Slashdot Mirror
Facebook's Uneven Enforcement of Hate Speech Rules Allows Vile Posts To Stay Up (propublica.org)
ProPublica has found inconsistent rulings on hate speech after analyzing more than 900 Facebook posts submitted to them as part of a crowd-sourced investigation into how the world's largest social network implements its hate-speech rules. "Based on this small fraction of Facebook posts, its content reviewers often make different calls on items with similar content, and don't always abide by the company's complex guidelines," reports ProPublica. "Even when they do follow the rules, racist or sexist language may survive scrutiny because it is not sufficiently derogatory or violent to meet Facebook's definition of hate speech." From the report: We asked Facebook to explain its decisions on a sample of 49 items, sent in by people who maintained that content reviewers had erred, mostly by leaving hate speech up, or in a few instances by deleting legitimate expression. In 22 cases, Facebook said its reviewers had made a mistake. In 19, it defended the rulings. In six cases, Facebook said the content did violate its rules but its reviewers had not actually judged it one way or the other because users had not flagged it correctly, or the author had deleted it. In the other two cases, it said it didn't have enough information to respond.
"We're sorry for the mistakes we have made -- they do not reflect the community we want to help build," Facebook Vice President Justin Osofsky said in a statement. "We must do better." He said Facebook will double the size of its safety and security team, which includes content reviewers and other employees, to 20,000 people in 2018, in an effort to enforce its rules better. He added that Facebook deletes about 66,000 posts reported as hate speech each week, but that not everything offensive qualifies as hate speech. "Our policies allow content that may be controversial and at times even distasteful, but it does not cross the line into hate speech," he said. "This may include criticism of public figures, religions, professions, and political ideologies."
"We're sorry for the mistakes we have made -- they do not reflect the community we want to help build," Facebook Vice President Justin Osofsky said in a statement. "We must do better." He said Facebook will double the size of its safety and security team, which includes content reviewers and other employees, to 20,000 people in 2018, in an effort to enforce its rules better. He added that Facebook deletes about 66,000 posts reported as hate speech each week, but that not everything offensive qualifies as hate speech. "Our policies allow content that may be controversial and at times even distasteful, but it does not cross the line into hate speech," he said. "This may include criticism of public figures, religions, professions, and political ideologies."
What would Donald Trump do?
Then don't do that.
I suggest putting it on a card.
have been directed toward conservatives or others who don't mindlessly toe the party line. Strangely, those all seem to stay up. If you want to talk about uneven enforcement, how about starting there?
Start where exactly? Do you have any examples or have you simple invented posts that do not exist in order to validate your own bias?
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
That unrestricted nature is exactly why Usenet isn't popular. The spam got really bad before it wasn't popular enough to spam any more. In fact, such things lead to the creation of the .moderated groups.
More over, if Facebook wants to make money it can't be 4chan. In fact, even 4chan can't have no rules at all, and even with bans on things like child porn and GamerGate they still can't make enough money to keep the site afloat.
There are places on Tor and Freenet where you can say anything. It's unreasonable to compare Facebook to them.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
It's amusing that you posted this head-in-the-sand gem a full 18 minutes after the AC post right above yours.
Raise your visibility threshold. ACs aren't worth looking at.
If you don't see the same and far worse on FB on a daily basis, you've achieved a purified echo chamber indeed.
Only fools bother with facebook in the first place or as Mr. Zuckerberg put it, "dumb fucks".
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
So you don't even participate in FB, have no basis to believe that what I'm saying is untrue
I have plenty of reasons to not believe you. However, if you put forth evidence of your claim then I will have reason to believe you.
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
So you would prefer that people can just post what they like and others deal with it... Except "left wing troll" stories that upset you.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
It will certainly be refreshing to finally see Trump strung up where he belongs.
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun