Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

EFF Report Finds 74% Of Censorship News Stories Are About Facebook (onlinecensorship.org)

Posted by EditorDavid on from the forbidden-photos dept.

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.

39 of 75 comments (clear)

  1. Yes it does by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 1

    '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
    1. Re:Yes it does by Rei · · Score: 2

      Certainly not as stupid as if, say, the guy had run a news aggregator and intended to post a link to information about Erasmus of Rotterdam, but instead just put "ErasmusofRotterdam" inside the HREF, as if browsers would magically know what they meant.

      --
      Wingus, Dingus! Listen up!
    2. Re:Yes it does by gnick · · Score: 2

      ...because he shared a photo of a cat in a business suit.

      They neglected to mention that the photo was tagged, "pussy @ work."

      --
      He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
  2. Getting your news from Facebook by gijoel · · Score: 5, Funny

    is like getting your news from a toilet wall.

    1. Re:Getting your news from Facebook by geekmux · · Score: 3, Insightful

      is like getting your news from a toilet wall.

      ...which tends to say far more about the audience consuming crap as fact.

    2. Re:Getting your news from Facebook by Lisandro · · Score: 1

      This. I don't think what's more scary - the fact that people actually rely on Facebook to get news or that they cannot tell the difference between real ones and crap.

    3. Re:Getting your news from Facebook by Bigbutt · · Score: 2

      Worse are the folks who use Facebook for "headline news + summary" and don't even read the articles or follow up to fact check, just forward it. It's worse than back in the 90's when all my relatives would forward these chain emails with "coke will dissolve a steak over night!!!11!!1!!" spam. I'd send them to Snopes but eventually they'd just stop sending me the crap. Can't do that now because Snopes, factcheck.org, and other such sites are Liberal Shills (tm).

      [John]

      --
      Shit better not happen!
    4. Re:Getting your news from Facebook by Bigbutt · · Score: 1

      If every news organization publishes fake news, how do you make sure you're getting accurate unbiased news?

      [John]

      --
      Shit better not happen!
    5. Re:Getting your news from Facebook by Bigbutt · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure how helpful this is. I subscribe to and read several news sites to try and get information from different angles. When I find these sites all provide similar information, I see no reason not to believe them. But if all news sites are liberally biased then what?

      [John]

      --
      Shit better not happen!
    6. Re:Getting your news from Facebook by butchersong · · Score: 1

      People get their news from their peers. If their peers are sharing stories on Facebook I don't see why that would not be valid. It isn't so much the medium by which people are communicating as the original source material and I don't see how you can avoid that as a problem without further alienating people from main stream media by attempting some sort of truthiness meter.

      The ideal is a kind of universal commons where news and information is exchanged in near real-time. At least, that is what I always thought we were striving to evolve to. There will always be noise in such an environment but it seems to me that berating people for getting news from Facebook (from their friends) is like complaining about the structure of the internet in general.

    7. Re:Getting your news from Facebook by Rozzin · · Score: 1

      is like getting your news from a toilet wall.

      Of course--in Facebook's own jargon, people communicate by posting things to "the wall".

      --
      -rozzin.
  3. Who is doing the censoring? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    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.

  4. Self-brainwashing versus censorship? by shanen · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
    1. Re:Self-brainwashing versus censorship? by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 5, Informative

      Fake news? Which self-brainwashing news outlets have you been listening to? The ones that tell you not to listen to the other ones? LOL. Let that sink in for a moment.

      You know that actor that got up and lectured Pence? He's a misogynist. Right there in his own words: calling women "ho's". He has also made very rapey comments about taking advantage of drunk women. Where have you been getting your news? If your news hasn't been mentioning these very pertinent FACTS, then you might be listening to fake news. And if your fake news has been telling you to listen to them exclusively and not listen to alternatives, then you've really got a problem with self-brainwashing.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    2. Re:Self-brainwashing versus censorship? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Maybe he did. But he didn't lecture Pence about misogyny or rape, so why do you think that's relevant? Or is this just an ad hominem in the long line of ad hominem attacks we've come to expect from Trump and his ilk? What he said to Pence was valid, despite anything else he may or may not have done in the past. For all anyone knows, he's repented and mended his ways. Half this country won't be holding its breath waiting for Trump to mend his ways.

      If little Mikey Pencigrew and his silver hand can't stand the heat, they shouldn't go in the kitchen.

    3. Re:Self-brainwashing versus censorship? by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1

      Hello? This sort of thing completely invalidates your argument. It's like when you find out the church lady that calls for morality actually commits immoral acts herself. It wipes out anything she ever said. This view is long-standing and predates the current election. Misogyny and rapey behavior results in public shunning and unemployability. It's like accepting a kiss from the Grand Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan: "Can't shake the devil's hand and say you were only kidding."

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    4. Re:Self-brainwashing versus censorship? by Lisandro · · Score: 2

      Hey. It was just locker room talk.

    5. Re:Self-brainwashing versus censorship? by Dan+East · · Score: 1

      But he didn't lecture Pence about misogyny or rape

      Sure he did. He told Pence to "protect us" and "uphold our unalienable rights." Referring to women as sex objects is in contrast to both of those things.

      --
      Better known as 318230.
    6. Re:Self-brainwashing versus censorship? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      Hello? This sort of thing completely invalidates your argument.

      Incorrect! It invalidates your credibility, but often does nothing for your argument.

      Arguments exist, and they do not necessarily depend on the character of the person involved.

      The nuanced and considered mind is the one that can appreciate the difference, and when it is meaningful, and when not.

      It's like when you find out the church lady that calls for morality actually commits immoral acts herself. It wipes out anything she ever said.

      Wow, better hope she never told anybody to wash their hands before eating, flush the toilet, or not leave a fire unattended.

      Because now, your own words, condemn that. Because after all, anything she ever said is now wiped out.

      This view is long-standing and predates the current election.

      And the response to it is also long-standing, and can be found in works of great antiquity.

      At least come up with new material, DNS-and-BIND, you lost this argument against Plato.

      Misogyny and rapey behavior results in public shunning and unemployability.

      Factually incorrect. It often results in being lauded and cheered by the groups that consider such things to be commendable.

      See even the President-elect himself.

      It's like accepting a kiss from the Grand Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan: "Can't shake the devil's hand and say you were only kidding."

      Actually, in this world, you can reject and repent of the seductions of the Devil, and come to your senses.

      There's a Twilight Zone episode about that.

      Of course, the real problem is the ones who don't, but again, this takes nuance and thoughtfulness.

    7. Re:Self-brainwashing versus censorship? by shaitand · · Score: 2

      You know I read the first line of your post and wished I had mod points. If you'd stopped there is would have been an very insightful post.

      Unfortunately, you continued. If what the man said was correct about Pence, it was correct, it would be correct regardless of who spoke the words. In the same token, if the information contained in wikileaks regarding Hillary Clinton and the Democrats was correct, it was correct regardless of who provided the data. Whether someone is trying to make you ignore the message of an Actor because of his personal flaws or disregard damning information about a political candidate because they allege the source is Russia; they are trying to present a logical fallacy. If someone says the Redskins crushed the packers last night, the statement remains true or false regardless of my bias the degree of "crushing" is impacted by bias but it is a personal judement and those should always be disregarded regardless of the source since there is no common scale and they provide useful information to the person who made them.

    8. Re:Self-brainwashing versus censorship? by shaitand · · Score: 1

      Even if he had it wouldn't be relevant. Either the content of that lecture had merit or it did not, that is independent of who spoke the words.

    9. Re:Self-brainwashing versus censorship? by Bigbutt · · Score: 1

      Sorry, you're misunderstanding. I read 5 main stream "papers" somewhat regularly (WashPost, NYTimes, DenverPost, BBC World News, LATimes) and pop in to NPR, Politico, and CNN now and then. I occasionally pop into other sites through redirection. I don't listen to talk radio at all or watch TV (or listen to the radio at all actually).

      These all appear to be Main Steam Media and are biased (as everything is of course which is why I do follow the different sites listed).

      I'm not adverse to checking out other sites for news but if MSM isn't the right place to catch the news, what is? What sites do you read or follow?

      [John]

      --
      Shit better not happen!
    10. Re:Self-brainwashing versus censorship? by shaitand · · Score: 1

      Mod parent UP. This, this to the power of 200x. Stop identifying with left and right, D and R, and for god sake lean that skepticism should be your default stance to EVERYTHING from EVERY source be the devils advocate then be that devils advocate. Actually contrast sources with different bias to extract the facts they agree on and catch details each side omitted so they could lie to you with selective truths in constructed delivery. Where possible check the most critical sources yourself to catch yet more details. Be skeptical of everyone, every group, whatever they have in common is a bias and all bias is bad in that it skews perspective even unintentionally. Start with the assumption that to one degree or another, consciously or unconsciously if there is a way someone benefits if you believe them it is most likely their motive.

      After you are done assessing data, by all means, drop the skepticism and preferring to live in a world where everyone isn't out to serve themselves (which has many of the same results as everyone being out to get you, because they all have a common interest in that their interests differ from yours to some degree).

    11. Re:Self-brainwashing versus censorship? by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 2

      Whaa? Personal character does indeed count. Thomas Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence! And yet, his name is trash today, all his accomplishments void, because he owned slaves. It's not a logical fallacy, it's being taught in legitimate, serious universities. It's so ingrained that I wonder just how you even came up with this idea that it doesn't count. If the Wikileaks came from Russian intelligence agencies then they should be disregarded as they were trying to rig our election (and in fact did so successfully!) It's a big shit sandwich.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    12. Re:Self-brainwashing versus censorship? by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 2

      Well, there isn't any such thing as unbiased news. There's just news that wears its bias on its sleeve. I just today started watching Alex Jones and Infowars. I always thought he was a crank weirdo, but if they're trying to ban him, then WTF? Obviously he is saying something they want to suppress, something harmful to globalism. I've got to find out for myself what the big deal is.

      I've just scratched the surface but Elites Panic As Trump Begins To Deliver was an eye-opener. Big megabanks are tax-exempt? I had no idea. Hearing him tell big city liberals "What anti-human nasties, you really are." 100% true. But the kicker, what you'll never hear anyone in the liberal media say: "Find out yourself, and learn what they're doing to you and your family!" DAMN that's some powerful stuff.

      It's an exciting new world. Watch that one video I linked above and see what it does for you. IF - and this is a big IF - Trump makes sustainable improvements to the inner cities, the Democratic Party is dead.ï Good luck in your quest for truth, and always remember if the MSM tells you not to listen to someone, then always do the exact opposite!

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    13. Re:Self-brainwashing versus censorship? by shaitand · · Score: 1

      I should not post before coffee. In English this time.

      Mod parent UP to the power of 200. Stop identifying with left, right, D, and R. Skepticism should be your default stance to EVERYTHING from EVERY source. Be the devils advocate then be the other devils advocate and not just coldly be a method actor in all cases. Actually contrast sources with different bias to extract the facts they agree on. Catch details each side omitted so they could lie to you with selective truths in constructed delivery. Where possible check the most critical sources yourself in order to catch yet more details. Be skeptical of everyone. Whatever every group has in common is a bias and all bias is bad in that it skews perspective even if unintentionally. Start with the assumption that to one degree or another, consciously or unconsciously, if there is a way someone benefits should you believe them, getting you to do so is most likely their motive. Do not assume anyone is innocent of anything they would have gained from and thought they could get away with. Do not assume coincidences are coincidences.

      After you are done assessing data, by all means, drop the skepticism if you prefer to live in a world where everyone isn't out to serve themselves. Which has many of the same results as everyone being out to get you, because they all have a common interest in that their interests differ from yours to some degree.

    14. Re:Self-brainwashing versus censorship? by shaitand · · Score: 1

      I hope you are kidding. If not, let's test it.

      I say 2+2=4. I say water is wet. I say air is important. I say you can't generally breath soup in my experience. I say hammers can be a useful tool around the house. You know absolutely nothing about me. Which of those is true? Which is false? Record your answers. Now, I say I'm a grand wizard of the klan. Which of those is true? Which of those is false? Now, I say I'm a liar. Which of those is true, which of those is false? Record your answers. If you recorded false at any point I welcome you to prove that something about me impacted the veracity of my messages by testing them to see if they are indeed false. Work out a new math in which 2+2 isn't true, start using the shower to dry off, stop breathing, start breathing soup as your primary source of air, ban the use of hammers from your home. Record the results.

      What about things that can't be reasonably verified? Do what suits you. But when resurrected Hitler tells me I shouldn't put Jewish babies in toxic gas chambers because it will harm them I'm going to form my OPINION based on things I can verify, like that toxic gas is generally toxic, if it is true. You go ahead and form your judgement based on him being Hitler and a Nazi. Or if he claims the opposite and says it is good for Jewish babies and a bystander who has never tossed a baby into a single toxic gas chamber says it would hurt them, go ahead and listen to Hitler, he is the one with all the experience, right? I'll use the same method and reach the same conclusion.

    15. Re:Self-brainwashing versus censorship? by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      Maybe, but who wants to be associated with someone who engages in locker room talk? It's just poor taste. If it's family you have to deal with it and apologize to people later ("he was hit on the head as a child"). If it's a friend then he stops being a friend and stops getting invited to gatherings. If it's someone running for president then...?

      Personally I don't think he did it. I think he was bragging because he's so full of himself and was engaging in "I'm a huuuuge star now!" banter. But it's still locker room talk and that should be unacceptable in a national leader (especially for a party so devoted to family values).

      I can see someone holding their nose and voting for Trump. But I can't see anyone actually liking him.

    16. Re:Self-brainwashing versus censorship? by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      Anyone who says watch that video, or read that link I posted, and think it will change anything is probably the sort of person easily swayed by fake news anyway. No single link or video can prove anything, you need cross references, fact checks, and so on. Those sorts of sites basically rely upon confirmation bias - they say what some people want to hear.

    17. Re:Self-brainwashing versus censorship? by shanen · · Score: 1

      Not sure if I'm supposed to thank you for the request for favorable mods because I'm not sure which post you were referring to. The long thread still bears my Subject: line, but mostly it has diverged widely from the two points I was attempting to make (and I also had a typo of "Facebook ads" for "Facebook adds"). The OP did wind up with a favorable mod (as of now), for what little that is worth on today's Slashdot.

      Mostly I have little to contribute to the discussion as it diverged. As usual, most of the noisiest participants were apparently trolls attempting to prevent any serious consideration of any of the real issues.

      The most important issue I was trying to focus on was deliberately manufactured fake news, with emphasis on the motivations for creating it. I guess that should have led to some mention of the Macedonians and their gullible targets, but from looking over the discussion here, it seems like that topic would have to start with square one, and I don't want to spend the time this morning...

      Anyway, I definitely agree with you [shaitand] that objective truths do exist, but they are pretty much irrelevant in today's politics as practiced in America. Perhaps you were also the contributor who focused on the reality that each person, even a supposedly objective news reporter, has viewpoints and personal perspectives on every issue. Again I agree, but we've reached the point where attempting to be honest about your starting point is already a disqualification to say anything that might offend people with differing perspectives--no matter how false they are.

      Votes (and polls) are a different kind of thing. Public opinion is a fact of sorts, but it is a mutable thing that can be manipulated for fun and profit. Some of the trolls might be in it for fun or personal conviction (especially the religious ones), but I'm increasingly convinced the serious long-term ranters must have a business model. Like the Macedonians or the guy with the pineapple pen.

      --
      Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
  5. Censorship on Facebook? by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 4, Funny

    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!
  6. So, yes. People do get their news from Facebook. by Lisandro · · Score: 2

    We live in scary times indeed.

  7. Get real by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    ... the mechanisms being used to evaluate content

    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".

    ... and appeals ...

    AHAHAHAHAH. Their motto, like Nokia, is "connecting people"; as long as those people aren't Facebook employees.

    ... share those criteria ...

    Facebook doesn't owe you anything and it delivers that promise 200%.

  8. In Other News... by cmseagle · · Score: 3, Funny

    ...most news stories about facial tissue are about Kleenex.

  9. Catz! by Geoffrey.landis · · Score: 1

    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
  10. Funny guess by Futurepower(R) · · Score: 1

    "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.

  11. I only read news by thinkwaitfast · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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

  12. EFF shame on you by shaitand · · Score: 2

    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.

  13. Facebook is not a democracy... accept it, or leave by squash_me_quickly · · Score: 1

    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