Facebook Still Deleting Non-Offensive Posts For Being Offensive
from the the-best-defense dept
Another day, another example of Facebook's attempt at applying automated morality going poorly. For a site designed for little else beyond expressive speech, I suppose some erroneous applications of any kind of puritanism would go awry. Perhaps then you might have forgiven Facebook's mistaking a children's illustration for man-horse-fucking, or the algorithm's inability to recognize satire.
But you would think that, in the wake of the tragic shooting that occurred at a nightclub in Orlando, one member of the LGBT community's perfectly cogent and innocuous rant wouldn't be gobbled up the by censor algorithm as being offensive. Here is the author's tweet complaining about its removal (twice), including a screenshot of the text, so that you can get an idea of what was taken down.
UPDATE: Facebook removed my post AGAIN. This time banning me from posting for 24 hours and from using messenger. pic.twitter.com/MtVtHS75Cl
— Michete (@Michete) June 15, 2016
After removing the post a second time, Facebook apparently banned the author from doing anything else on the site for three days. That notice pretty clearly implies that the author had shared some kind of child pornography. Which wasn't true. The entirety of the post was text, imploring society to start to treat the LGBT community with a greater deal of respect. And, whatever your thoughts on the text of that post might be, certainly it is not something that should have been taken down as offensive, nevermind as any kind of pornography.
Look, I poke fun at Facebook over its morality attempts because it's funny, but I don't expect the site to be perfect. Still, when the censors are gobbling up legitimate viewpoints basically devoid of anything offensive as offensive, then perhaps we're better off with no filters at all.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: censorship, morality police, orlando
Companies: facebook
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's Facebook
If you think a business should engage in any extra-business affairs then you are asking for trouble.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It's Facebook
Businesses are NOT immune from criticism and I wholely reject your framing and any similar world view that deems businesses above any and all reproach unrelated to perceived profit-making.
Onto the article itself - I don't know why Facebook is doing this, but I wager its due to the "hate speech" hysteria and McCarthyism that's gripped the Bay Area by storm over the past few years. I have no idea what the stick or carrot is to do this - there's been numerous examples over the past few years in the business and academic worlds that hamfisted hate speech policing is bad for business and pisses off an enormous amount of your userbase.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I'm not sure what he was saying was proscriptive.
It's hardly right, and in fact it shortens the lifespans of corporations and product lines, and hastens the degradation of the US but worshiping the short term bottom line is very common.
Why is the topic of countless debates and many factors.
I'm not sure Anonymous Coward was endorsing this state of affairs. I wouldn't. But it is the case.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: It's Facebook
So you're rejecting the basis of capitalism?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: It's Facebook
It doesn't work anyway, since government lobbying towards regulatory capture produces one of the strongest profit margin. I could create a business model (and some have) of simply lobbying officials to subsidize me. And that could be (in some cases, is) vastly profitable without actually producing anything.
Capitalism only works when tightly regulated.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: It's Facebook
As long as it's not "illegal", then anything goes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It's Facebook
Trust The Moderation System. The Moderation System Is Your Friend.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyrite
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Cancer?
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/jan/22/facebook-princeton-researchers-infectious- disease
On the bright side, fewer are catching it, and survivors seem mostly to develop immunity to reinfection.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Facebook is Soma
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Facebook is Soma
The zombie apocalypse will occur, just slowly rather than all at once.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Non-Offensive?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Non-Offensive?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Non-Offensive?
No matter what you say, no matter how hard you try to make it inoffensive, someone somewhere will be offended by it -- Guaranteed.
If one person being offended strips you of your freedom to speak, then you have no freedom to speak. Ever.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Non-Offensive?
It's also a freedom that guarantees the government can't censor you. Private companies can censor you all they want. Don't like it? Use a different company.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Non-Offensive?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Non-Offensive?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Non-Offensive?
Don't think what she said is worthy of censorship but it certainly was offensive.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Non-Offensive?
Calling someone a homophobe is okay.
Man, such great logic right there!
If you are insulted by something not intended to insult you then you are a fool.
If you are insulted by something intended to insult you then you are an even greater fool, for you have played into the hands of your enemy.
~Can't remember who said that, thinking Mark Twain?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Non-Offensive?
Homo is derogatory slang.
Homophobe is defined in the Merriam-Webster online dictionary as "a person who hates or is afraid of homosexuals or treats them badly."
So yeah, calling someone a homo is meant as an insult. Calling someone a homophobe is descriptive.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Non-Offensive?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Non-Offensive?
A phobia is an irrational fear, not under the control of who has it.
Using the word homophobia as a term of abuse - which is what it effectively has become is offensive to people who suffer from phobias in the same way that use of the word "spastic" in a derogatory way (which was common in the 60's and 70's) is abusive of people with cerebal palsy.
I very much doubt however that that was what was in the head of the facebook censor.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Homophobe / Homophobia
I've not encountered anyone who hates gays as a group that isn't terrified of them for one fictitious reason or another, usually claiming that gays are pedophiles or rapists, neither of which is statistically over-represented in the gay community.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Non-Offensive?
A phobia is an irrational fear, not under the control of who has it.
Using the word homophobia as a term of abuse - which is what it effectively has become is offensive to people who suffer from phobias in the same way that use of the word "spastic" in a derogatory way (which was common in the 60's and 70's) is abusive of people with cerebal palsy."
It shorely is a white man's world, yes it is...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Non-Offensive?
Secondly, this person trying to lay the massacre at the feet of straights is disgusting. The attack was by a gay man so to drag straights into this is ridiculous. If they want respect they should realize respect is earned and blaming a group of people who had nothing to do with it will not win respect.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Michete isn't responding to straights as if they instigated the murder.
No they haven't. Anti-gay hate crime is still a pretty frequent deal, especially in the redder states. (Heh. When I was growing up red meant such a very different thing.)
Particularly conspicuous was Ted Cruz who, only months ago was rallying with major anti-gay players such as Gordon Klingenschmitt, Gary Glenn, Flip Benham, Ron Baity, Glenn Grothman and Tony Perkins, all who are kill-the-gays extremists, pushing not only the gay-is-a-capital-crime legislation in Uganda, but preaching as much and encouraging lone wolf attackers here in the states.
And yet, Cruz is trying to garner not pro-gay support after Orlando, but rather anti-Islam support. Because here in the US, nothing says Conservative Christianity like hate rhetoric.
The thing is the gay community really does appreciate being acknowledged, and more to the point, not hated. But we'd really like it if we didn't have to eat so many bullet to be appreciated.
And while yes, Michete was rather (IMO) ranty in the way she said it, that's what she was trying to say.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Non-Offensive?
Secondly, this person trying to lay the massacre at the feet of straights is disgusting. The attack was by a gay man so to drag straights into this is ridiculous. If they want respect they should realize respect is earned and blaming a group of people who had nothing to do with it will not win respect."
I stand by my previous statement, lawsey, lawsey...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Homo is derogatory slang.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Non-Offensive?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Non-Offensive?
Calling someone a homo is descriptive. Calling someone a homophobe is meant as an insult.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Non-Offensive?
Calling someone a homophobe is okay."
Yep. One is a protected class and a state of being, like race or gender and thus attacking that is wrong. The other just means you're an ignorant bigot and can be attacked all you want, just as a racist or misogynist should be.
As for your quote, that's true if someone is simply calling you names, but systematic oppression tends to require action.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Non-Offensive?
Yeah, anyone should know better than to insult a member of a favored group. Everyone else is fair game, though.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Non-Offensive?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Non-Offensive?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Non-Offensive?
If you don't agree 100% with the LGBT agenda, then you're homophobic and the reason 50 people were killed.
She's min wage worker at Pizza Hut and the mentality of a child. I give zero phycks what she thinks or if FB blocks her. If they didn't I would prob block her anyway.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Non-Offensive?
Well, if Facebook weren't censoring her, maybe the images would be more legible. But, what I read was a call to stop the kind of hatred that leads people to go off the rails like this. What's the problem with that?
"If you don't agree 100% with the LGBT agenda"
Well, there's the thing. Homophobes usually can't explain what the "LGBT agenda" actually is in their minds. It's a meaningless term, created to get people who are afraid of "the other" to believe that there's some nefarious plot.
To most of us, they're just fighting a battle to be accepted as human beings with the same rights and opportunities as straight people. When people start blathering on about an "agenda" without further explanation, that just makes you sound homophobic. Since homophobia is what feeds the kind of hatred that led to the Orlando massacre, the comparison is apt.
"She's min wage worker at Pizza Hut"
OK, anonymous person, what glorious career do you have that allows you to look down on others so?
"If they didn't I would prob block her anyway."
That's your choice, which is fine. Intelligent people would prefer if other people weren't making the choice for them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Let's be honest, this is most likely to do with software rather than Facebook making an actual decision, and it'll get reversed when the PR storm hits. Not ideal, but can anyone else think of a process that will be effective at policing this much content without some silly false positives?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Is this from a news source?
As I don't go to bars or clubs to hook up with strangers, it doesn't really make much of a difference what the venue is, so long as people are pleasant.
I'd wager that plenty of others go to venues to hang with friends, and it's not about the singles around them.
Also if there are live performances, people go to clubs less for the venue and more for the performer. Dunno about Pulse.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Is this from a news source?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Is this from a news source?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Is this from a news source?
Me too. In fact, when my wife goes out for a "girl's night on the town", a local gay nightclub is their destination of choice for precisely this reason. They don't get hit on so much, and they are treated with a great deal more respect all around.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Heh, I got my subjects swapped.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
But, in your quest to respect the straight victims, don't forget that the reason the club was targeted was because it was a gay club. If the media is covering the gay victims more, it's because they were the ones he wanted to kill.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Ewww. I would never take my mother out cruising with me. He couldn't give it up for one night to visit with his own mother?
...the reason the club was targeted was because it was a gay club.
I thought the authorities were still trying to determine the reason. Do you have a source for that?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"I would never take my mother out cruising with me."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "I would never take my mother out cruising with me."
Heh, you're funny. You really don't know what gay bars are about? LMAO
"And that Mom didn't want to go and would rather stay home?"
Yeah, I've heard about those kind of parents. The kind that like to go cruising gay bars with their kids. I still find it kind of creepy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: "I would never take my mother out cruising with me."
It appears I've been to more gay bars than you have. Not all bars are singles hook-up establishments. That goes for gay bars as well.
To be fair, I don't know if The Pulse had a theme or reputation other than than being a disco.
Yeah, I've heard about those kind of parents. The kind that like to go cruising gay bars with their kids. I still find it kind of creepy.
It sounds like your experiences with culture have not extended outside the suburbia in which you were raised. You may be in for a shock from the breadth of diversity.
Some cultures regard dance as something more than a mere means to coax bedfellows.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Facebook's censorship policies
Islamic State beheadings and cat torture videos: AOK!
I will dance on your grave, Facebook. I will dance on your grave and sing merry songs.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Facebook's censorship policies
T-shirts on sale for 50% off spam? Perfectly okay.
Spammers tagging your friends in spammy "I made $9,821 using this work-at-home secret" spam posting? Just fine!
Talking about gay and lesbian issues and getting reported by bigots? Bad!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Doesn't look like...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A friend of mine had many people making fake accounts pretending to be her and scamming some people and it was damn near impossible sometimes to get facebook to do a damn thing about them but of course her account would get suspended all the time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why are people still using this platform?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Truth About Facebook
This clearly implies that you are NOT allowed to post ANYTHING that is though-provoking, tension-charged or socially-questionable, unless those who financed it see that it serves their needs. If it does, you can post. If it doesn't, you are banned (for a while, but since they still need your data, it won't be forever).
Now, knowing this, watch what is banned, and what isn't, and you can pretty-much blueprint what 'the-powers-that-be' (or the financiers that finance) really want society to do. It's not hard, then again, you have to turn the TV off and focus for a few minutes to see it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I'm not so sure it was 'automated'.
I submit this was removed twice because of complaints - haters of free will and free speech seem to have a voice now, and if they can silence one voice, anonymously, they will do it...
It is quite easy to 'takedown' a post, when there is little, if any actual human involvement in this decision making processes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I'm not so sure it was 'automated'.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Adopt penalties for false reporting.
What they need to do is simply add harsh penalties to people who abuse the reporting system. Ban their accounts, and then issue an even longer ban over their ability to report content.
Add an appeal process, where a human gets to view the content but add an even longer ban if the appeal is denied.
Have a moderation system where a randomly selected "jury" of facebook users get to decide about the accuracy of the claim.
They don't have the man power to review things. There ways to solve that problem.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Correction
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
May I ask if this is offensive?
"Women are like cats. When you show them interest, they don't want you. When you show it to someone else, they get jealous."
Because it really doesn't seem it to me. Or am I an asshole?
And yet Facebook says that it's offensive though I have nothing against women or cats. WTF Facebook?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"yet Facebook says that it's offensive"
Does it? In my experience, when sexist jokes are being flagged as offensive, it's because one of your "friends" or a member of the group you posted in has flagged it, not because Facebook's algorithms have flagged it.
"I have nothing against women or cats"
Maybe not, but the joke is sexist and some women take offence to being compared to animals. They may be very thin skinned or lacking in sense of humour in your opinion by being offended by such a joke, but it's not Facebook's fault if they are.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]