Facebook's Secret Censorship Rules Protect White Men From Hate Speech But Not Black Children (propublica.org)

Sidney Fussell from Gizmodo summarizes a report from ProPublica, which brings to light dozens of training documents used by Facebook to train moderators on hate speech: As the trove of slides and quizzes reveals, Facebook uses a warped, one-sided reasoning to balance policing hate speech against users' freedom of expression on the platform. This is perhaps best summarized by the above image from one of its training slideshows, wherein Facebook instructs moderators to protect "White Men," but not "Female Drivers" or "Black Children." Facebook only blocks inflammatory remarks if they're used against members of a "protected class." But Facebook itself decides who makes up a protected class, with lots of clear opportunities for moderation to be applied arbitrarily at best and against minoritized people critiquing those in power (particularly white men) at worst -- as Facebook has been routinely accused of. According to the leaked documents, here are the group identifiers Facebook protects: Sex, Religious affiliation, National origin, Gender identity, Race, Ethnicity, Sexual Orientation, Serious disability or disease. And here are those Facebook won't protect: Social class, continental origin, appearance, age, occupation, political ideology, religions, countries. Subsets of groups -- female drivers, Jewish professors, gay liberals -- aren't protected either, as ProPublica explains: White men are considered a group because both traits are protected, while female drivers and black children, like radicalized Muslims, are subsets, because one of their characteristics is not protected.

Comments

Re:While the point could be valid

[malkavian]

Well, tell that to one of my white friends who escaped from Zimbabwe after her father was killed over the land they had. Her and her family escaped, but had a rather traumatic time getting out of the country (car jacked once, and her mother raped for being white).
Now that's racism.

Re: While the point could be valid

[guruevi]

Look again at society. If you want to see how disproportionately white men can be and are punished simply for being male and white, go to any court but especially family court.

Re:While the point could be valid

[hey!]

"Hate speech", at least in US law, isn't just speech that expresses hate; that's Constitutionally protected. Hate speech laws pertain to acts that are already criminal such as vandalism or criminal threats, and incitement of imminent violence.

In the US it absolutely is possible to commit a hate crime against white men. In fact SCOTUS in a landmark 1993 decision upheld the conviction of black teenagers who assaulted a white teenager under hate crime laws, holding that considering hatred as an aggravating (i.e., complicating) factor in a crime does not violate the First Amendment.

Now hate speech in particular usually takes the form of groupintimidation. Burning a cross on a lawn isn't just a personal message, it's for the entire group. Since white men are (in most situations) a large and (again in most situations) high status group, it *is* quite difficult to do the intimidating form of hate speech (although not necessarily other kinds like the harassing forms). However it is certainly a logical possibility.

Re:While the point could be valid

[cayenne8]

Now hate speech in particular usually takes the form of groupintimidation. Burning a cross on a lawn isn't just a personal message, it's for the entire group. Since white men are (in most situations) a large and (again in most situations) high status group, it *is* quite difficult to do the intimidating form of hate speech (although not necessarily other kinds like the harassing forms). However it is certainly a logical possibility.

That's pretty twisted, and is a slippery slope start.

I mean, that could be used if someone wanted to create an art exhibition of burning crosses, nooses, etc......it is imagery, but with this logic, someone could say it was "hate speech" even if none were intended, because someone claimed it intimidated them or hurt their feelings.

There should be no such thing as hate speech or hate laws......

The things they are added to are already illegal.

It is already illegal to threaten someone.

It is already illegal to assault, or kill someone.

Especially the murder one...I mean, the person is dead....what makes it worse if it was due to race? Someone kills a white guy.....dead.

It is worse if they killed the white guy for his money, or if they killed him for his race?

Dead is dead....so, no, there should not be "hate crimes". The crime is already against the law.

Don't worry, it's a temp policy

[s.petry]

As TFA states these are arbitrary policies that change all the time. People started complaining about the open discrimination and hatred for white males, and Facebook could not say "nuh uh" with the prevalence of posts doing exactly that. So for a while (read: until the coast is clear) they will address those issues.

Pretty much how all authoritarian systems work, and history is chalk full of examples. Some are quite famous, but of course "it couldn't happen to me..".

Re:Who'd a Thunk?

[lucm]

Try putting a black sounding name on a resume and see how much prestige it gains

Actually you would get hired. That's one of the most sought after demographics, especially in Silicon Valley.

Re:Who'd a Thunk?

[smallfries]

Its much easier than that as their rules are logically inconsistent. I am not allowed to say "Women are shit", as it is a protected class. But both "women drivers are shit" and "women non-drivers are shit" are allowed as aubsets are not protected. So "Woman (both those that drive and those that don't) are shit" should get in, and "All Americans (apart from my mate Bob) are cunts" should pass their filter just fine.