NY Times Columnist Nick Kristof Led The Charge To Get Facebook To Censor Content, Now Whining That Facebook Censors His Content
from the karma-nick,-karma dept
We've talked in the past about NY Times columnist Nick Kristof, who is a bit infamous for having something of a savior complex in his views. He is especially big on moral panics around sex trafficking, and was one of the most vocal proponents of FOSTA, despite not understanding what the law would do at all (spoiler alert: just as we predicted, and as Kristof insisted would not happen -- FOSTA has put more women at risk). When pushing for FOSTA, Kristof wrote the following:
Even if Google were right that ending the immunity for Backpage might lead to an occasional frivolous lawsuit, life requires some balancing.
For example, websites must try to remove copyrighted material if it’s posted on their sites. That’s a constraint on internet freedom that makes sense, and it hasn’t proved a slippery slope. If we’re willing to protect copyrights, shouldn’t we do as much to protect children sold for sex?
As we noted at the time, this was an astoundingly ignorant thing to say, but of course now that Kristof helped get the law passed and put many more lives at risk, the "meh, no big deal if there are some more lawsuits or more censorship" attitude seems to be coming back to bite him.
You see, last week, Kristof weighed in on US policy in Yemen. The core of his argument was to discuss the horrific situation of Abrar Ibrahim, a 12-year-old girl who is starving in Yemen, and weighs just 28 pounds. There's a giant photo of the emaciated Ibrahim atop the article, wearing just a diaper. It packs an emotional punch, just as intended.
But, it turns out that Facebook is blocking that photo of Ibrahim, claiming it is "nudity and sexual content." And, boy, is Kristof mad about it:
Facebook seems to have repeatedly blocked the photo of Abrar that went with my column: https://t.co/KYTyJ1kTeE Come on, Facebook! If you want to end these horrifying images of starving children in Yemen, then help end the U.S.-backed Saudi war that causes the starvation. https://t.co/EzJemsGN4j
— Nicholas Kristof (@NickKristof) December 16, 2018
Hey, Nick, you were the one who insisted that Facebook and others in Silicon Valley needed to ban "sexual content" or face criminal liability. You were the one who insisted that any collateral damage would be minor. You were the one who said there was no slippery slope.
Yet, here is a perfect example of why clueless saviors like Kristof always make things worse, freaking out about something they don't understand, prescribing the exact wrong solution. Moderating billions of pieces of content leads to lots of mistakes. The only way you can do it is to set rules. Thanks to laws like FOSTA -- again, passed at Kristof's direct urging -- Facebook has rules about nudity that include no female nudity/nipples. This rule made a lot of news two years ago when Facebook banned an iconic photo from the Vietnam War showing a young, naked, girl fleeing a napalm attack. Facebook eventually created a "newsworthy" exception to the rule, but that depends on the thousands of "content moderators" viewing this content knowing that this particular photo is newsworthy.
And, thanks to FOSTA, the cost of making a mistake is ridiculously high (possible criminal penalties), and thus, the only sane thing for a company like Facebook to do is to take that content down and block it. That's exactly what Nick Kristof wanted. But now he's whining because the collateral damage he shrugged off a year ago is himself. Yeah, maybe next time Nick should think about that before shrugging off what every single internet expert tried to explain to him at the time.
But hey, Nick, as someone once said, maybe the law you pushed for leads to an occasional frivolous takedown of important content about the impact of US policy on an entire population, but "life requires some balancing." Oh well.
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, content moderation, fosta, nick kristof
Companies: facebook
Reader Comments
The First Word
“Oh sweet schadenfreude...
"Sacrifices must be made for the greater good!"
Several months later
"I didn't mean I should be the one making them!"
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Oh, man. Love this Kristof quote:
In other words, it hasn't proved a slippery slope. But might I suggest one?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I see a copyright notice on his opinion columns, and no obvious waiver of copyright on his Twitter messages...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Easy fix
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Exploitation...
We have met the enemy and he is us.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Exploitation...
Has nothing to do with FOSTA and everything to do with pandering to a FB flash mobs.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
https://twitter.com/NickKristof/status/1074753415241183234
Of course, only the "real" journalists should be excluded from filters... not all those little guys.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Considering that the NYT twitter was hacked just a couple years ago, that solution wouldn't exactly work...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Oh sweet schadenfreude...
"Sacrifices must be made for the greater good!"
Several months later
"I didn't mean I should be the one making them!"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
While porn used to be considered the worst type of content, and historically was always first on the list to get banned, that might no longer be the case, at least according to the way internet activists work to censor content they don't like. A small crowdfunding site like Subscribestar that caters to "adult" content can remain online for a year without anyone complaining, and then suddenly gets pink-slipped by all its payment processors and is forced to close down within days of a non-porn gamergate blogger (and numerous allies in solidarity) joining the site, due to nothing more than false accusations.
https://archive.fo/ED1Qh
As the continued attacks against 'free speech' rage on, FaceBook is far from the worst culprit to give in to the demands of the intolerant pro-censorship mob who increasingly engage in scorched earth tactics.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A solution Kristof would like...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: A solution Kristof would like...
Um. You put that in "sarc" marks, but it's exactly what Kristof suggested in the tweet that the AC linked to upthread:
Well, except for the "pay a reasonable fine if a mistake happens" provision. That'd be going a step too far.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: A solution Kristof would like...
Seems like Facebook should just continue to block everything by default for those companies just like everyone else.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: A solution Kristof would like...
That's the entire point of safe harbours and other protections - if Facebook are allowing user generated content, they have no direct control and should not be treated as directly culpable. He demanded that they be held liable anyway, so he gets to deal with the result of that. Hopefully he bears this in mind next time someone informs him about unintended consequences.
[ 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 ]
Oh well.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
When they came for...
When Facebook came for the conservatives, I didn't say anything because I wasn't a conservative...
When Facebook came for the Non-Politically Correct crowd, I didn't say anything because I was politically correct...
When Facebook came for me, there was no one left to say anything...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: When they came for...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: When they came for...
Irony can be thought provoking. I think of it like a stinky cheese that tastes good. They both can evoke a negative initial reaction, but improve upon careful consideration.
Now, clearly, the Facebook version is not nearly as serious as the actions of an actual government. We're nowhere near a Fourth Reich. If Facebook gets too oppressive, they will merely destroy their own business eventually. But... What happens if that censorship breaks containment? What happens if we get conditioned to expect our gatekeepers to protect us from whatever it is we don't like? There are already plenty of people who think the government should do just that, regardless of Facebook's policies. When Tech fails, do we want people turning to the government for all their censorship needs?
Facebook wanted to be all things to all people. Now, it looks like it wants to be the communication platform for everyone, but only the communication it wants. Well, guess what. When your "community" is everybody, you don't have "community standards" anymore. You can be niche, and expect to cultivate a community that at least agrees on ground rules, or you can be ubiquitous and take all the bad with the good. Facebook has no business moderating beyond things that are actually illegal, and that would be enough to keep a healthy debate going. If Facebook wants to be the middleman for everyone's news and information, they don't have any business editing that information.
Facebook, I hope you bleed to death from your own self harm.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: When they came for...
You are now. Nazi.
Don't sealion about this. That proves you are a troll.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: When they came for...
So, you are defending the right of Nazis to pursue their aims of genocide?
"Facebook has no business moderating beyond things that are actually illegal"
They can do whatever the hell they want, actually, unless they violate some law themselves by doing so. For example, they can tell white supremacists and literally Nazis to fuck off their property, but they can't say the same to black people or Jews just because they don't like their race.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: When they came for...
Not remotely. That sounds like a criminal conspiracy. I do, however, support their right to talk about it and let them display their ignorance, their lunacy, and their general assholery.
Of course they can. I was trying to say that, because Facebook is so damn big, it would be wise of Facebook to tolerate bad ideas on their platform so that others can more effectively use their platform to counter with good ideas. Maybe I'm idealistic in thinking that good information drives out bad information.
Mason Wheeler had an interesting comment that showed up in the Techdirt Insider Chat sidebar about how censorship of Hitler actually gave him credibility to a certain group. I'm all for denying credibility to his emotionally damaged acolytes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: When they came for...
As do I. However, I also support the right of Facebook to moderate their own platform so that the majority of right-minded people who use their platform don't have to read that shit. If a drunk asshole is shouting and trying to start fights in a bar, the bar owner is not in the wrong to kick him out into the street. Let him find another bar, or set up his own, if he really wants do that stuff.
"Maybe I'm idealistic in thinking that good information drives out bad information"
Yeah, that worked perfectly in 1930s Germany, didn't it? Heather Heyer was murdered at a time when their crap *was* being tolerated on those platforms. No, drive them out into whichever cesspool they wish to retreat to and keep a close eye on them. Their actions have consequences, and one of those consequences is people telling them to get the fuck out of their house.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: When they came for...
But apparently the people who today eagerly support "de-platforming" of people they don't like do so with the naive certainty that the chopping block will never come to them. History of course demonstrates otherwise.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: When they came for...
So... you're also so moronic that you think that a private company refusing service is the same as rounding up and murdering people? Wow.
This is why the idiotic analogy fails. If I got "de platformed" by Facebook for my beliefs, I'd just go somewhere else - or easily set up my own platform if none of the existing ones want me for commercial reasons. That's somewhat different from being kidnapped from my own home and murdered. I hope you're just being hyperbolic and not actually thinking the things are even remotely similar.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The original post and comments were not about copyright claims ("use private property without consequences"). It was about FOSTA-- shutting down anything potentially related to sex imagery or work.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]