Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by on Wednesday March 08 2017, @07:14PM   Printer-friendly
from the From-the-"No,-YOU'RE-a-pedo"-department dept.

A BBC investigation found 100 "sexualised images of children" on Facebook. Auntie Beeb reported the images to Facebook, who found over 80% of them to be "not in breach of their guidelines" - despite one of them including a still from a child abuse video with a label requesting viewers "share child pornography."

The twist is that when the BBC followed up on this failure, Facebook reported the BBC to the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre for "distributing images of child exploitation".

How can Facebook expect users to help them police their content when reporting abuse gets the users accused of the abuses they are reporting?

Alternate articles:


Original Submission

Related Stories

Facebook Releases Internal Moderation Guidelines 44 comments

Facebook reveals 25 pages of takedown rules for hate speech and more

Facebook has never before made public the guidelines its moderators use to decide whether to remove violence, spam, harassment, self-harm, terrorism, intellectual property theft, and hate speech from social network until now. The company hoped to avoid making it easy to game these rules, but that worry has been overridden by the public's constant calls for clarity and protests about its decisions. Today Facebook published 25 pages of detailed criteria and examples for what is and isn't allowed.

Facebook is effectively shifting where it will be criticized to the underlying policy instead of individual incidents of enforcement mistakes like when it took down posts of the newsworthy "Napalm Girl" historical photo because it contains child nudity before eventually restoring them. Some groups will surely find points to take issue with, but Facebook has made some significant improvements. Most notably, it no longer disqualifies minorities from shielding from hate speech because an unprotected characteristic like "children" is appended to a protected characteristic like "black".

Nothing is technically changing about Facebook's policies. But previously, only leaks like a copy of an internal rulebook attained by the Guardian had given the outside world a look at when Facebook actually enforces those policies. These rules will be translated into over 40 languages for the public. Facebook currently has 7500 content reviewers, up 40% from a year ago.

Also at MarketWatch.

Related:
Facebook Reports BBC for Reporting Child Porn Images Found on Facebook
Facebook Blocks Users from Sharing World Socialist Web Site Promotional Video
Facebook-Owned Instagram Removes Opioid-Related Posts


Original Submission

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(1)
  • (Score: 3, Interesting) by bob_super on Wednesday March 08 2017, @07:32PM

    by bob_super (1357) on Wednesday March 08 2017, @07:32PM (#476668)

    New BBC facebook post highlighting their reporting that they got reported by facebook for reporting on CP found on facebook.
    New Facebook post about new BBC facebook post highlighting their reporting that they got reported by facebook for reporting on CP found on facebook.
    ...
    #3: profit (well, all posts have ads)

  • (Score: 4, Insightful) by BsAtHome on Wednesday March 08 2017, @07:46PM (3 children)

    by BsAtHome (889) on Wednesday March 08 2017, @07:46PM (#476674)

    It is always easier to blame the messenger. Blame someone else and just repeat it often enough. The blame game is an effective game of disinformation. It does not help to solve the problem, but at least it is SEP(*) now.

    (*) Please read the really good book for this particular phenomenon.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 08 2017, @08:14PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 08 2017, @08:14PM (#476685)

      Its stupid but is this is a pattern or a one-off?
      Because it sounds like it was just a drone mindlessly following "the rules."
      You don't have to be a computer to be a robot.

    • (Score: 2) by stretch611 on Wednesday March 08 2017, @08:22PM

      by stretch611 (6199) on Wednesday March 08 2017, @08:22PM (#476691)

      Blame someone else and just repeat it often enough.

      Exactly. Facebook failed to take action when the posts were originally submitted for review. So instead of admitting that they screwed up, they decided to report the BBC when they tried to report the posts a different way.

      --
      Now with 5 covid vaccine shots/boosters altering my DNA :P
    • (Score: 5, Insightful) by Scruffy Beard 2 on Wednesday March 08 2017, @09:07PM

      by Scruffy Beard 2 (6030) on Wednesday March 08 2017, @09:07PM (#476713)

      Child pornography is great,” the speaker at the podium declared enthusiastically. ”It is great because politicians understand child pornography. By playing that card, we can get them to act, and start blocking sites. And once they have done that, we can get them to start blocking file sharing sites”.

      - IFPI’s child porn strategy [wordpress.com]

      It is very dangerous to have information deemed illegal by it's mere existence.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 08 2017, @08:19PM (1 child)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 08 2017, @08:19PM (#476688)

    Meh, just shut down the entire Internet.

    "BecauseYouCan'tBeTooSafeThinkOfTheChildrenPollyWannaCracker"

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 08 2017, @08:26PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 08 2017, @08:26PM (#476694)

    They are just creepy that way.

  • (Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 08 2017, @08:34PM (14 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 08 2017, @08:34PM (#476696)

    ...from a Violently Imposed Monopoly?

    • (Score: 2) by takyon on Wednesday March 08 2017, @08:43PM (8 children)

      by takyon (881) <reversethis-{gro ... s} {ta} {noykat}> on Wednesday March 08 2017, @08:43PM (#476700) Journal

      Hey, are you memeing us?

      --
      [SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
      • (Score: 2) by bob_super on Wednesday March 08 2017, @09:00PM (7 children)

        by bob_super (1357) on Wednesday March 08 2017, @09:00PM (#476710)

        How many times does it need to show up before we all agree that it's as toxic as actual spam?
        I don't know that I can mod it spam because it's not trying to sell stuff, but I wish there was a better mod than wasting points on troll/flamebait.

        I always browse at -1, to catch unfounded AC downmods, so I can't avoid seeing those.
        Maybe a lower minimum would give some needed granularity, and a "broken-record troll" -2 (or more) mod would help discourage idiots while saving our mod points for deserving people.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 08 2017, @09:08PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 08 2017, @09:08PM (#476715)

          You can't have a -2 option by default, abuse guaranteed. Perhaps some logic for a thread that checks if a post was made from an IP that was already modded troll. All future comments from that IP (and only for that thread) will then have the -2 option. Not perfect, but I'll err on the side of caution when it comes to mod abuse.

        • (Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Wednesday March 08 2017, @09:43PM (4 children)

          by tangomargarine (667) on Wednesday March 08 2017, @09:43PM (#476732)

          This is an insoluble problem. Either you see *all* the troll posts, or you miss potential unjust mods.

          Idiot is in the eye of the beholder

          --
          "Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 08 2017, @09:52PM (3 children)

            by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 08 2017, @09:52PM (#476739)

            > This is an insoluble problem.

            Have you tried mixing it with water?

            • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Wednesday March 08 2017, @11:37PM (2 children)

              by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday March 08 2017, @11:37PM (#476782) Journal

              > Have you tried mixing it with water?

              It's not a polar issue, everyone (possible exception of the troll, but cannot exclude the case that even him) agree its a troll.
              A such, only non-polar solvents might dissolve it, water won't help.

              --
              https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
              • (Score: 2) by Bogsnoticus on Thursday March 09 2017, @06:27AM (1 child)

                by Bogsnoticus (3982) on Thursday March 09 2017, @06:27AM (#476892)

                Of course water won't help. Anyone who has played D&D knows you need acid to make the troll soluble.

                --
                Genius by birth. Evil by choice.
                • (Score: 2) by bob_super on Thursday March 09 2017, @05:22PM

                  by bob_super (1357) on Thursday March 09 2017, @05:22PM (#477020)

                  Internet trolls are suicidal trolls.
                  They're the only ones dumb enough to constantly start flame wars.

                  (for the few who don't know their classics: burning a troll is one of the few ways to prevent regeneration after you kill him. TMYK)

        • (Score: 2) by takyon on Wednesday March 08 2017, @09:51PM

          by takyon (881) <reversethis-{gro ... s} {ta} {noykat}> on Wednesday March 08 2017, @09:51PM (#476737) Journal

          If you don't care what everyone else sees, you can apply your own complex automatic meta mods here: https://soylentnews.org/my/comments [soylentnews.org]

          --
          [SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 08 2017, @08:48PM (1 child)

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 08 2017, @08:48PM (#476703)

      I'll bite, but you'll have to elaborate. I'm afraid I'm not making the connection as readily this time. Where is the violently imposed monopoly here?

      I'm thinking chemtrails and the weather war might be more applicable to this topic, since chemtrails are the only thing I can figure that would make people think using Facebook is a good idea (or think that Facebook has any intention or history of using its "report this post" feature in any objective way). Water fluoridation conspiracies might work as well.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 08 2017, @09:13PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 08 2017, @09:13PM (#476718)

        You've obviously never had to fight off a group of heavily armed TV Licensing [tvlicensing.co.uk] thugs. If we had a free market in television, disasters like this unfounded attack on Facebook wouldn't happen.

    • (Score: 2) by Bot on Thursday March 09 2017, @09:57AM (2 children)

      by Bot (3902) on Thursday March 09 2017, @09:57AM (#476923) Journal

      > Violently Imposed Monopoly
      Indeed, we need an Extremely Moderated, Anti-Corruption System instead.

      --
      Account abandoned.
      • (Score: 2) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Thursday March 09 2017, @10:02AM (1 child)

        by GreatAuntAnesthesia (3275) on Thursday March 09 2017, @10:02AM (#476925) Journal

        My preference is for violently-imposed Scrabble, but that's just me.

        • (Score: 2) by Bot on Friday March 10 2017, @10:01AM

          by Bot (3902) on Friday March 10 2017, @10:01AM (#477305) Journal

          FASCIST
          = 4 + 1 + 1 + 3 + 1 + 1 + 1 = 12
          = 12

          --
          Account abandoned.
  • (Score: 2) by Refugee from beyond on Wednesday March 08 2017, @10:33PM

    by Refugee from beyond (2699) on Wednesday March 08 2017, @10:33PM (#476757)

    That's how we do things in Russia. Glad you are catching up.

    --
    Instantly better soylentnews: replace background on article and comment titles with #973131.
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 09 2017, @02:41AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 09 2017, @02:41AM (#476832)

    Is this in any way related to the recent BBC 3 ``documentary'' on child exploitation in Japan? You know, the one where half of it was about the ``reporter'' claiming to feel unhappy that Japan isn't doing enough to control people's minds. Yes, she actually admitted this. It wasn't voodoo theory this time, it was an outright desire to control the populace's minds through restriction of the media which they may consume. This was in reference to pornographic images of adults photoshopped to look younger, and then again later in the ``documentary'' in reference to fictional drawings.

  • (Score: 2) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Thursday March 09 2017, @02:56AM

    by MichaelDavidCrawford (2339) Subscriber Badge <mdcrawford@gmail.com> on Thursday March 09 2017, @02:56AM (#476839) Homepage Journal

    If you issue a query that refers to kiddieporn, bing suggests about a dozen related queries that pretty quickly leads one to the very worst of it.

    I reported this to the FBI, also the clark county washington sheriff's department, but nothing has been done.

    --
    Yes I Have No Bananas. [gofundme.com]
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 09 2017, @03:35PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 09 2017, @03:35PM (#476979)

    That's their bread and butter, the nevereding river of dross, filth and fake news.

(1)