Comments on: Simon Wiesenthal Center Releases Report On Online Hate Proliferation

By: bcuban

bcuban — Sun, 21 Jun 2009 12:43:52 +0000

You say they are blatant. I suspect that FB is so in tune to your org that if you complained and they did not remove them they do not think they violate TOS. I have a much better understanding of how they evaluate content than I used to. For example:

I agree with FB that groups like Fuck Isreal, Fuck Judasim, Fuck islam, do NOT violate their terms of service because they are not direct expressions of hate or violence against individuals. That does not mean I think the groups or appropriate or belong on FB, just that under their current application of their TOS I understand why they are not removing them.

On the other end, I do believe that groups such as Fuck Jews, Fuck Muslims or say fuck Israelis are direct expressions of hate and violate TOS. I do not know if FB would agree with me or not. I am unclear with how they deal with "classes of people" I recently submitted the group "I hate Jews" as a TOS violation and they did remove it. This would indicate that they do consider a "class' in their process and do not engage in "hyper-technical" evaluations which is good. There was however a direct exhortation of violence in the comments which was a clear violation. If that comment was not there, I do not know whether they would have removed the group or not

By: bcuban

bcuban — Sun, 21 Jun 2009 12:29:13 +0000

You say they are blatant. There is a difference between you being of the opinion that something should be a TOS violation and it actually being one.

I suspect that FB is so in tune to your org that if you complained and they did not remove them after a reasonable time period, they do not think they violate TOS.(excluding the occasional miss) I feel I have a much better understanding of how they evaluate content than I used to. I would be curious to know what groups you feel violate their TOS to see if I agree.

For example: Based on my understanding on how Facebook evaluates hate groups, I agree with them that groups like "Fuck Judaism, Fuck Islam, Fuck Israel etc would NOT be TOS violations. I certainly wish their TOS did cover these groups and resulted in their removal. However, if you changed it to Fuck Jews, Fuck Israelis, or Fuck Muslims, I think they would fall under TOS and should be excluded.

By: Daniaile Jarry

Daniaile Jarry — Sat, 20 Jun 2009 19:58:07 +0000

Have you ever heard about THE GLOBAL ELDERS?
Created in July 07 by Nelson Mandela, following the recommendations of Richard Branson and Peter Gabriel. The GLOBAL ELDERS is a group of world leaders who contribute their wisdom, leadership and integrity to tackle some of the world's toughest problems.
What if Facebook, or any social site were to refer and defer to them to establish what constitutes hate speech?
We all need extremely wise men to be our leaders.
They are there.
Why not ask them?
Nothing ventured, nothing gained.

By: Daniaile Jarry

Daniaile Jarry — Sat, 20 Jun 2009 19:54:51 +0000

Dear Brian,
I have been following this ongoing debate closely. And I may have a suggestion. And perhaps the beginning of a solution.
Please hear me out:
It is a well known fact that intelligence services use what they call "dictionnaries", people who "listen in" to the Internet conversations, chats, cell phone calls and other communication mediums to track terrorist threats.
They are constantly updating their lexicons since terrorists or malevolent people have a jargon in constant evolution.
Now, if Facebook was to do the same.
Monitor, as I am sure they do, but more closely.
The problem remains, I'll hear you say:
One must to determine what , and I cite you " constitutes hate speech outside of the certainly in its definition of “direct-hate.” Facebook wants objective certainty when making such determinations. "

Well. Here is what may turn out to be an equitable and sustainable solution:
(need to cut this in 2 comments)

By: JIDF

JIDF — Sat, 20 Jun 2009 18:30:02 +0000

The point was not about any sort of disagreement with Facebook whatsoever.

The point is that there are BLATANT TOS violations all over the place and that Facebook does nothing proactive and rarely does enough to react to reports, which they receive in a timely manner from the JIDF.

By: bcuban

bcuban — Sat, 20 Jun 2009 15:24:04 +0000

Actually your argument makes Facebook's point. The fact that you believe that it is a TOS violation and they disagree means there is a subjective element that they want to avoid if at all possible.

While FB may take longer than you or I like to get to issues raised, I do NOT belief there is any subjective intent to allow groups who according to their guidelines violate TOS stay on the site. If the groups are staying permanently there is an objective TOS reason. That is the issue in my mind, not that the groups are staying but the thought process that is allowing them to stay. While they are emotional issues in your mine, in my mind and I know for a fact in Facebook's mind, if you can not take the emotion out of it for the purposes of the these discussion, nothing productive will be achieved. Its admittedly not an easy task. The more personal an issue, the more inherently difficult it is to separate the two. The goal at least for me, is not to "be right". I already have that part worked out! It is more to understand why I am wrong in the eyes of FB.

By: bcuban

bcuban — Sat, 20 Jun 2009 15:23:03 +0000

Actually your argument makes Facebook's point. The fact that you believe that it is a TOS violation and they disagree means there is a subjective element that they want to avoid if at all possible.

While FB may take longer than you or I like to get to issues raised, I do NOT belief there is any subjective intent to allow groups who according to their guidelines violate TOS stay on the site. If the groups are staying permanently there is an objective TOS reason. That is the issue in my mind, not that they are there but the though process that is allowing them to stay. While they are emotional issues in your mine, in my mind and I know for a fact in Facebook's mind, if you can not take the emotion out of it for the purposes of the these discussion, nothing productive will be achieved. Its admittedly not an easy task. The more personal an issue, the more inherently difficult it is to separate the two. The goal at least for me, is not to "be right". I already have that part worked out! It is more to understand why I am wrong.

By: JIDF

JIDF — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 23:44:19 +0000

The fact of the matter is that the problem is well beyond Holocaust denial on Facebook – there are groups with 10's of thousands of people which deny the Holocaust, and then preach for the "REAL" one – they preach genocide and the violent destruction of Israel – they promote Islamic terrorism, etc.

In these cases, it is objectively clear that they are against Facebook TOS.

However, despite thousands of activists reporting the material and writing letters, much of that hateful content and content that promotes violence, remains.

Facebook has an obligation to enforce its TOS with this material.