Slashdot Mirror
Leaked Documents Show Facebook's 'Threshold' For Deleting Pages, Groups (vice.com)
Facebook has repeatedly referenced to lawmakers a "threshold" that must be reached before the platform decides to ban a particular page for violating the site's policies, but it hasn't discussed its guidelines publicly. Motherboard has obtained internal Facebook documents laying out what this threshold is for multiple types of different content, including some instances of hate speech. From the report: One Facebook moderator training document for hate speech says that for Pages -- Facebook's feature for sections dedicated to, say, a band, organization, public figure, or business -- the Page admin has to receive 5 "strikes" within 90 days for the Page itself to be deleted. Alternatively, Facebook moderators are told to remove a Page if at least 30 percent of the content posted by other people within 90 days violates Facebook's community standards. A similar 30 percent-or-over policy exists for Facebook Groups, according to the document.
In a similar vein, another hate speech document says that a profile should be taken down if there are 5 or more pieces of content from the user which indicate hate propaganda, photos of the user present with another identifiable leader, or other related violations. Although the documents obtained by Motherboard were created recently, Facebook's policies change regularly, so whether these exact parameters remain in force is unclear. Of course this still depends on moderators identifying and labeling posts as violating to reach that threshold. [...] Another document focused on sexual content says moderators should unpublish Pages and Groups under the basis of sexual solicitation if there are over 2 "elements," such as the Page description, title, photo, or pinned post, that include either explicit solicitation of nude imagery, or, if the page is more subtle, includes either a method of contact or a location. This slide again reiterates the over 30 percent and 5 admin posts rules found in the hate speech document.
In a similar vein, another hate speech document says that a profile should be taken down if there are 5 or more pieces of content from the user which indicate hate propaganda, photos of the user present with another identifiable leader, or other related violations. Although the documents obtained by Motherboard were created recently, Facebook's policies change regularly, so whether these exact parameters remain in force is unclear. Of course this still depends on moderators identifying and labeling posts as violating to reach that threshold. [...] Another document focused on sexual content says moderators should unpublish Pages and Groups under the basis of sexual solicitation if there are over 2 "elements," such as the Page description, title, photo, or pinned post, that include either explicit solicitation of nude imagery, or, if the page is more subtle, includes either a method of contact or a location. This slide again reiterates the over 30 percent and 5 admin posts rules found in the hate speech document.
If they can take down Craigslist if they did not remove prostitution then they should be able to shut you down if you allow others to post anything illegal including slander.
Hey everybody! Send me nudes!
[*opens email...closes email*]
Wait. Upon further reflection, it would be best if you didn't send me nudes.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Just write a bulletin board or blog script such that every time a person makes a post, 2.4 random posts worth of random nonsense is deposited somewhere out of the way. That way you'll always be under 30% objectionable content. You can be the 29% Racist Squad!
Individuals blocked only after all personal data and proclivities are archived and shared with every business partner and minimally interested organization/agency/corporate enterprise anywhere in the world. Group and commercial, only after data related to all followers and subscribers are scanned and archived and made accessible to every paying org/agency.
So... how long before some malicious cyber advocate decides to go after certain pages to try to game and use this to try and get content off of Face Book? With this info known, I just wonder if that's a possibility. Thoughts?
>"5 or more pieces of content from the user which indicate hate propaganda,[...] Of course this still depends on moderators identifying and labeling posts as violating to reach that threshold."
And the moderators' understanding and definition of "hate propaganda".
Once upon a time the the internet was distributed. Nobody owns email, "The Web", Usenet.
But then something went wrong, and now Facebook owns almost all user content. There is no need for that. It should be possible for people to put up content on many different sites and still interoperate.
What is needed is a good Open Social Media protocol. So the content is separate from the aggregation. Needs a bit of open user ids as well.
It should not be up to any company's corporate policy to determine what may and may not be said on the web.
If Goggle had done that, they might have been in a position to take on Facebook.
The Connecticut attorney general, joined by attorneys general of 39 other states, was attempting to press charges against Craigslist, and subpoenaed their records. Craigslist "voluntarily" took the section down in exchange for not having to fight charges in 40 states.
The cool kids have moved on. Facebook was OK when only Ivy Leaguers could get an account but now its mostly Grandmas posting pics of grandchildren. I am amazed by the amount of press given to it.
**Life is too short to be serious**
this violates all known laws
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2018/07/18/putins-modest-proposal-on-interrogating-u-s-officials-explained/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.114c6d261cba
Take a look at the recent waltz. 1) Putin claims Bill Browder stole $1.5 billion from Russia. Bill Browder = the fund manager who pushed for the Magnitsky act, named after the Russian anti-corruption lawyer Putin had killed. Russia demands to interview US State and Government officials.
“Russian authorities yesterday named several Americans who they want to question, who they claim were involved in Bill Browder’s quote-unquote ‘crimes’ in their terms, including former ambassador to Russia Michael McFaul,” the New York Times’s Maggie Haberman said. “Does President Trump support that idea? Is he open to having U.S. officials questioned by Russia?”
2) Sarah Huckerbee Sanders then says that Trump may give Russian investigators permission to question Diplomats and US Citizens to investigate their claims. But has not yet promised anything.
3) Putin claims the stolen money was used to give $400 million to Clinton to fund her campaign. ($400 million chosen to resonate with the Fox News crowd).
One step, two step, three step.
It's an overture, an opening to a dance. Do Republican candidates and Fox News want to coordinate their campaigns with Russia? If so, Putin 'investigators' will make lots of false allegations, in exchange for the Magnitsky being lifted. That's the offer being made there, an offer to dance.
This is not their first dance. Recall that Bush team spread a rumour that Chelsea's Clinton's wedding was paid for by the Clinton Foundation, and Clinton campaign manager quoted that rumour in an email, an email then hacked by Russia and laundered through Wikileaks, then quoted out of context on Fox. Notice the dance?
Or the recent indictment shows a Congressman (as yet unindicted) asked Guccifer 2.0 for dirt on his opponent and received a copy of his opponents emails. This was after Guccifer 2.0 was named as Russian intelligence.
Propaganda works because its subtle and delivered with a fake smile and plastic boops on Fox and Friends, your dose of morning treason.
A TV researcher went undercover in the company to which FB outsources the deletions in Dublin and this is the result;
https://www.channel4.com/progr...
Their media ownership system does not work properly, it can be hacked with false ownership and normally kicks users off on the basis of US ownership, EVEN IF YOU HAVE THE ORIGINAL CREATOR / OWNERS PERMISSION IN THEIR OWN COUNTRY. The system's easy to fool too.
The purpose of existence is to make money.
Oh, you mean anything that the JEW doesn't want you to hear! Like the fact that white people don't want mass immigration (why would we?). If we wanted to live as a white minority we would move to Brazil. Why aren't we? Why aren't millions of white people moving to Africa, India and China every year? Maybe because we want to live around our own kind?
Why do Facebook want millions of non-whites to move to white countries every year? 'To get a better life'. So that means that they can only 'get a better life' by living around a certain number of white people, per capita of non-whites, right? Facebook aren't saying that one white person must move to Africa each year, to magically 'make their lives better', so there must be a certain (presumably high) ratio of whites to non-whites, in order for the poor non-whites to magically 'get a better life'.
But wait a minute - soon THERE WON'T BE ENOUGH WHITE PEOPLE TO GO AROUND, will there... When whites become a minority in the USA, there won't be enough of them to give the poor, hard done by non-whites 'a better life', and STILL white people will be blamed for the non-whites' failure to improve their lot.
It's almost as if somebody is trying to genocide white people, isn't it...
Access to white people is not a human right.
I probably have over 100 facebook accounts as they try to keep up with my different emails and personalities.
Between my real name, stripper names, rapper names, and all the different fan groups around those (stripper me is VERY popular), FB must be having fun.
This isn't a problem that can be fixed.
"When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro" -- HST
I that 'hate propaganda' ?
What about 'I hate broccoli, don't get any'
What about 'cut the head off the broccoli' ...... 'I hate the stalk'
They removed the Adult Services section after negotiations will attorneys general.
Later, Congress passed FOSTA, making web sites criminally liable if prostitutes post an ad. Under that threat of criminal liability, Craigslist took down the personals section, because some escorts had posted ads under Personals.
This is very disturbing given that currently anyone, usually left leaning, labels opposing viewpoints as hate speech.
Lovely.
Hello Orwellianism, but phukk you.
Thank you. I enjoyed talking to you.
I had actually forgotten about the most recent developments until you reminded me.
Now if only we could get moderators to actually flag blatant hate speech that is reported to them. It's like they're paid by the post and just click "doesn't violate community standards" for every post instead of reading any of them. Or maybe they've just given up after seeing massive rates of false/inaccurate reporting. Or perhaps Facebook itself urges extreme caution since people who feel that they've been censored often make a massive deal out of it and spread lies, particularly lies about why they were censored (ex: "I just said that I support Trump!" instead of "I just said that I hope Trump bombs everyone of *insert race or religion here*!").