Facebook Guidelines Allow Users To Call For Death of Public Figures (theguardian.com) 86
Facebook's bullying and harassment policy explicitly allows for "public figures" to be targeted in ways otherwise banned on the site, including "calls for [their] death," according to a tranche of internal moderator guidelines leaked to the Guardian. From the report: Public figures are defined by Facebook to include people whose claim to fame may be simply a large social media following or infrequent coverage in local newspapers. They are considered to be permissible targets for certain types of abuse "because we want to allow discussion, which often includes critical commentary of people who are featured in the news," Facebook explains to its moderators. It comes as social networks face renewed criticism over abuse on their platforms, including of the Duke and Duchess of Sussex and of professional footballers, in particular black stars such as Marcus Rashford.Facebook, which also owns Instagram, has changed its policies in response to the criticism, introducing new rules to cover abuse sent through direct messages and committing to cooperate with law enforcement over hate speech. In the detailed guidelines seen by the Guardian, running to more than 300 pages and dating from December 2020, Facebook spells out how it differentiates between protections for private and public individuals.
Zuck.. I'm sure you have a few fans out there (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Zuck
One thing I'll say about Zuck: good luck killing the undead.
Re: Zuck.. I'm sure you have a few fans out there (Score:2)
A bit miffed your swazis can't get past the filters?
Re: (Score:2)
smack light practice.
todays image will be to light up our new friend the sucker berg
Re: Zuck.. I'm sure you have a few fans out there (Score:2)
Zuck /\ Sense = {}
On the other hand... (Score:4, Interesting)
A Polish writer faces a possible prison sentence for insulting President Andrzej Duda by calling him a "moron" over comments the latter made about Joe Biden's US election victory.
Jakub Zulczyk, the screenwriter behind the popular TV series Blinded by the Lights and Belfer, said prosecutors had charged him under an article in the criminal code for insulting the head of state in a Facebook post.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/mar/23/polish-writer-jakub-zulczyk-charged-for-calling-president-andrzej-duda-a-moron [theguardian.com]
Re: (Score:2)
You'd think Poles of all people would know to not act like fascists.
Re: (Score:3)
And you'd be wrong to think that. Many places have politcal parties that once in power do whatever it takes to cement that power in place permanently, which leads to an authoritarian style of thinking. Not necessarily fascist, in the normal definition of the term. So removing freedoms of speech and press, establishing a very compliant supreme court unlikely to ever disagree with the president or party, etc.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: On the other hand... (Score:2, Funny)
I'm quaking at the thought of their screen door equipped submarines launching an attack on America.
Re: (Score:2)
Hey, in a world where right-wing nationalists are governing the state of Israel everything is possible.
Re:On the other hand... (Score:4, Informative)
Regardless of what Facebook's internal policies are, they don't override local laws. So be careful, while Facebook might not mind you calling for a politician's death, the cops might. Or the politician themselves, if they decide to sue you for harassment.
Re: On the other hand... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, hey, they ought not censor these threats. The authorities may well be interested in both the perp and their adherents.
Re: On the other hand... (Score:2)
And what stops them from reassigning the post to being viewable only by said authorities?
Re: (Score:2)
Facebook is piss poor about accurately following their policies. If you get flagged for violating (community standards) and get a warning or worse you have one option: To appeal. All that means is someone (likely a human) looks at it more closely. You don't get to EXPLAIN how it doesn't violate their policies.
I admin a large FB group (50k) and I'm frequently getting feedback from users that their post was deleted and they got a warning (and maybe a mute) from FB. And the warnings are vague, too. They
Re: On the other hand... (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
It's all fun and games... (Score:5, Insightful)
..until your side gets targeted.
Re: (Score:2)
direct messages... (Score:5, Insightful)
Is it any wonder (Score:1)
Well of course this is the case. (Score:1, Insightful)
Remember when Twitter admitted that their algorithms to ban white supremacists would necessarily wind up banning most, if not all, GOP members? [businessinsider.com] It's not that the algorithm was wrong - it's that the GOP has literally become a white-supremacist terrorist party, and that things like death threats are
Re: (Score:1, Flamebait)
Please stop spouting this nonsense. Just because almost every violent nutjob is a right-wing Trump supporter (and often a white supremacist) doesn't mean that all Trump supporters and right-wingers are violent nutjob white supremacists. When you insist on conflating the two and then attacking all Trump supporters and right-wingers based on that false premise, you push any moderates on the right further toward the extreme
Re: (Score:2)
Just because almost every violent nutjob is a right-wing Trump supporter (and often a white supremacist)
What, like James Hodgkinson or Ahmad Al Aliwi Alissa?
The media keep screeching about far right and white supremacist terrorists but the facts are simple: idiots inhabit all parts of the political spectrum.
Re: Well of course this is the case. (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
you push any moderates on the right further toward the extreme right
Moderates on the right are called democrats in the US.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"because misinformation and hate is more mainstream on the Republican side of the aisle."
Oh. More mainstream. How much more? From my vantage point, it's pretty much a dead heat, if you're generous.
Re: (Score:1, Flamebait)
Oh please. CNN have spent four years lying and hiding the truth. All those people posting 'not my president' for four years are mainstream irrational hate. Democrats lied in the Senate and fabricated evidence in an actual trial. The whole Russian collusion hoax was known to be a lie before Trump even became President, as it was concocted to try and prevent him winning the election. Several years of media, politician and actual state supported misinformation going on there.
Not that things changed after the N
Re: (Score:2)
And don't bother with the BLM "riots" of last summer: they were violent because of the police response.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, Dems were caught up in trying to overthrow the duly elected government, too. Oh, wait - they weren't
Oh? Pelosi actually tried to take control over America's nuclear weapons away from the President. It doesn't get much more serious than that. The military leaders described what she was doing as an attempted coup.
But, yes, "both sides."
When did the 'other' side (as though there were ever only two sides) try this? Do explain.
And don't bother with the BLM "riots" of last summer: they were violent because of the police response.
Oh you fucking clown. No, they were violent because people wanted to attack the police, wanted to loot, wanted to burn down businesses.
The police didn't cause that. The police didn't do anything to justify 120
Re: (Score:2)
No. She asked what safeguards are in place to prevent an unstable President from launching nukes.
Really?
Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California on Friday took the unprecedented step of asking the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff about âoeavailable precautionsâ to prevent President Trump from initiating military action abroad or using his sole authority to launch nuclear weapons
That's not safeguards. That's an attempted coup.
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/0... [nytimes.com] doesn't tell us the politics of the military officials, but if you're writing off professional opinions based on your assumption of the politics of the individuals then, well, you're also a fucking clown.
Ok, I can see you don't have the emotional maturity to continue this conversation in a civilized manner.
Shrug. Don't want to be called a fucking clown, don't try and argue like one.
Re: (Score:2)
All those people posting 'not my president' for four years are mainstream irrational hate
You must either be very young or just have a short memory. The people who were saying "not my president" about Trump were just imitating the people who did it for eight years for Obama.
Democrats lied in the Senate and fabricated evidence in an actual trial. The whole Russian collusion hoax was known to be a lie before Trump even became President, as it was concocted to try and prevent him winning the election.
Objectively, it obviously was not a hoax It does not matter how many times Trump and his allies repeat the word "hoax", it does not actually make it one.
As for the Washington Post admitting to "lying", they issued a correction to the alleged quotes they had once an actual recording became available. The recording itself was i
Re: (Score:1)
Objectively, it obviously was not a hoax It does not matter how many times Trump and his allies repeat the word "hoax", it does not actually make it one.
You'd prefer the term 'conspiracy' then? They manufactured a fake dossier, used that to justify spying on the Trump campaign then orchestrated media accusations for two years knowing full well that there was nothing there.
As for the Washington Post admitting to "lying", they issued a correction to the alleged quotes they had once an actual recording became available. The recording itself was incredibly damning and the substance was in line with what was reported.
Bullshit. The recording showed only a President seeking to assure that the US election was fair and untainted.
The Washington Post lied. They admitted they lied. Why are you so adamant that we shouldn't point out that the lying Washington Post lied because they are liars?
Re: (Score:2)
You'd prefer the term 'conspiracy' then? They manufactured a fake dossier, used that to justify spying on the Trump campaign then orchestrated media accusations for two years knowing full well that there was nothing there.
Who manufactured a fake dossier? If you're referring to the dossier I think you're referring to, wasn't that originally commissioned by Republicans, making it something of a bipartisan effort? As for "knowing full well there was nothing there", did those convictions come from "nothing there"? The Mueller report was pretty clear that there was plenty of collusion with the Russians, just not that they could charge criminally. Sometimes immensely unethical and treason-like behavior turns out to not actually be
Re: (Score:2)
Who manufactured a fake dossier?
Steele.
If you're referring to the dossier I think you're referring to, wasn't that originally commissioned by Republicans, making it something of a bipartisan effort?
The Republicans could not and did not make FISA applications to spy on the Trump campaign. That had to come from the Government, which was led by a Democrat President.
As for "knowing full well there was nothing there", did those convictions come from "nothing there"?
Yes. Perhaps you could cite any conviction that arose due to illegal collusion with the Russians.
As for Mueller, I hear a lot of noise but see no evidence. No proof. Nothing that would support even Pelosi bringing impeachment charges, something she was trying to do repeatedly for years.
Can you explain to me, in what universe it is ethical for the President, who is also a candidate in the election, to call election officials directly about that sort of thing? Are you familiar with the concept of a conflict of interest? No neutral legal expert would consider this anything less than immensely problematic from an ethics standpoint at the very least.
It is indeed immensely problematic. That doesn't ch
Re: (Score:2)
Steele.
Steele put together a dossier. Like all such efforts, it included both verified information and unverified rumor. Plenty of what is in the dossier is accurate. In any case, it was hardly the only evidence of Russian collusion.
The Republicans could not and did not make FISA applications to spy on the Trump campaign. That had to come from the Government, which was led by a Democrat President.
Way to shift the goalposts there! Bravo! In fact, the dossier in question was, in fact, commissioned by Republicans.
Yes. Perhaps you could cite any conviction that arose due to illegal collusion with the Russians.
How could I? I was quite clear that, while quite shockingly unethical, it turns out that it's not actually a crime (supposedly anyway, since that kind of assistance is ac
Re: (Score:2)
Way to shift the goalposts there!
My point was that a fake dossier was used to justify spying on the Trump campaign. It's hardly shifting the goalposts to point out that your attempts to blame Republicans for this falls flat the moment you look at who used the dossier to break the fucking law.
How could I?
Well, precisely my point. You can't, because the whole thing was a multi-year anti-democratic fucking hoax.
The integrity of the elections was verified by the courts and by the very officials that Trump unethically called to unduly influence.
The courts continually refused to hear cases regarding election integrity. Indeed, 14 cases filed by Trump were dismissed for 'standing' or other
Re: (Score:2)
My point was that a fake dossier was used to justify spying on the Trump campaign.
:You're so clearly pushing the party line with the word "fake" about the dossier. It contains pretty standard information for that sort of work. Nothing really justifies calling it "fake". Also, you did write: "They manufactured a fake dossier...". So I pointed out that the actual truth is that he dossier was commissioned by Republicans. As for "spying", when law enforcement does it with a warrant, it's called "surveillance". There is no indication that information from the surveillance was fed to the Democ
Re: (Score:2)
trump supporters / alt-right white supremacists, there's really no difference
Your lack of nuance is disturbing.
"Tranche" (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
In french it simply means a slice, like a slice of apple pie: une tranche de tarte aux pommes.
Re: (Score:2)
Using French financial words only makes you look like a pretentious Redditor.
"Tranche" is a standard financial loanword for a deployed slice of a larger amount of money, such as a portion of a building loan paid out on completion of a project phase.
I think they should let people post (Score:2, Flamebait)
I think facebook and other social media should take a hands off policy and let people post whatever they want. leave matters of harassment, criminal threats / assaults, etc to the law.
However if they are going to have community standards - don't feed us some yarn about wanting to facilitate discussions. If can't call for the death of Covid-Karen why should I be able to call for the death Donal Trump (we know that is what this is really about - they'd have to probably ban a quarter of their account holders)?
Re: (Score:2)
facebook truly wanted to elevate discourse
I think it's been a long time since anyone believed that's what Facebook wanted. They want money, same as every other company. They navigate political and social waters to maximize profit. Lip service is paid to each side to stave off undesirable regulation and user exodus.
self explanatory, common sense (Score:2)
By "public", we are usually talking about people who have chosen to be in a spotlight. They deliberately draw attention to themselves and they often have a message or cause or passion that they hope we will share. It seems reasonable that they are also open to criticism from any and all who are faced with their presence. Asking for their death seems extreme, but I can think of many public individuals whose death would have saved countless other lives.
OTOH, an ordinary citizen, crime victim, housewife, farm
Re: (Score:3)
There are plenty of "famous" people who don't particularly want to be in the spotlight, but have no choice.
There are just too many instances where people will lose protection that they need, just so we can yell at people who are idiots (who, by nature, don't listen or believe anyway)
Take the woman who spoke up about rape, has evidence, the man has priors. She becomes a public figure due to misogynists and the man's fans, then it is game on/free for all.
Or any black person in the US, doing something Trump su
Has it ever occurred to anyone (Score:2)
I'm not suggesting that we relax the laws against killing politicians, only that you and I deserve the same level of real protection as they do.
Trump? (Score:5, Insightful)
Isn't that what Trump was accused of - calling for the death of certain public figures occupying the Capitol?
If it were my platform, I wouldn't allow anyone calling for the death of anyone else regardless of celebrity or status.
Re: (Score:2)
If it were my platform, I wouldn't allow anyone calling for the death of anyone else regardless of celebrity or status.
So the murdering psychopath who runs through a child day care center with an UZI and kills everyone including your child...you mean to tell me you're going to be the one wagging your banhammer finger in the face of everyone on "my platform" who is demanding equal and fair justice for such a heinous act?
Try not to assume so much when making statements like that. The world isn't that simple, as social media can attest.
Re: (Score:2)
If it were my platform, I wouldn't allow anyone calling for the death of anyone else regardless of celebrity or status.
So the murdering psychopath who...
Calling for death and actually killing people are two different thing aren't they? I'm not agreeing with the OP, but let's clarify that calling for violence and committing violence are not equal, nor should they be.
Re: (Score:2)
If it were my platform, I wouldn't allow anyone calling for the death of anyone else regardless of celebrity or status.
So the murdering psychopath who...
Calling for death and actually killing people are two different thing aren't they? I'm not agreeing with the OP, but let's clarify that calling for violence and committing violence are not equal, nor should they be.
Yes, which is exactly why it's rather senseless to attack mere words.
There are now two kinds of people in this world. Those that still believe mere words cannot hurt me, and those who insist on turning speech into a weapon of "hate" for people to abuse and silence those they disagree with.
Re: (Score:2)
If it were my platform, I wouldn't allow anyone calling for the death of anyone else regardless of celebrity or status.
So the murdering psychopath who runs through a child day care center with an UZI and kills everyone including your child...you mean to tell me you're going to be the one wagging your banhammer finger in the face of everyone on "my platform" who is demanding equal and fair justice for such a heinous act?
Try not to assume so much when making statements like that. The world isn't that simple, as social media can attest.
Calling for equal and fair justice is not the same thing as calling for their death. Vigilante killing is not justice.
Re: Trump? (Score:2)
Verifiable citation needed, or your suggesting fake news is part of the problem.
Or did you finally clear that pedophilia conviction you had?
Re: (Score:2)
Verifiable citation needed, or your suggesting fake news is part of the problem.
Or did you finally clear that pedophilia conviction you had?
I have never been accused of pedophilia, much less indicted or convicted. The single article of impeachment against Trump was inciting a mob to attack the Capitol, Multiple news agencies even reported an alleged call for the death of Mike Pence for not throwing out the Electoral College's report instead of validating it.
Re: (Score:2)
So I'd have thought it pretty simple to come up with a link, yeah?
And my point is exactly that - I don't expect you're a pedophile, but you seem to act as if the mere accusation = reality, so why can't I?
Re: (Score:2)
So I'd have thought it pretty simple to come up with a link, yeah?
And my point is exactly that - I don't expect you're a pedophile, but you seem to act as if the mere accusation = reality, so why can't I?
I don't equate accusations with reality. I was pointing out the hypocrisy that mere accusations were enough to get Trump banned, but now Facebook says that actually threatening celebrities is not enough to be banned. As for links, I provided them on another reply.
Re: (Score:2)
Isn't that what Trump was accused of - calling for the death of certain public figures occupying the Capitol?
Accused of? Maybe. He didn't do that though in the real world outside of anybody's head.
Re: (Score:2)
Isn't that what Trump was accused of - calling for the death of certain public figures occupying the Capitol?
Accused of? Maybe. He didn't do that though in the real world outside of anybody's head.
Multiple news agencies reported that Trump called for the death of Mike Pence for not throwing out the Electoral College's ballots.
The media creates public figures (Score:4, Insightful)
Smart people will note that the media can literally draft anyone into becoming a public figure by writing about them enough. Then suddenly that person is fair game, has reduced defamation protections, etc. Could be a child, could be a fry cook at McDonalds. Once a critical mass of chattering heads start chattering, the courts cry "muh 1a" and you're a second class citizen.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Smart people will...
Here we go...
Once a critical mass of chattering heads start chattering, the courts cry "muh 1a" and you're a second class citizen.
That is not how 1A works. The courts, which actually understand the law more than you clearly do, know this [wikipedia.org] too.
Smart people wouldn't confuse FB policy with the actual law.
Re: (Score:2)
the courts cry "muh 1a"
Really? That's all you think of the first amendment? Some sort of weird incoherent mockery?
Well, at least you are open about it. And ironically, I'm glad that nobody censored your post. It needs to be seen, in all it's ... er, glory.
It's news when FB does it (Score:2)
I deplore whataboutism as much as the next guy, but just like the next guy I'm not above invoking it.
I've seen open calls to not only overthrow the US government, but also to literally "assassinate" female Muslims in Congress. Given that there are so few, that's a very specific threat, especially since they named names. Fox has no problem with such comments, but don't dare call Trump "President Agent Orange" even if you're quoting a "public figure".
Saying you hope some public figure dies is one thing. S
Does Mark Zuckerberg qualify? (Score:2)
Legal Disclaimer: The query above does not imply I am planning to call for the death of any public figure, including, but not limited to Mark.
Unless... (Score:2)
Unless the aforementioned "public figure" is a member of some niche socioeconomic, racial, or cultural group in which case you get put into Facebook jail. Yep, can't generate advertising clicks from Facebook jail.
I guess this allows those in the US administration (Score:2)
.. that called for Assange's death to be OK on Facebook.
How about Death to Facebook posts? ;)
Discussion? (Score:2)
Since when does calling for a public figure's death constitute a discussion?
It's a strange policy considering calling for anyone's death is liable to get you a visit from law enforcement (if someone reports it), but hey, Facebook is cool with it because it's "a discussion".
FB is not the Law (Score:2)
Don't use FB and all your FB problems go away...
How to Decide if Someone is a "Public Figure" (Score:3)
I can now confidently predict that whether one is a public figure will be decided based on the content of one's opinions.
"or infrequent coverage in local newspapers" (Score:2)
Thank goodness! (Score:2)
Folly (Score:2)
Debating Facebook guidelines or rules is like debating how many devils can dance on the head of a zit.