The decision most likely came down to money. Being associated with political disinformation or ethno-religious violence, it turns out, does not sit well with investors or users.
>>>>
Report: Facebook Insider Leaks 1,400 Pages of Guidelines for 'Political Speech'
Yet another trove of internal Facebook documents has been leaked, this time the New York Times gained access to 1,400 pages of Facebook's guidelines for global political speech.
"A recent report from the New York Times has provided an insight into how Facebook polices global political speech. A trove of internal Facebook documents obtained by the Times shows how the social media platform is "a far more powerful arbiter of global speech than has been publicly recognized or acknowledged by the company itself."A Facebook employee reportedly leaked 1,400 pages of the internal guidelines because they "feared that the company was exercising too much power, with too little oversight - and making too many mistakes." The documents reportedly consist of a "maze of PowerPoint slides" outlining rules for a large network of over 7,500 moderators to follow when dealing with political speech on the social media platform. These guidelines are reportedly reviewed every other Tuesday morning by several dozen Facebook employees.
The Times claims that these documents are filled with gaps, biases, and errors that have resulted in moderators allowing extremist speech to flourish in some countries while cracking down harshly on mainstream comments in others. The Times provided an example of this problem.
Navigating the actual documents seems like a huge task itself, Facebook says that they are only used as training material but employees claim that they are used as reference sheets on a daily basis. The Times outlines the complexity of the documents stating:
Facebook's Monica Bickert discussed the issues they've faced compiling these documents saying:
"There's a real tension here between wanting to have nuances to account for every situation, and wanting to have a set of policies we can enforce accurately and we can explain cleanly." Facebook does, however, consult with outside groups about what constitutes hate speech and what should be banned, "We're not drawing these lines in a vacuum."
The Times notes some of Facebook's more extreme stances relating to "hate speech," for example, right-wing groups such as the Proud Boys are banned but internal documents instruct moderators to allow users to praise the terrorist group known as the Taliban in certain situations:
Jasmin Mujanovic, an expert on the Balkans, commented on Facebook's moderation of speech stating: "Facebook's role has become so hegemonic, so monopolistic, that it has become a force unto itself. No one entity, especially not a for-profit venture like Facebook, should have that kind of power to influence public debate and policy."
Lucas Nolan reports for Breitbart News covering issues of free speech and online censorship.
(Article changed on December 30, 2018 at 19:13)
Next Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
3
2
2
