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.

Comments

Getting your news from Facebook

[gijoel]

is like getting your news from a toilet wall.

Re:Getting your news from Facebook

[geekmux]

is like getting your news from a toilet wall.

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

Self-brainwashing versus censorship?

[shanen]

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?

Re:Self-brainwashing versus censorship?

[DNS-and-BIND]

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.

Re:Self-brainwashing versus censorship?

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Censorship on Facebook?

[LynnwoodRooster]

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!

In Other News...

[cmseagle]

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

I only read news

[thinkwaitfast]

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