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.
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.
"They," didn't take down Craigslist.
It's still around.
You're referring to a small part that Craigslist itself voluntarily took down.
It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
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.
That's because you're ignorant. Or forgetful.
EVERYONE is on Facebook.
Your dead relatives, five generations back, probably have a shadow profile that Facebook is using to finely tune all those ads from Russia they will show the people of your cultural background and heritage.
It's like the Mafia. It keeps track of everyone you're related to back in the old country.
So they could make you offers you can't refuse.
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
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.