Slashdot Mirror
EFF Report Finds 74% Of Censorship News Stories Are About Facebook (onlinecensorship.org)
An anonymous reader writes:
OnlineCensorship.org just released a new report "to provide an objective, data-driven voice in the conversation around commercial content moderation." They're collecting media reports about censorship on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, YouTube, Flickr and Google+, and have now analyzed 294 reports of content takedowns -- 74% of which pertained to Facebook. (Followed by Instagram with 16% and Twitter with 7%.) 47% of all the takedowns were nudity-related, while the next two most frequent reasons given were "real name" violations and "inappropriate content".
Noting "a more visible public debate" over content moderation, the report acknowledges that 4.7 billion Facebook posts are made every day. (It also reports the "consistent refrain" from services apologizing for issues -- that "our team processes millions of reports each week...") But the most bizarre incident they've identified was the tech blogger in India who was locked out of his Facebook account in October because he shared a photo of a cat in a business suit. "It might sound stupid but this just happened to me," he told Mashable India, which reports Facebook later apologized and said it had made a mistake.
Their report -- part of the EFF's collaboration with Visualizing Impact -- urges platforms to clarify their guidelines (as well as applicable laws), to explain the mechanisms being used to evaluate content and appeals, and to share those criteria when notifying users of take-downs. For example, in August Facebook inexplicably removed a 16-century sketch by Erasmus of Rotterdam detailing a right hand.
Noting "a more visible public debate" over content moderation, the report acknowledges that 4.7 billion Facebook posts are made every day. (It also reports the "consistent refrain" from services apologizing for issues -- that "our team processes millions of reports each week...") But the most bizarre incident they've identified was the tech blogger in India who was locked out of his Facebook account in October because he shared a photo of a cat in a business suit. "It might sound stupid but this just happened to me," he told Mashable India, which reports Facebook later apologized and said it had made a mistake.
Their report -- part of the EFF's collaboration with Visualizing Impact -- urges platforms to clarify their guidelines (as well as applicable laws), to explain the mechanisms being used to evaluate content and appeals, and to share those criteria when notifying users of take-downs. For example, in August Facebook inexplicably removed a 16-century sketch by Erasmus of Rotterdam detailing a right hand.
'But the most bizarre incident they've identified was the tech blogger in India who was locked out of his Facebook account in October because he shared a photo of a cat in a business suit. "It might sound stupid but this just happened to me," he told Mashable India'
Yup, that sounds pretty stupid all right. Oh, wait, he's probably not referring to the photo he posted... Does he have another one of dogs playing poker?
#DeleteChrome
0.0.0.0 facebook.com
0.0.0.0 connect.facebook.net
0.0.0.0 www.facebook.com
I dont like Facebook and I stopped using it some years ago, BUT
considering that facebook has a huge number of users and is (almost) a monopoly between all the social network I would say that it's not doing that badly and the number feels low compared to what I was expecting.
Where's the missing 24%?
is like getting your news from a toilet wall.
I posted a picture of a pile of laundry several years ago. It featured a pair of pants with a pronounced bulge in the crotch. The next image in the series showed a duck popping up through the fly of the trousers. The first picture, after several years, was removed last week and that account received a 30 day post ban. I opened a new account to complain and posted the picture again, and again it was removed with a citation for nudity. Both accounts reported this to facebook to be an error, and Facebook replied to one account saying that the image did violate Facebook Community Standards and would not be returned. I've read all sorts of hypothesis that guess that this is the work of Facebook's search algorithms, that there are hyper conservative Catholic Philipine peasants sifting through Facebook for pennies a day censoring anything, that Anonymous Persons scour the site reporting every picture just to see what happens. No one seems to know, and honestly if Facebook were to say what they were doing they would not likely be considered a reliable source.
In social contexts most people don't like to trigger disagreements. People always believe what they want to believe, but the dynamics of Facebook just make it worse. Rather than computerized and automatic self-brainwashing through "personalization" of your search results, the better to keep your eyeballs from wandering away from the ads, Facebook ads the human power of (Facebook-debased) "friendship" to propagate the BS--but who can argue with making the "members" happier in their delusions?
Another way to view it is as a glut of information. In a technical context, none of us can read all of the new research being published in our own field of expertise. You could spend 24 hours a day and still fall behind. But if you flip the coin and prefer to believe the earth is flat, then the google is perfectly happy to stuff your eyeholes and earholes with that "evidence", 24/7 as long as you keep clicking on the ads.
News and truth should not be profit centers. Fake news and lies are much more profitable and will always crush them. The only limit on fake news is human imagination, and the only limit on lies is the gullibility of the suckers.
Welcome to TrumpWorld, eh?
Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
Well I didn't read about that on Facebook, and Mark Zuckerberg promised me he'd eliminate fake news - so if it's not on Facebook, it must not be real!
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
We live in scary times indeed.
A censor has 0.9 seconds to decide if your LOL-catz photo breaches Facebook's rules of nudity, violence, terrorism or anti-American language. It's not decided by election, it's an employee on a 10 hour shift dictating "yay" or "nay".
AHAHAHAHAH. Their motto, like Nokia, is "connecting people"; as long as those people aren't Facebook employees.
Facebook doesn't owe you anything and it delivers that promise 200%.
...most news stories about facial tissue are about Kleenex.
Howabout if we don't recentralize the internet, so we don't have problems like that?
So it can be reinstated when the censorship is overturned?
The whole POINT of the internet is to share cute cat photos. Clearly, Zuckerberg is doing it wrong!
http://gizmodo.com/why-cats-ru...
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
"I've read all sorts of hypothesis ... that there are hyper conservative Catholic Philipine peasants sifting through Facebook for pennies a day censoring anything"
Makes me laugh.
that somehow affects me personally or that I can have some influence over. If most people had this requirement, there would be no "news". As it is, it exists only for entertainment purposes
294 take downs is not a significant enough sample size to start making a report or pointing fingers at one outlet or another. Additionally, I doubt the EFF had access to this information directly which means it could just be easier in some fashion to pass along FB information.
I'm not saying FB does not account for the majority; I'm saying the data presented here provides negligible weight toward that conclusion and my respect for the EFF just dropped a notch. It is irresponsible for a credible and respected organization to public something like this without more to go on.
I don't see what the big deal is. If Facebook were to censor all of their content completely, it'd be fine with me.
1) Facebook is not, and never will be, a democracy.
2) Facebook does not, and never will, guarantee freedom of speech, expression, communication
- Facebook risks being blocked by "non-democratic" governments
- Facebook risks being sued or blocked by people, companies, and countries.
Unfortunately... Facebook has reached a point where...
Every-one uses Facebook because every-one they know uses it
Some people literally think FB is the internet. Even on non-FB pages, one may see a photo or link that, once clicked, takes one to a FB page of whatever it is you were looking at.
It's as if the 'ol digital calling card of any business or cause, (historically a .com page) is now a FB page. Almost hard to avoid for some!