. This is shooting the guy that made the uniform that the messenger wears.
I write bullshit
This whole "spotlight" on the group is silly. First off, the name notwithstanding, the group really isn't that full of "hate." But even if it was, who cares?! It's a group of people that think a certain way, and it's on a site that allows people to create groups to talk about whatever they want. Why should the group be censored? I don't want to have to worry about what somebody is going to let me say, on a social site.
-Daniel
Canceled NetFlix over this?
You'd think a
Sending them snarky letters as if that was the case is pretty childish...
Simple question, really. You can choose to agree with speech, and you can choose not to agree with speech. I'll even stretch the concept and say that speech which wanders into explicit sexuality might be considered "obscene" under a traditional judicial concept of pornographic obscenity.
But what makes the Facebook site obscene? The use of the F-word alone?
I think the only real problem in this situation is the loser who closed his Netflix account because he doesn't understand how the web works...
This is sort of thing is absolutely the point of having free speech. Of course, since FaceBook is a private entity, they do not have no legal obligation to be a forum for free speech, but it would be great if they were.
That said, I'm kind of curious to see how far this tolerance goes. I think a FaceBook group attacking overly conservative Islamic culture is a perfectly valid and topical political point. Can I have a FaceBook group called "F**k Negros", to attack the inner-city black youth culture that fills the city I live in with violence? Can I have a "F**k GWB" group to attack the dumbass president who is screwing things up in the Middle East? Can I have a "F**k the Jews" group attacking the whiny Jews who scream "anti-semitism!" in order to stifle legitimate debate? If so, I have a lot more respect for FaceBook than I used to...
A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
Facebook, like many of these sites, uses an advertisement service. In this case, as mentioned in the summary, it uses Microsoft. So let me get this straight, someone is mad because a vaguely random placed ad is on some hate speech group thats part of user-content created website? From that Idealog link, it really sounds like he thinks some marketing guy up at Netflix said to himself, "Hey, look at this F**K Islam group, lets buy an ad space there." More likely they just bought ads with Microsoft to be place anywhere that uses Microsoft's ad service. Its not facebook's fault, and definitely not Netflix/T-Mobile's fault. This isn't television where you can specify during what show you want your ad on. Its a dynamic ad, it places it randomly among whatever sites use the system. Netflix bought a service from Provider A, doesn't mean they support Random Hatespeech Facebook Group B. This really must be a slow news day.
"Hold! What you are doing to us is wrong! Why do you do this thing?"
Who cares? It means I am less likely to see an ad when I log in to FaceBook. Hooray!
To blame any of MS's ad placement on MS is ridiculous. That they (possibly) took their ads offline because they did not want them associated with a hate site is a good thing - regardless of anyone's view on "Freedom of Speech".
StarTrekPhase2 - The Five Year Mission Continues!
I have to agree with you. This "NewsCloud" guy has written a couple sensationalist articles decrying a couple expletives. I doubt he is "just" enforcing Facebook's own TOS agreement - and frankly, if Facebook starts enforcing it in an overly puritanical way, they risk losing members in their target demographic, one that likes to be vulgar and obscene.
I'm not too sure but did free speech just trump economic interest and aggressive religious interests?
Should we celebrate? I'm so confused.
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
is because somebody removed him from their top 8. :)
I don't want to mention the site's name, but a company I used to work for had a web-site geared towards children that for many years went without advertising. After it had built up quite a large audience, my boss decided to allow an advertising agency to place a single banner advertisement on the top of the pages. The agency had assured him that the ads would be tasteful (i.e., not flashing, etc.) and child-appropriate. After a week or so of this revenue, the agency slipped up somehow and allowed an inappropriate advertisement through its filter (and a parent complained about it). After verifying that this mistake was made, he got rid of the agency and went ad-free again (i.e., the site continued to lose money). I just checked, and there is still no banner ads on most pages. The only banner ad I saw was on a single page and was for St. Jude Children's Research Hospital. There is a button, however, that allows parents to make donations. I have no idea if this covers the cost of the site.
The point is that, evidently, it's still risky to contract out banner ads to 3rd party companies.
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
See, it's about what Congress can not do. It has pretty much no effect on how a privately owned website operates. Facebook could ban all groups or user profiles with the word "gun" or "fuck" or "Linux" in them and it still wouldn't be a "free speech issue."
Slightly disreputable, albeit gregarious
"Fuck Islam" is not hate speech, any more than "Fuck Christianity", "Fuck Scientology" or "Fuck Atheism" is. If you don't like a set of ideological beliefs and superstitions (ie, a religion) then you have the right to voice that opinion, and the people who try to silence that are the ones who ought to be punished. If you can't handle that not everybody likes what you like, then I recommend you don't read it. In any case, stop perstering us about it.
That said, "Fuck Islam" is obscene speech, but maybe the site in question has a policy of tolerating obscene speech. It is their choice after all.
So someone says "fuck islam" and all hell breaks loose...
Islamic sensibilities are being affected by private non-Muslims exercizing their right to Free Speech? Well, laa dee fucking daa, don't you wish for once they'd get just as offended by suicide bombings, indentured servitude/slavery, personal vendettas, and public beheadings everpresent in their societies.
Why do we as a free society keep rolling over for this particular religious group? Is it because they get angry and blow people up?
Obama likes poor people so much, he wants to make more of them.
I think this whole article is a troll. Someone didn't like criticism of Islam, and it taking every avenue to censor and suppress it -- and trying to get the rest of us to go along. Islam is richly deserving of criticism and scholarly discussion, but try that in an actual Islamic country and you may easily find yourself in jail, if not having already had your head cut off. If you support Free Speech on the Internet, then you must be against this censorship, even if you find the site itself distasteful.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
"Fuck Islam" is no more hate speech than "Fuck Creationists" or "Fuck Republicans". They both are ways to express strong rejection of a certain belief system. Merely because people label their beliefs religious doesn't magically make them immune from criticism.
More precisely the concept of hate speech is incoherent. It is impossible to at once give a definition of hate speech that makes it clear why it is significantly worse than things like "Fuck Republicans" but yet also makes it obvious that the things termed hate speech, e.g., "Fuck Islam", qualify.
I agree that speech that involves the phrase "Fuck Islam" is more likely to be motivated by thoughtless prejudice than other sorts of speech but mere correlation doesn't get you very far. There is going to be a correlation between "Do you accept Jesus Christ as your personal savior" and ignorant prejudice as well but this doesn't make the statement of evangelical beliefs hate speech.
A religious belief is a belief like any other and it's explicit rejection of evidence or proof doesn't means if anything it deserves less protection from criticism than our other beliefs not more. Of course we need to combat hate directed against the people who are muslim, christian or whatever. The fact that they believe something stupid doesn't warrant hating them, most of us believe some stupid shit. However, the way to do this isn't to treat phrases criticizing the belief differently than phrases criticizing conservatism. That just encourages people.
If you liked this thought maybe you would find my blog nice too:
I don't see what is so bad about "Fuck Islam". I mean, if I said "Fuck religion", would that be worse because it includes all religion? Should I outline and elaborate on the countless people who have been killed in the name of God to give you an idea why I hold this sentiment?
I mean, people act like forming an online community of people who dislike the beliefs of Islam is a crime against humanity. They are just as justified in harboring a dislike of people who believe in Islam as you are in disliking them for their dislike of people who believe in Islam.
At least I don't see any "Fuck Islam" online communities killing innocents and claiming credit for it. They have at least found a nonviolent way of expressing their opinions which is more than I can say for the other extreme.
Also see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QfG-FEQedyI&mode=related&search= and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Upbq9bwBxkA&eurl=
(Incoming -1)
Though I am a white person myself, if I were to see a group disparaging white people I would assume it would target self-absorbed suburbanites with their cookie-cutter consumer culture and fleet of SUVs.
Just as there are light colored people who participate in black inner-city youth culture, I'm sure there are dark colored people who participate in the bland suburbanite culture I describe. But I still associate it with white people.
I think what you describe as 'white privilege' might be better described as an inferiority complex on the part of people who use that term. Note that having an inferiority complex in no way implies any actual inferiority.
Need a Python, C++, Unix, Linux develop
Why is this guy throwing his weight around? Is he trying to spread his Islamic beliefs? That's the only possible explanation for his hyperactive opposition to my group. He has more influence than he merits. His site automatically censors the word fuck when you post it there, and he hasn't responded to any of my comments, even though I'm the one that made the group and I'm here with a white flag. Sorry if I hurt your feelings, Jeff, but my opposition to Islam doesn't really stop you from doing anything in your life. It just seems like you've made it a goal to stop me from saying "Fuck Islam", but you aren't really defending Islam are you? We both agree about the worth of Muslims, and we might even agree about the worth of their belief system. It seems like the only difference between us is I'm willing to say "Fuck", and you will do almost anything to stop that word from being uttered. What's so threatening about an atheist's point of view, may I ask? Why aren't you out there campaigning against the sites that say "Fuck Variable Variable" (facebook.com/group.php?gid=4042647661) , which actually qualify as hate speech. If you were I would ask you to let them be, since it really doesn't matter, and trying to keep people quiet just makes them louder.
What a delightful example of political correctness being at odds with freedom of speech. Of course, in America we have the constitutional right to express ourselves freely. Isn't it interesting that we don't have the "right" to not be offended?
I have the fever of a convert in supporting free speech, peoples rights to exercise it and COMPANIES who choose to support it. I think its high time that we as consumers and users punish firms that choose censorship over freedom of speech. If Facebooks chooses to censor groups--they're free to do so--but I hope any individual who loves free speech chooses to to stop using Facebook.
I think bayimg.com says it best in their FAQ: There is this myth about freedom of speech being a nice comfortable idea, well it's not. It's annoying, appalling and sometimes even dangerous. But the opposite is way worse.