Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by janrinok on Tuesday September 14 2021, @01:23PM   Printer-friendly
from the double-standard dept.

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2021/09/leaked-documents-reveal-the-special-rules-facebook-uses-for-5-8m-vips/

Facebook had a problem on its hands. People were making posts that got caught in the company's automated moderation system or were taken down by its human moderators. The problem wasn't that the moderators, human or otherwise, were wrong to take down the posts. No, the problem was that the people behind the posts were famous or noteworthy, and the company didn't want a PR mess on its hands.

So Facebook came up with a program called XCheck, or cross check, which in many instances became a de facto whitelist. Over the years, XCheck has allowed celebrities, politicians, athletes, activists, journalists, and even the owners of "animal influencers" like "Doug the Pug" to post whatever they want, with few to no consequences for violating the company's rules.

"For a select few members of our community, we are not enforcing our policies and standards," reads an internal Facebook report published as part of a Wall Street Journal investigation. "Unlike the rest of our community, these people can violate our standards without any consequences."

"Few" must be a relative term at Facebook, as at least 5.8 million people were enrolled in the program as of last year, many of them with significant followings. That means a large number of influential people are allowed to post largely unchecked on Facebook and Instagram.


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This discussion has been archived.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.
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 14 2021, @05:34PM (1 child)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 14 2021, @05:34PM (#1177766)

    > if you want a decent SNR on the site and for people to actually come back regularly, some moderation is needed

    So you are saying, there's a profit-motive to decrease the SNR on sites that do not have moderation...? I've seen it happen. Google groups used to have a neat web-based portal to usenet groups, which lasted about 5 years until spam completely destroyed it. At least there's Facebook and Twitter, right?

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 14 2021, @06:51PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 14 2021, @06:51PM (#1177795)

    Imho, there's a range, but at a certain point, it's not worth the effort. Part of why these sites exist is that email became a pain to use due to spam and a lack of effective way to communicate with groups. Email was relatively universal, and still is, but much of what people did with it has migrated to platforms that could remove some of the junk.

    Sifting through some crap to get to the gems isn't a problem, but when it's 98% crap that you don't want, you're probably going to move on or cease using it.