Slashdot Mirror
86 Organizations Demand Zuckerberg To Improve Takedown Appeals (vice.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Motherboard: An open letter to Mark Zuckerberg signed by 86 organizations and published on Tuesday implores Facebook to provide a clear, fast mechanism that allows users to appeal instances of content takedowns and account deactivations. The letter which was spearheaded by the Electronic Frontier Foundation, Article 19, Ranking Digital Rights, and the Center for Democratic Technology (CDT) -- expanded upon the Santa Clara Principles published earlier this year, which called for all social media platforms to improve its transparency and responsiveness to flagged posts and appeals for removed content.
In April of this year, Facebook launched appeals for posts that are removed on grounds nudity, hate speech, or graphic violence. The press release claims that one of Facebook's human content reviewers will review all appeals within 24 hours, and notify users if their appeal has been approved or denied. The open letter to Mark Zuckerberg also requests that all content takedown and deactivation appeals are reviewed by a human moderator, which Facebook claims that it already does. EFF Director of International Freedom of Expression, Jillian York, believes the undercurrent of content moderation on social media is the censorship or restriction of speech towards marginalized groups.
"There are accounts, [and] there is content that is taken down frequently from social media, and we don't hear those stories as much because they're often overshadowed by the pushes for hate speech to come down," York said. "I respect the people doing that work, I think it's really important. But really, the thing about appeals is they work in every case. So if someone breaks the rules for hate speech and they appeal, they're not gonna get their account restored. But if someone who should not have had their account taken down in the first place, appeals are the right solution to that."
In April of this year, Facebook launched appeals for posts that are removed on grounds nudity, hate speech, or graphic violence. The press release claims that one of Facebook's human content reviewers will review all appeals within 24 hours, and notify users if their appeal has been approved or denied. The open letter to Mark Zuckerberg also requests that all content takedown and deactivation appeals are reviewed by a human moderator, which Facebook claims that it already does. EFF Director of International Freedom of Expression, Jillian York, believes the undercurrent of content moderation on social media is the censorship or restriction of speech towards marginalized groups.
"There are accounts, [and] there is content that is taken down frequently from social media, and we don't hear those stories as much because they're often overshadowed by the pushes for hate speech to come down," York said. "I respect the people doing that work, I think it's really important. But really, the thing about appeals is they work in every case. So if someone breaks the rules for hate speech and they appeal, they're not gonna get their account restored. But if someone who should not have had their account taken down in the first place, appeals are the right solution to that."
How people get offended by offense
Cuck the zuck!
do these companies like FB or YT even get in this business of censorship in the first place?
They're under no obligation to remove content that is offensive to someone, so why do they do it? As much as I don't like it, Nazi speech is not only **legal** in the US, it's **constitutionally protected**. There must be something in it for them, hence a quid-pro-quo somewhere.
Who is playing ball with them?
HATE SPEECH. And vulgar, and perhaps libelous. It should be taken down immediately.
In the past 2 years, I've had my account deactivated for a month THREE FUCKING TIMES just because a local colonialist newspaper did not like me calling off it’s condescending colonialist bullshit.
Id flip them the middle finger if i was him. ( and i am not fond of him to be honest, but still this is stupid )
Hate speech is a legal term with two functions, depending on jurisdiction.
First is to make the punishment fit the crime. The law regards motivation as a factor in determining severity, and being motivated by racism or misandry etc merits harsher punishment. Thus the is a need to define the kind of speech that would convince a sentencing judge of that motivation.
Second is to recognise that some speech can do people real harm. The law seeks to address harm but must first recognise it.
It's a highly imperfect tool but if you want to get rid of it then it helps to understand why it exists.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
What they should do is kind of set aside the offensive post for a period of time for everyoneâ(TM)s benefit, send an alert to the poster, and then after expiration, re-alert the poster and allow them to repost. If the poster doesnâ(TM)t respond then just leave the post unpublished or whatever
The word 'to' should not be there.
... of communication have that capability at all?
Google and Facebook are so important for expressing themselves that it should be a right to participate and as for the speech a court could decide that. Then again I don't think we should have the hate speech laws whatsoever.
"It's a private owned product we do what we want!" shouldn't necessarily be valid when you kinda have a monopoly on communication.
Then again since Germany, France and the EU want the destruction of all Europeans (possibly GB too) they put demands on the companies in the opposite direction,
You don't have much freedom of speech of you have no place to actually express yourself. You definitely doesn't have freedom of speech to the same degree / power as others. Then again I know in the US supposedly it's fine that you lose your freedom & rights once you actually has been sentenced as a criminal.
I don't think they should lock down accounts. I also assume they keep the data and still use and benefit from it themselves? Or do they eventually remove it and then it's gone?
By now my Facebook account is close to 20 years old and the post and images and wall and so on contain a large part of my life and it's fucking terrible with any single thread or post they remove because they alter history, stories and messages by doing so but I think at most they should remove single breaking posts (preferably just the part/sentence breaking their rules) and possibly silence serial offenders. I don't really think they should hide all content but even if they did that they could let the owner still be able to login and see it as it was up until then.
I lost my cat at just about the same time I lost the account and because of that I both lost the capability to tell those who know me I had lost her but also the capability to look at my images and see my posts about her and get the reminders about posts from x years ago which was about her. Those were posts of love not hate.
First is to make the punishment fit the crime. ...
No, it's not. The crime is the crime and the punishment should be proportionate. Cutting off someone's hand for theft, killing someone who insulted you, or wiping out an entire family line because they killed a member of your clan are examples if disproportionate punishment.
Adding extra punishment for what the person was thinking when he did it is punishing thought, not the crime. Up until now it's gone all one way but cultures can swing abruptly - do you really want to live in a culture that legitimizes thought-punishment? You can't imagine it could ever happen to YOUR culture but neither could Russia, Germany or China.
What crime is not based in hate?
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
If there's Nazis shut them DOWN NOW
Theft, fraud, speeding, manslaughter, negligence... Most crimes either are unrelated to or can be motivated by things other than hate.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
For example, the difference between manslaughter and murder is intent and planning. The thoughts the person had are a factor in determining which crime was committed, and evidence such as acquiring a weapon in advance is used to infer them.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
I love the EFF but this is just wrong. EFF is about freedom to me and these constant takedown measures against the web, even something as shitty as Facebook, are ripping apart the main appeal of the web. Each grab for more control destroys the beauty, even if it is done in the guise of "good purposes"
The law is an ass! Censorship is evil and fascist. Speech cannot compel involuntary action. It cannot "incite" anything. A choice to act is a personal choice, and you cannot claim the devil(words) made you do it. How do I know that? Because the guy standing next to you isn't rioting... He chose not to be violent. If he can, you can, too! Free will is a thing, for human beings. If you can't control yourself, you're an animal, and should be isolated from genpop.
I am advocating the development of technology that will make censorship impossible so we don't have to hear fascists tell us what we can see and hear. We need to end the the stupid argument and leave the tyrants in our dust.
So, greed and jealousy instead - both of which spring from hate? Or is hate extremely narrowly defined now to be effectively politically correct thought crime?
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
LOL
ZIP
The logical conclusion of speech suppression is fascism and tyranny. You must protect yourself from those who speak foolishly by using your voice to speak back. The gloves hand over ones mouth is the one the sufficates.
I only stick with Facebook to keep in touch with friends worldwide, and family who don't know better.
...
did not like me calling off itâ(TM)s condescending colonialist bullshit
So if you only stick with Facebook to keep in touch with friends, then why ware you making comments on a local newspaper's page?
One ban could happen, and maybe you can call it an anomaly. But three (fucking) times? It sounds to me like there's some rich vein of learning experiences that you're leaving untapped here.
But maybe this is an anomaly. Let's see here, let's take a look at your slashdot posting history....
Only jews would have the balls arrogance to pull such a stunt.
-slashdot user Pig Hogger, 2018-04-21
Oh.
Yeah, no, I don't think that keeping in touch with friends is the thing you're doing with Facebook. Just a hunch.
Greed springs from hate?
Hatecrime is defined as hatred of protected classes.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Hate speech is a legal term with two functions, depending on jurisdiction.
Just to be clear, there is no "hate speech" under the 1st amendment. In before: Blah blah, "private companies", blah blah, "Europe".
Second is to recognise that some speech can do people real harm.
Sticking with the 1st amendment, speech is not recognized as harmful unless imminent lawless action is involved.
"Hate speech", as used by censorious authoritarians, makes it difficult to criticize particular groups of people, regardless of how well-founded those criticisms may be.
The constitution doesn't define "lawless action", the law does.
I'm not an expert on US law but the standard is "clear and present danger" according to Wikipedia (thanks for the link). So then the argument becomes what represents a clear and present danger, and the argument is that speech which does not direct immediate crimes but which does cause people to be justifiably fearful qualifies.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
the argument is that speech which does not direct immediate crimes but which does cause people to be justifiably fearful qualifies
By that standard, all political speech is hate speech.
Summary suggests they claim things that already exist: appeal procedure, human reviewer. How does it makes sense?
Not much reliable data, but what there is says âreadershipâ(TM) is down and decline. I see numbers in the 25% to 50% range, but find them hard to believe.
There is nothing yet to take facebooks place. And, more importantly, nothing to grab the attention and energy of the media and the stock touts. Then it will be peak zuck.
The 86 obviously went âall inâ(TM) on the Facebook and cannot bring themselves to face their shareholders about their failed media strategy and their lack of plan b, and their lack of in house capabilities to build out their own platform.
Hatecrime is defined as hatred of protected classes.
Wouldn't putting some people in protected classes actually be hate against those left out or protected classes? You're literally telling them they have less value as humans...
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
Everyone is part of a at least one protected class - gender. As for the others, don't be ridiculous.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
The law disagrees.
Rather than make silly arguments like that, why not look up some cases (Wikipedia is a good place to start) and see how it is applied, and then make an argument against one that you disagree with. There will be a detailed explanation of the decision in the judgement.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Wouldn't putting some people in protected classes actually be hate against those left out or protected classes? You're literally telling them they have less value as humans...
Nope.
Usually, this is where I point out that you are either criminally stupid, mentally ill OR so desperate to try to defend hate speech that you seem to have a pathological need to goosestep around with a torch in one hand, while doing a "Look at me I'm a stupid who'll end up being called out on this FOREVER" salute with the other and at the same time crying like a little girl that you are being oppressed by minorities, women, small dogs etc. as you're marching your way out of the gene pool.
Usually.
Thankfully you've provided us with a gem like this:
The only people that hate Nazi speeches are Communists who act like Nazis to attack those Nazis.
While you sign your posts with...
"The Nazi Party: Regulation of business, gun control, national healthcare"
So why bother calling you a pathetic Nazi snowflake, Lynny Cock...
When it is quite obvious that you are also a cunt.
Which is funny... A cock which is a cunt. You must be some kinda Mengele experiment your greatgrandpa smuggled up his ass.
An ass cock cunt.
Does your granduncle wear you up his ass too, for rectal stimulation?
Or does he stick you on his cock while he fucks your mothersister?
And how do you breathe? Gills?
No wonder you feel like an outcast.
Even for a Nazi cock cunt it must be hard to breathe like that while you're being cucked by your own depraved kin.
Family gatherings must be dizzying for you. Due to the lack of oxygen while being passed around all day.
Sucks to be you... LOL (^O^,)
Sad.
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
Rather than make silly arguments like that, why not look up some cases (Wikipedia is a good place to start) and see how it is applied, and then make an argument against one that you disagree with.
Rather than just hand wave, why don't you look up cases and make an argument. I've already stated actual law and linked to Wikipedia. There is no recognized "hate speech" in the United States per the 1st Amendment.
Yes, but as I pointed out, the law in the US does define hate speech.
Next time you get a speeding ticket try arguing that speeding isn't mentioned in the constitution.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Yes, but as I pointed out, the law in the US does define hate speech.
No, you haven't. Section and code. I'll wait.
Next time you get a speeding ticket try arguing that speeding isn't mentioned in the constitution.
I'll refer to the constitution if anybody tries to give me a ticket for "hate speech", as the 1st amendment explicitly guarantees the right to free speech, and it's been upheld by the courts.
Wikipedia has a good article with all the relevant laws and statistics for you: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
As you can see, hate crimes are legally defined, and speech can be a component or used as evidence of motivation.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
As you can see, hate crimes are legally defined, and speech can be a component or used as evidence of motivation.
That's not the same as "hate speech".
Earlier I included speech that is used as evidence of hatred as motivation in the definition. If you have a different definition that's fine.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
ROTFL
so, your solution is to develop a tool to impede people spreading a message you consider noxious from spreading said message.
Congrats, you just advocated censorship.
But you knew that and we know you know we know (infinite loop) ;)
That makes no sense. Obviously you didn't read my post.