Facebook Estimates Hate Speech Seen In 1 Out of 1,000 Views On Its Platform (reuters.com) 95
Facebook for the first time on Thursday disclosed numbers on the prevalence of hate speech on its platform, saying that out of every 10,000 content views in the third quarter, 10 to 11 included hate speech. Reuters reports: The world's largest social media company, under scrutiny over its policing of abuses, particularly around November's U.S. presidential election, released the estimate in its quarterly content moderation report. On a call with reporters, Facebook's head of safety and integrity Guy Rosen said that from March 1 to the Nov. 3 election, the company removed more than 265,000 pieces of content from Facebook and Instagram in the United States for violating its voter interference policies.
Facebook also said it took action on 22.1 million pieces of hate speech content in the third quarter, about 95% of which was proactively identified. It took action on 22.5 million in the previous quarter. The company defines 'taking action' as removing content, covering it with a warning, disabling accounts, or escalating it to external agencies. Facebook's photo-sharing site Instagram took action on 6.5 million pieces of hate speech content, up from 3.2 million in Q2. About 95% of this was proactively identified, a 10% increase from the previous quarter. Facebook said it took action on 19.2 million pieces of violent and graphic content in the third quarter, up from 15 million in the second. On Instagram, it took action on 4.1 million pieces of violent and graphic content, up from 3.1 million in the second quarter. Rosen said the company expected to have an independent audit of its content enforcement numbers "over the course of 2021."
Facebook also said it took action on 22.1 million pieces of hate speech content in the third quarter, about 95% of which was proactively identified. It took action on 22.5 million in the previous quarter. The company defines 'taking action' as removing content, covering it with a warning, disabling accounts, or escalating it to external agencies. Facebook's photo-sharing site Instagram took action on 6.5 million pieces of hate speech content, up from 3.2 million in Q2. About 95% of this was proactively identified, a 10% increase from the previous quarter. Facebook said it took action on 19.2 million pieces of violent and graphic content in the third quarter, up from 15 million in the second. On Instagram, it took action on 4.1 million pieces of violent and graphic content, up from 3.1 million in the second quarter. Rosen said the company expected to have an independent audit of its content enforcement numbers "over the course of 2021."
They're actively encouraging the extreme right (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
They also punish left wingers.
So, from a couple of anecdotes you are implying that Facebook has a right-wing bias?
I find that hard to believe. To the extent that Facebook cares about anything other than clicks, scrolls and revenue, they appear to lean left.
They certainly talk that way officially. The "hate speech policy" is framed using left-wing language, and from a left-wing perspective.
New-left-wing that is, very different from the older San Francisco generation who valued free speech and ideas.
The policy wording is so broad, that t
There's a lot more than anecdotes (Score:3)
But in addition, the 10 ten posts on Facebook are consistently right wing (usually Daily Mail), there's several [politico.com] articles [npr.org] detailing how and why FB has a right wing bias, etc, etc.
And we know from the fake news sellers why: Conservatives will let obvious Fake News go viral and spread it around, lefties debunk Fake News before it can spread. Several of the owners of profitable Fake News sites admitted it (and weren't shy about i
Re: (Score:2)
anecdote: a short amusing or interesting story about a real incident or person.
There's nothing amusing about a prominent left wing personality getting punished for discussing a right wing call to violence when the right winger who made the call was not punished.
And yes, it absolutely means FB has a right wing bias. They promote right wing ideas because they make more money off them. The fact that the reasoning is cold, hard cash doesn't change the bias.
But yeah, let me just peel
Re: (Score:2)
or whatever delusion Fox News & OANN has been feeding you lately. Seriously, you need to change your media diet.
From a few lines, you deduce the AC watches trashy right-wing media? Or do you just assume that about anyone who disagrees with you on anything?
You seem to think there are only two types of people: those who broadly agree with you, and the loony far right. Sounds like you are part of the problem of political division in the US.
Re: (Score:2)
So, from a couple of anecdotes you are implying that Facebook has a right-wing bias?
Left-wingers: Facebook is biased towards the right. They should be punished, forced to confront their bias, then remove what we deem to be the offending material. Also we should be allowed to post what we want.
Right-wingers:Facebook is biased towards the left. They should be punished, pilloried, and forced to follow the law, as we interpret it. Also we should be allowed to post what we want.
Almost nobody: Any bias I see is almost certainly my own, albeit exacerbated by Facebook's 'feed' algorithm which, as
Re: (Score:2)
Someone is hitting the kool-aid a bit hard
Re: (Score:2)
because they can make more money off them because they "doom scroll" more. They also punish left wingers. Dave Packman posted a video about Steve Bannon's threats to Dr Anthony Fauci. Packman got demonetized for even talking about Bannon's threats, but Bannon's still on FB because he brings in $$$.
If Facebook "actively encourages" anything, it's because they see profit blowing in that direction.
Consider Walmart selling something as hated as guns. For many years people were angry at them for doing so. Some Walmarts stopped. Many did not. The answer was more obvious than most wanted to hear; selling guns to them had little to do with Rights or Freedoms. No, it all came down to is it a profitable product or not. Simple Business 101.
Same goes for Facebook. If there's profit to be made in supportin
Re: (Score:2)
Consider Walmart selling something as hated as guns. For many years people were angry at them for doing so.
Hated by who? Do you live in such an isolated bubble that you don't realize that most people are just fine with guns, and a large percentage of the population LOVES them? Of course Walmart sells them to make a profit. That is why Walmart went into business. And the reason they are profitable is because people want them and are willing to spend money on them.
Maybe you should check your own hate.
Re: (Score:2)
Consider Walmart selling something as hated as guns. For many years people were angry at them for doing so.
Hated by who? Do you live in such an isolated bubble that you don't realize that most people are just fine with guns, and a large percentage of the population LOVES them? Of course Walmart sells them to make a profit. That is why Walmart went into business. And the reason they are profitable is because people want them and are willing to spend money on them.
Maybe you should check your own hate.
OK, kiddo. Time for a history lesson you obviously need. Target. K-Mart. Sears. A corner pharmacy. Jumbo Sports. Sports Authority. Dicks. I've bought handguns and those dangerous "assault" rifles from many places over the years. Hell, I used to look forward to buying ammo at Target on clearance when hunting season was over with.
Now, why don't you tell me why none of these chains sell handguns or assault rifles anymore.
And you're right. Tons of people who publicly "hate" guns are now the hypocrites
Re: (Score:2)
No extreme left wingers are also promoted. I see more communist posts than extreme right, but it might depend on your friends.
They make money on conflict and people highly engaged. That helps promote extremists.
Fortunately I also get a steady stream of "extreme" moderates :D
They're not really, they're not (Score:2)
Allow for the two minutes hate (Score:2)
Although, since there are 1440 minutes in a day, and 2 / 1440 ~= 0.0014, two minutes is a bit more than 1 in 1000.
Facebook is doing good by that standard!
Re: (Score:2)
sounds a little deflated (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There's no way it's that low.
They're still trying to figure out how to monetize per hate filter, per user.
And they just turned it on. Automating the sheer number of Karens coming over the hill with a fistful of complaints takes time.
Extreme emotions drive extreme profiits (Score:2)
The simplest way is to encourage extreme emotions, that ensures more interactions and much more "stickiness". Hate speech is just one of the best sellers.
Re:Extreme emotions drive extreme profiits (Score:4, Funny)
An enraged user is an engaged user.
Let's see (Score:1)
I'd like to see a breakdown of all examples of hate speech. Does it include mere harrassment? Some is hate speech claimed by politicians against other politicians, "... and you wouldn't want your section 230 to get broken now, would you? Things break you know." in lieu of protection money.
Re: (Score:2)
Hate Speech = speech I don't like.
Either speech is paramount human right, or it isn't. Those that support any censorship are dangerous IMHO.
Re: (Score:1)
Censorship by the government is bad. People are allowed to say what they want. However, abetting in spreading that kind of speech so you can make a buck off the advertising that accompanies it? That is entirely Facebook's own decision, isn't it?
Re: (Score:1)
Censorship is bad. Period.
Facebook isn't publishing posts, its users are. Facebook isn't a publisher, and because of that they are protected by law as a Platform. If you're suggesting that they censor people and that is okay, then they cross over to publisher and are now responsible for ALL content on their site, and therefore subject to the liability for violations of libel and slander.
They want it both ways.
Re: (Score:2)
Whatever the breakdown is 'hate speech' can be interpreted in a flexible manner and any form of activism is threatened by this.
Even more wide is 'sowing dissent'. That applies to any form of political opinion.
We're heading towards a dystopian future. (Score:1)
It's way more than that (Score:3, Informative)
Turns out, that in fact 100% of videos online are hate speech.
That's because all those telling us what is hate speech, are telling us what they think is hate speech.
If someone besides the author defines what hate speech is, then any video about anything can and will Abe seen as "hate speech" because someone will disagree with it.
Want to take down hate speech? Fine, no videos on the internet at all anymore. Then you can carry on to burning books (and/or people) which is how the which hunts always end.
Re: (Score:2)
No, you see Facebook doesn't care what you think or what any user thinks. The farmer doesn't ask the cattle for their opinion.
Hate speech is defined by advertisers and investors. Their definition is "material that reduces our profits".
Re: (Score:2)
SuperKendall posited:
Turns out, that in fact 100% of videos online are hate speech.
Wait. So a 4-minute audio-only clip of Robert Fripp talking about the first time he met Jimi Hendrix [youtube.com] is hate speech?
That's gonna be news to the Crimson King ...
Yes that is a good example in fact. (Score:2)
Wait. So a 4-minute audio-only clip of Robert Fripp talking about the first time he met Jimi Hendrix is hate speech?
A white man white-spaining how we should feel about a black person because of his own experience, is 100% grade-A hate speech by modern standards.
Re: (Score:2)
In response to my query:
Wait. So a 4-minute audio-only clip of Robert Fripp talking about the first time he met Jimi Hendrix is hate speech?
SuperKendall replied:
A white man white-spaining how we should feel about a black person because of his own experience, is 100% grade-A hate speech by modern standards.
Trolls gotta troll, I guess.
In fact, Fripp merely relates what occurred. He keeps his feelings about their meeting to himself, which is characteristic of the man. He's about as reserved as it's possible for a human to be - and one of the most brilliant, inventive, and technically-skilled musicians on the planet.
You should listen to the clip. It's less than five minutes long, and it's quite amusing in a very deadpan, British way ...
Re: (Score:1)
In fact, Fripp merely relates what occurred.
Well good grief, you didn't expect me to listen to any of it did you? That's not how modern hot/hate takes work. You simple analyze who is in whatever and react based on that, your feelings, and whatever random aliens are controlling your mind that day.
Certainly not based on the content!
Re: Yes that is a good example in fact. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Are you implying one colour is better than another? You racist scum!
Re: (Score:2)
Turns out, that in fact 100% of videos online are hate speech. That's because all those telling us what is hate speech, are telling us what they think is hate speech... Want to take down hate speech? Fine, no videos on the internet at all anymore.
You've made the reasonable argument that what they call "hate speech" is either hard or impossible to define. But to go from that to asserting that no problem exists, or no solution exists, is a logical non-sequitor.
Re: (Score:2)
Turns out, that in fact 100% of videos online are hate speech.
I'll paraphrase a bit:
"The question is not did <insert-your-favourite-ism> (e.g. racism, sexism, etc.) occur in this video, the question is, in what manner did <insert-your-favourite-ism> manifest itself within this video.
And with that 'thought' was this madness unleashed upon us all...
What's the problem with "hate speech"? (Score:1, Insightful)
No, seriously? What's the actual problem?
Anyone has the right to hate whatever he wants. He may have a reason, you know? Rape victims hating their rapists, for example?
Hating something doesn't mean you want to harm. Barking dogs usually don't bite. Assuming a hard relationship between the two is false.
It seems to exclusively stem from two things:
1. Kids that grew up in a safe space and completely missed out on the confidence training of young adults attacking each other. And never learned that that doesn't
Just to clarify: Not saying "women scheme" (Score:2)
Certainly there are many scheming men too, and certainly women don't scheme "generally" either. ;)
It's.... hard to find the best words that no SJW can sink their fangs in.
You know what I mean. Check your triggers. Assume I mean it in the best way. Because I do. ;)
Re: (Score:3)
No, seriously? What's the actual problem?
hate speech: noun
abusive or threatening speech or writing that expresses prejudice against a particular group, especially on the basis of race, religion, or sexual orientation.
One argument would be that the problem lies in the abusive or threatening nature of this 'speech'?
Another argument is that the historical roots of hate speech are strongly correlated with hate action, applied to the unfortunate and the vulnerable alike.
OTOH, your straw man may be more convincing with different straw. What forms of '
Re: (Score:2)
1. Why did you assume I wasn't saying what I said, knowing this, and implying that you know that I know this?
2. So what if it is abusive or even threatening? What is the actual problem? I'm not gonna repeat what I already said. I talked about this thoroughly in my comment. I recommend reading more than the first line. That should solve point 1 too.
3. Interesting, how you say "your straw man", so people think you could not possibly be using a straw man yourself in your own comment. When clearly, given point
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
>"No, seriously? What's the actual problem?"
There is no "problem" with "hate speech". Here are what I think are the actual problems:
1) Trying to define, precisely, what "hate speech" it is or is not
2) Banning "hate speech." It is one thing when a user decides what they want to see/read/hear, quite another when it is some government or monopolistic business.
3) People thinking there is a major problem with "hate speech", itself.
4) People who equate speech with physical harm. Or think they have a "right"
Re: (Score:2)
1) The error lies in the unfortunately common assumption that there must be some universal definition. When the very thing we are talking about is highly dependent on the person that is talked about aswell as the person saying it, including the assumptions, correct and false, that they make about each other.
3) What do you think it is? Magical? Of course it is physical. The brain is a physical object. You can measure the alterations in the brain, caused by neural input, including by speech. (Specifically neu
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
> No, seriously? What's the actual problem?
There is no problem but insecure children can't handle someone having a different opinion.
Only children censor.
Adults discuss and even laugh at "taboo" subjects because we aren't insecure at having our perceptions challenged and even wided. It is how we grow. When you shut down criticism, even constructive criticism, with bullshit excuses of censorship then that isn't solving the problem. Ignoring the problem doesn't make it go away.
See: 5 Banned YouTubers You [youtu.be]
What if the fascism is real? (Score:2)
George Carlin said it best:
Political correctness is fascism pretending to be manners
Carlin is a product of a different, more civilized time. If you wanted to say racist things about black people (genuinely hateful things you and I would both agree are racist) to a worldwide audience, you had to persuade a major network to air your rant. Now, with Twitter and Facebook, there are no real gatekeepers. If Carlin wanted to rant about Jews and Black people in a cruel and hateful way, the networks would never air his rant. They were gatekeepers. We all have some threshold in which we want ce
Re: (Score:2)
> If you think you can handle life uncensored, you're deluding yourself or just haven't seen the shittiest parts of the internet
> We all want some degree of censorship
> no one wants total freedom for any person to say whatever they want
All False. There is even an extreme version of this call Radical Honesty [wikipedia.org]
There is a time to be blunt, and there is a time to be diplomatic. Wisdom is knowing when to use the right one.
If I don't like an (online or offline) community and how it treats people, you kno
Re: (Score:2)
Communities that are that insecure and feel the need to micro-manage people's speech will eventually self-implode.
This is precisely the sort of deluded mindset that leads people to believe that communism can work.
Re: (Score:2)
Didn't you find a more narm [tvtropes.org] thought-terminating clichee / killer argument?
Couldn't quite make it to the Hitler analogy?
PROTIP: I'm old enough to have lived in times where people weren't that insecure! And it *did* work.
Or wait, maybe you mean the opposite. But even then, ... what the hell has communism to do with this?
Re: (Score:2)
PROTIP: I'm old enough to have lived in times where people weren't that insecure! And it *did* work.
That's not... that's not even... just no. That's not how "pro tip" works either properly or in the better, ironic way. Because, you know, that's not a tip.
Anyway, back to it, no you aren't old enough because that time never existed, and no it didn't work. Completely unmoderated forums turn into shitshows of shitposting and spamming.
But even then, ... what the hell has communism to do with this?
Because they're
Re: (Score:2)
:D
My friend, radical honesty is the cornerstone of the society of my country, Germany. :D
I fucking love it.
All I don't love is when people don't realize you can like each other all the way through it.
Example: I can call somebody an asshole and say he did something wrong. But not because of resentment, but because I do *care*! I care so much that I don't want a random person on the street to live a worse life because he doesn't notice he's been an asshole and could have a so much better life if he just chang
You're assuming you're an island (Score:2)
Communities that are that insecure and feel the need to micro-manage people's speech will eventually self-implode. Censorship is NEVER the solution; it is precisely the problem.
Or gee, people could just SKIP the videos that they don't agree with -- just like people CURRENTLY do.
No one is doing that when you are reading watching something on the internet. IF you don't like what someone is saying then keep scrolling fast forwarding. It's not fucking rocket science.
OK, that works for you. About 10% of the people in my life would likely die if infected with COVID due to being elderly, diabetic, etc. I can skip anti-masker videos, but enough shitheads in my neighborhood don't so there's a massive COVID wave. Our cases in my state were WAAAAY down and they've gone up drastically lately because of idiots, many who see their stupid anti-mask views normalized online.
Externalities aside, I used to think like you did about censorship. That was the 90s and even most of
Re: (Score:2)
'Tis a common pattern nowadays:
Bullying is more successful, if you dress it as you being the victim. As the masses will side with *you*.
Which is only a sub-pattern of:
Harm is alright if you declare it to be in reaction to harm.
On which not only the morals of primitive people but also our entire legal system is, sadly, built.
We call it "punishment".
And we even kill people who kill people "because" killing people is wrong.
Funny, how explaining that this is wrong was the key teaching of the new testament, whic
Re: (Score:2)
Let the hate flow through you! Your hate has made you profitable!
FTFY (in case anyone was still wondering if this is actually anything more than a Facebook marketing campaign...)
Re: (Score:1)
Just like Slashdot... (Score:3)
You post one pro-emacs message and the VI-llians come out of the woodwork to slap you down. My karma has never been so low.
Who defines 'hate speech'? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
So, what is the criteria? Are "I hate black people", "I hate cops", "I hate Donald Trump', and "I hate Joe Biden" all considered 'hate speech?
Only the first fits the criteria, as race is a "protected characteristic". But those are all easy ones.
What about defending the BLM allegations of systemic racism by saying "Black people are more likely to be shot by police because black men have much higher rates of violent crime, and so more confrontations with police." Is that "hate speech"? Nothing hateful in the tone, but that is not part of the criteria.
What about discussing educational outcomes in the US? This is where people have been accused
Re: (Score:3)
Mental health, including, but not limited to:
So is it allowed to talk about transgender and mental health? Is it "hate" to regard gender dysphoria as a possible mental health issue? The policy is very open-ended.
https://www.facebook.com/commu... [facebook.com]
Not only is the discussion around gender dysphoria open-ended, but it is also very dangerous and damaging. We should be treating individuals suffering from this, not handing them awards and a spotlight. An incredible suicide rate that doesn't change pre or post-op, is purely driven by societal pressure? Uh, no. That makes about as much sense as trying to completely accept and normalize something that less than a fraction of a percent of humans suffer from. Blows me away that "modern" medicine and psych
Who gets to define "hate speech"? (Score:2)
Quite frankly, the deluge of gloating in the past ten days is hateful enough.
Facebook's Censorship Sucks (Score:2)
I know several people... reasonable, middle of the road, not fringe wacko types of people... who have had mild facebook posts censored. Facebook's censorship sucks. It's also getting worse.
I'd rather see the right and left wing nut jobs as they want to be heard, offensive as it is, than deal with a corporate behemoth deciding what is an isn't fit for me to think about.
Censorship is the only hate that should be censored.
Before you can analyze... (Score:1, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Hate speech has been thoroughly defined already: "Speech you disagree with."
With that out of the way, we need to abolish all hate speech, and severely punish anyone who engages in it.
Hahahahahahahaha..spit (Score:1)
Spit my coffee over that claim.
Define hate speech (Score:1)
Because without that, then they are just babbling.
Subjective Vs Objective. (Score:2)
You always know it's going to be a bit of a shit show when someone starts making objective claims about subjective things.
For someone to say "There are objectively (x) counts of (y) in set (z)", you have to have objectively enumerated them.
This means, they must have a hard, objective measure of what constitutes hate speech. Which is subjective, thus by definition cannot have an objective metric. If you've ever wondered the difference, just ask someone the answer to a simple question: What is the distance
Re: (Score:2)
I find it rather symptomatic of the last decade or so, where it's become highly popular to claim some form of victimhood as a virtue, and use that stance to attack everything else in sight that doesn't conform to you exact subjective model, while claiming that nobody else can strike back at you, because victim status....
Bingo. Nailed It. The Victim Generation. Worst part about it, was allowing it to happen.
There are many completely valid things to hear that are desperately uncomfortable to listen to.. But that's all part of growing, seeing more sides of what's actually out there, being able to make a rational decision on context, scope and risk.
Ah, but therein lies the problem. A lot of people don't actually want to grow up. Those who were too immature to even handle the "stress" of college life, came out of those cry closet spaces and stepped into the Actual World with expected results. Instead of demanding these humans grow up we continued to coddle and cater to that until we allowed it to get out of control, forming the societal acceptance of Zero Tole
Re: (Score:2)
Trying to set hard measure of "Hate speech" is just as meaningless.
You're engaging in the continuum fallacy.
Go to pornhub. Click on the first video. 100% obviously hardcore porn.
Got to the national gallery website and fine a still life of some flowers. 100% obviously not porn.
And yet there's a smooth line from art to porn and you can get from one to the other by making nothing but incremental changes. And yet it's still obvious that the first thing is porn and the second isn't.
IOW just because a continuum e
Re: (Score:2)
I wouldn't entirely disagree with you. However, when you introduce the concept of political power bases to the equation, it becomes much less clear, with disproportionately strong voices that are actually in a minority asserting that something is actually on the spectrum at a place other than where it should be evaluated. And to shore up their political power base, they are strongly invested an evangelical about evaluating the item in the incorrect context.
Now, some measures are put in place to try to hea
Re: (Score:2)
In your analogy, you don't take account of the people who actually view porn as art (which is a non-trivial number).
I'm going to ignore the all X is art for any X crowd because it's useless. I mean if literally everything is art, then there's nothing to distinguish anything and the entire word becomes pointless. Like if you say all writing is art, then that includes the misspelled and confusing footnotes in a corporate faulty goods return form. Maybe there's some really subtle perfomance art trolling in the
"Hate Speech" you say? (Score:2)
"Hate speech" isn't a thing. Not anymore than "love speech" or "ugly speech" or "beauty speech." Stop pretending they're objectively real things that aren't subjectively defined by individuals.
Context of stats (Score:1)
Without a definition of what constitutes "hate speech," such figures are meaningless. Many definitions of hate speech are extremely broad, erring on the side of calling something "hate speech" if perhaps, maybe, someone, somewhere, might somehow get their feelings hurt. Usually this caters to the perpetually-offended crowd, those being people who are actively looking to be offended and the "cancel culture" which follows.
Their definition... (Score:1)