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."
I'm offended how you think it's funny that people are offended by offense.
Offensitivity.
No, it's not. Incitements to violence are illegal, slander is illegal, and hate speech may be admitted as evidence that an associated crime is a hate crime, but "hate speech" itself is not a crime. 1st Amendment, y'know.
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.
Ah yes. The problem with rights is that all those awful people get them too. So we need to take them away so the awful people won't have them any more. That seems like a good start...
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
Unless it is a call to violence or an attempt to incite a riot, people are allowed to express their opinions, no matter how YOU hate it.
That is not the standard, and you are emboldening shitlords by lying about it. The standard is whether you are attempting to incite violence. It doesn't have to be a riot.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
The word 'to' should not be there.
This is the one time you will see them (unless your social media account has already been banned) use the argument that free speech is only protected from censorship by governments.
Huh? That's all free speech is and can be. Any more protected and you're infringing on the equally important right people have to not listen.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
What crime is not based in hate?
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
Yeah you are possibly right, it just seems like colleges today that used to be the bastions of the civil rights and free speech seem to be the center of the protect me from opinions I don't want to hear movement. Not all of the 'younger' generation are that way just a great many, and I should not generalize too much it makes me as bad as those I'm criticizing...
errr....umm...*whooosh* *whoosh* Is this thing on ?
The only people that hate Nazi speeches are Communists who act like Nazis to attack those Nazis.
They are both the same, using the same brownshirt tactics and demands to ideological purity. It's just that Nazis talked about racial purity, but Communists talk about ideological purity. Both are the same type of oppressive Fascists.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
So I guess a call to violence isn't attempting to incite violence ? I wonder whether your ignorance is on purpose or you're trolling ? My 'lying; about it, I guess we are back to 'hate' speech as things YOU hate to hear...
errr....umm...*whooosh* *whoosh* Is this thing on ?
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
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!
I think you have things backwards here. The EFF and the others are asking to make it easier to appeal if your content does get taken down. In other words, they want to make it easier to reverse or cancel a takedown.
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
Shouldn't have posted before waking up. Totally missed the appeals part. I read it entirely also. Wow. Ok, sounds way more like EFF heh. Glad I donate.
Shouldn't have posted before waking up. Totally missed the appeals part. I read it entirely also. Wow. Ok, sounds way more like EFF heh. Glad I donate.
Good to see they haven't lost their principles to social "justice" like the ACLU.
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?
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.
Well, the immediate reason is that advertisers don't like it much when their ad is shown next to a post advocating white supremacy.
The longer term reason is that people who use a site are less inclined to use it if it appears to be a hotbed of truly horrible people. If you walked into a pub, and there was a KKK group in the corner quite openly talking about how much they miss lynchings, and, after a few visits, you noticed they seemed to be there on a regular basis, you'd probably not make it your regular.
Facebook needs users. It desperately needs users. It cannot afford the reputation of being a hangout for neo-nazis or other similar groups.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
While it hasn't always been so, right now the "extreme left", as defined by both the mainstream and right wing media, consists of people who advocate free healthcare, free tuition, helping refugees, and who think corporations aren't a force for good in the US. They are condemned as "violent" when some argue that it is 100% legitimate to confront high up political appointees who are complicit in human rights violations.
The far right, as defined by both the above groups, consists of people who advocate racial supremacy, masculine supremacy, who promote state sanctioned violence against blacks, human rights abuses against refugees, and who murder counter protesters.
So suggesting that this is about the "left" suppressing the "right" in some sort of hypocritical way is misleading and ignoring context. If the extreme left were committing murder and openly advocating actual violence, and the extreme right were doing nothing more extreme than arguing against universal healthcare (which is still a pretty shitty position, but whatever) then you'd expect silence from all sides about "censoring" the "extreme right" and calls from all sides of the political spectrum to deal with the "extreme left".
The reason you're hearing almost all sides call for Facebook to deal with the extreme right is because the extreme right is the problem right now, not the impotent non-murderous "extreme left."
That isn't the case right now.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
There are a lot of people who advocate free healthcare and free tuition without putting on black hoods and beating up people in peaceful political marches. Why does Antifa continue to get account and page space on Facebook while other people get banned just for objecting to this?
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