Syrian Migrant Says He's Tired Of Being The Subject Of 'Fake News,' Sues Facebook For Posts Linking Him To Terrorism
from the taking-on-the-Biggest-Blue dept
No sooner had Germany announced it was looking to start fining Facebook for the publication of "fake news" than we have a lawsuit being filed to take advantage of this brand new breed of criminal violation.
Syrian migrant Anas Modamani has announced he will sue Facebook over posts by users depicting him as a supposed participant in multiple terrorist attacks.
Modamani hired a lawyer to file an injunction against the Menlo Park-based social network alleging the company failed to remove racist posts, in violation of German hate speech laws. The legal action comes as Facebook faces mounting pressure to do something about the proliferation of fake news on the social network.
Modamani cites the country's hate speech laws, but news coverage seems to feel the disputed postings should be filed under "fake news." And it's not just the press coverage. Modamani's lawyer is using this exact phrase when issuing statements about his client's case.
Chan-jo Jun, a lawyer who in November 2016 prompted an investigation into Mark Zuckerberg and other Facebook executives following a complaint alleging that the company had failed to remove racist posts, in contravention of German laws against hate speech, has taken on the case.
"Facebook is doing a very poor job with fake news," he told the BBC.
"But it is especially doing a poor job with illegal fake news.
"Not all fake news is illegal, but where it amounts to slander, as I believe this does, then it should be taken down."
Jun and Modamani are seeking an injunction blocking posts that associate him with terrorist activity. Considering Angela Merkel herself has announced her support of Facebook-fining litigation, Modamani presents a pretty nifty nexus. One of the photos attached to bogus reports of terrorist activity is a selfie he took with the German leader in 2015.
But "fake news" this is not. This may be the product of racism and/or internet denizens who feel they're called to be vigilantes/detectives. What it definitely isn't is Facebook's fault. Modamani had reported the images to Facebook, and Facebook took them down. What he wants now is for the images -- or any variations -- to stay down forever. But that's an impossibility. Obtaining a court judgment in his favor won't make it any more possible for Facebook to prevent images portraying him as a terrorist from resurfacing.
Because images falsely tying Modamani to terrorism are still available online, he and his lawyer appear to be moving quickly to take advantage of the prevailing anti-"fake news" mood and get this case into a (hopefully) sympathetic court.
In the United States, this would have no shot. Facebook performs all sorts of moderation, but things that slip by are the responsibility of the person posting them, rather than the platform hosting them. In the rest of the world… it's not nearly that simple. And in the case of alleged defamation-meets-hate crime, it's not tough to imagine a German court deciding it's Facebook's fault that idiot users keep posting BS on its site.
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: anas modamani, fake news, germany, intermediary liability, migrants, racism, refugees
Companies: facebook
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
What I find amusing is, that Fake News is a fear phrase, designed to make you give up more of your rights.
What I find amusing is, this is being promoted by every news organization in the West at the same time.
What I find seriously amusing is, the Chinese do the same thing to cause companies to self (over) censor.
What I find amusing is, the sheer quantity of Fake News the large media companies published this election cycle.
What I find amusing is, Fake New is Fake News.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not necessarily. Facebook already has face ID technology. And even absent that it could use a content ID system to at least keep the same photo of him from appearing in the feeds. Being a selfie, the copyright belongs to Anas Modamani.
So, maybe impossible in the sense of perfect performance, but not impossible in the sense of being able to automatically prevent many or most instances off of FB.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It's impossible to be remotely accurate. To start with, the facial recognition isn't perfect. So we allow it to censor things that it shouldn't?
Then move on to the fact that it takes a court to do a real confirmation that something is actually illegal. What about a news story about him suing Facebook for these images? You can't show the images in question?
Images will slip through. What failure rate should be allowed?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
We already do so on the basis of copyright with content ID systems which have an (imperfect) appeal system. So there is already a precedent for this. Just because something can't be done perfectly doesn't mean you shouldn't do anything at all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
With faces you get just four or five data points, nothing like the accuracy of specific wavelengths, and vast numbers of near if not identical matches (based on only a few data points.) Even then the best results depend on drivers' license and passport photos where you get a posed shot with good lighting conditions.
Stopping his face from appearing in feeds means stopping a lot of other peoples' faces from appearing in feeds for no good reason.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Have a look at TinEye. FB might not be able to block his face using biometrics, but they could quite accurately block his copyrighted selfie from being used.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Avoid the bad publicity using the followinng tip:
Have some plastic surgery so the selfie no longer looks like you and change your name by deed pole - it'll be cheaper than the lawsuit!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
ContentID is not a legal tool, it's the product of a private initiative. It's used to show good faith in the framework of the DMCA, but that still doesn't make it a legal option for courts.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
...which routinely falsely flag legal content and are a nightmare to navigate around to get said legal content re-established. That's bad enough if you're a content creator. Now imagine it's your face that's getting blocked.
Content ID is in fact a great example in some ways. One of the major flaws is context. The content itself is never illegal by itself, it's only a case of whether the usage is authorised or not. The problems come when either the context is not taken into account and legally uploaded content is blocked, or when the claim of ownership itself is false. Same here - you get falsely flagged or legal activity is mistaken for illegal activity? You're saying that person should be erased completely from social media (since you're talking about facial recognition and not just the content that was flagged for "terrorism")
"Just because something can't be done perfectly doesn't mean you shouldn't do anything at all."
...and just because you can do something doesn't mean you should. If the potential negatives outweigh the positive effects - and this is the case here - then it shouldn't be done.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ironic
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Nope, not ironic
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Nope, not ironic
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Nope, not ironic
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Nope, not ironic
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I'm curious as to why "fake news" (misleading, hyperbole, out-of-context, etc whatever you want to call it) on Facebook is a "problem" but never hear anything about Reddit.
Either way, anyone who believes everything they read online is a moron.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Talk to your parents. They are probably morons to some degree. Heck, even I have already been fooled by stuff I read. Make no mistake, at some point every single one of us will be the moron. Still, the approach Facebook is taking and the herd mentality developed by people chanting that fake news is bad and SOMETHING MUST BE DONE at all costs is not going to help.
We should try to make people take those grains of salt, be skeptical, look for sources. Think critically. Why would a goddamned Nigerian prince have my contact and want to make financial-wee-wee with a nobody? Obviously an egregious example but if you develop critical thinking you can steer away of most false stories except maybe for the more elaborate.
So I'd argue fake news aren't an issue. People devoid of critical thinking is.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Also, my parents are in fact sometimes morons. They end every text with "-mom". I know mom, you sent the text from your number, you don't have to "sign it". Still keeps doing it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
WHY NOT
An company or person SENDING the fake news..
I love ESCAPE WORDS...and would LOVE to remove them from our language..
Could of
Might of
Supposedly..
IF'
We have so many options to AVOID saying something, that it is HARD to clean it up..
It would be great if facebook LINK to original articles..and original poster.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
We're going to see a whole lot more of this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]