Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

Politics
posted by martyb on Friday September 27 2019, @08:20AM   Printer-friendly
from the We-don't-need-no-steenkin-facts! dept.

Facebook this week finally put into writing what users—especially politically powerful users—have known for years: its community "standards" do not, in fact, apply across the whole community. Speech from politicians is officially exempt from the platform's fact checking and decency standards, the company has clarified, with a few exceptions.

Facebook communications VP Nick Clegg, himself a former member of the UK Parliament, outlined the policy in a speech and company blog post Tuesday.

Facebook has had a "newsworthiness exemption" to its content guidelines since 2016. That policy was formalized in late October of that year amid a contentious and chaotic US political season and three weeks before the presidential election that would land Donald Trump the White House.

Facebook at the time was uncertain how to handle posts from the Trump campaign, The Wall Street Journal reported. Sources told the paper that Facebook employees were sharply divided over the candidate's rhetoric about Muslim immigrants and his stated desire for a Muslim travel ban, which several felt were in violation of the service's hate speech standards. Eventually, the sources said, CEO Mark Zuckerberg weighed in directly and said it would be inappropriate to intervene. Months later, Facebook finally issued its policy.

"We're going to begin allowing more items that people find newsworthy, significant, or important to the public interest—even if they might otherwise violate our standards," Facebook wrote at the time.

Source: ArsTechnica


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This discussion has been archived.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: 2) by MostCynical on Friday September 27 2019, @08:42AM (1 child)

    by MostCynical (2589) on Friday September 27 2019, @08:42AM (#899479) Journal

    Rules and principles [youtube.com]

    --
    "I guess once you start doubting, there's no end to it." -Batou, Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex
    • (Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 27 2019, @08:58AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 27 2019, @08:58AM (#899480)

      Who do they think they are Fox News?

  • (Score: 4, Interesting) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Friday September 27 2019, @09:14AM (5 children)

    by GreatAuntAnesthesia (3275) on Friday September 27 2019, @09:14AM (#899483) Journal

    three weeks before the presidential election that would land Donald Trump the White House ... Mark Zuckerberg ... said it would be inappropriate to intervene enforce the site's basic standards of truthfulness and decency to the world's most toxic liar as he campaigned for the most powerful office in the world

    Because there weren't already enough reasons to hate Zuckerberg.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 27 2019, @09:28AM (2 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 27 2019, @09:28AM (#899489)

      Letting Facebook be the world's fact checker is not the best idea.

      It's the news media's job to shame politicians for what they do and say. If that isn't getting you the results you want, then maybe we live in a society.

      • (Score: 3, Interesting) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Friday September 27 2019, @09:40AM

        by GreatAuntAnesthesia (3275) on Friday September 27 2019, @09:40AM (#899491) Journal

        That's all well and good, but the fact remains that for a large part of the population, Facebook has completely supplanted the "news media". Whether you like it or not, Facebook have become the primary source of news for a significant chunk of the western world's population. That's a lot of power, and we all know what Uncle Ben said about "great power".

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 27 2019, @02:45PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 27 2019, @02:45PM (#899569)

        Yes, but if that's the case, then that would still be the case for people that aren't politicians. This is about them trying to avoid upsetting politicians enough that they really go after the site for the various abusive practices.

    • (Score: 4, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Friday September 27 2019, @02:32PM

      by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Friday September 27 2019, @02:32PM (#899565) Journal

      Two words that never belong in the same sentence: Zuckerberg and standards.

    • (Score: 2) by DeVilla on Thursday October 03 2019, @03:45AM

      by DeVilla (5354) on Thursday October 03 2019, @03:45AM (#902152)

      If they would have blocked him and he still won, then we'd be complaining that "Facebook hid the truth, preventing everyone from seeing just how racist he really is!"

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 27 2019, @09:21AM (1 child)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 27 2019, @09:21AM (#899486)

    Thanks of introducing the concept of more equal to masses.

    • (Score: 4, Informative) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Friday September 27 2019, @09:42AM

      by GreatAuntAnesthesia (3275) on Friday September 27 2019, @09:42AM (#899492) Journal

      Right author, wrong book: "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others." -- Animal Farm, George Orwell, 1945.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 27 2019, @09:24AM (6 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 27 2019, @09:24AM (#899487)

    It lets you see politicians put their feet into their own mouths, no matter how stinky the result is.

    • (Score: 2) by PiMuNu on Friday September 27 2019, @10:02AM

      by PiMuNu (3823) on Friday September 27 2019, @10:02AM (#899496)

      > politicians put their feet into their own mouths

      Just to react - I don't think people care about foot-in-mouth nearly as much as the news media hypes these things. If the foot-eater's policy is something one agrees on, then the rest is media noise.

    • (Score: 2) by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us on Friday September 27 2019, @10:52AM (4 children)

      by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us (6553) on Friday September 27 2019, @10:52AM (#899509) Journal

      Yes, it does allow publication of one's raw words such that all may see to the credit or detriment of the person. However, is that what the purpose of Facebook is? One might argue that, or one might argue that the point of Facebook is to allow for communication to occur and that restricting that communication against anybody is therefore against what their stated purpose is. Thus treating celebrities and politicians differently, or allowing exceptions because of "newsworthiness" or "being in the public interest" violates that. (On the other, other hand they feel perfectly find protecting political speech). They also don't believe in fact checking, leaving that to "other platforms" [fb.com]. And the other interesting thing is that it is a newsworthiness 'exception' to their community rules, as if the exception wasn't part and parcel of the rules. There's too much there to unpack, but it's and interesting use of language.

      Their platform, their rules. But what they really reveal by saying that special people can break their rules is that Facebook is more interested in making money instead of creating a community. I think that's important to know about most forms of "social" media: The people (collectively) are not in control of the 'community', the company is. And if it's "make the money," or, "be ethical," well we know which side Facebook comes down on.

      Which is one way that SN of today is different BTW, IMVVHO.

      --
      This sig for rent.
      • (Score: 2) by Rupert Pupnick on Friday September 27 2019, @12:12PM (3 children)

        by Rupert Pupnick (7277) on Friday September 27 2019, @12:12PM (#899529) Journal

        In the world of public corporations, money is the sole metric on which performance is judged. So every corporation comes down on the same side of "make the money" versus "be ethical".

        • (Score: 2) by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us on Friday September 27 2019, @06:05PM (2 children)

          by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us (6553) on Friday September 27 2019, @06:05PM (#899661) Journal

          No, it isn't the sole metric. Someone who said it better than I [nytimes.com]. Ethics can indeed be respected at the risk of not making a sale or establishing classism as a matter of policy.

          --
          This sig for rent.
          • (Score: 2) by Rupert Pupnick on Friday September 27 2019, @07:40PM (1 child)

            by Rupert Pupnick (7277) on Friday September 27 2019, @07:40PM (#899686) Journal

            Sure, but that article is saying that corporations are not legally constrained to put profit before ethics, and I'm willing to accept that as totally factual.

            What happens in the real world is another story. In fact, when a business owner decides to make an IPO, isn't that person effectively surrendering control of this kind of decision making to a Board that answers to (profit-seeking) shareholders in exchange for a pile of money from the public markets?

            Yeah, I'm a cynic.

            • (Score: 3, Interesting) by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us on Friday September 27 2019, @10:22PM

              by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us (6553) on Friday September 27 2019, @10:22PM (#899717) Journal

              The shareholders do not have to be profit seeking, but usually are. But yes, the shareholders do determine the composition of the board who will be responsible for the hiring and performance of the C-Suite. Get shareholders who are vocal enough about profit and board replacement and a company will likely change course. Amazon is not the right answer to put up because nobody ever said they weren't about profit, but it is probably the largest example of a company that was up front about a strategy that it had other priorities than generating profits for a considerable amount of time after its IPO.

              And actually the establishment of classism is a statement about a certain type of ethics, now that I think about it.

              Anyway, a business does have to, broadly, do right by its shareholders and they do have rights. But what doing right is can have variable meanings. Including placing profits above other considerations. So I wouldn't say your cynicism is unjustifiable, either.

              Neither Facebook, nor Twitter, nor anyone else has to establish that some pigs are more equal than others in their community guidelines. But they are free to. Just as I am free to note that they do.

              --
              This sig for rent.
  • (Score: 4, Insightful) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday September 27 2019, @10:45AM

    by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Friday September 27 2019, @10:45AM (#899507) Homepage Journal

    Well, at least they recognize suppressing speech you don't like for politicians is a bad idea. Now if they could just grok that doing it for everyone else is too...

    --
    My rights don't end where your fear begins.
  • (Score: 2, Offtopic) by Username on Friday September 27 2019, @11:41AM (3 children)

    by Username (4557) on Friday September 27 2019, @11:41AM (#899524)

    Fake News. There was never a muslim ban. There was a travel ban on several terrorism linked countries.

    • (Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Saturday September 28 2019, @01:55PM (2 children)

      by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Saturday September 28 2019, @01:55PM (#899901) Journal

      But not, oddly, Saudi Arabia. What country did almost all the 9/11 hijackers come from, again...? HMMMMMM...

      --
      I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
      • (Score: 2) by DeVilla on Thursday October 03 2019, @03:49AM (1 child)

        by DeVilla (5354) on Thursday October 03 2019, @03:49AM (#902153)

        Are you implying that they aren't Muslim? Or just that Trump (like his predecessors) won't bite Saudi Arabia's hand?

        • (Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Friday October 04 2019, @12:05AM

          by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Friday October 04 2019, @12:05AM (#902479) Journal

          The latter, though I've never seen any administration cozy up to SA like this one. And the schizophrenic nature of a regime that purports to ally with SA *and* Israel blows my mind.

          --
          I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
  • (Score: 2, Insightful) by VacuumTube on Friday September 27 2019, @01:12PM (7 children)

    by VacuumTube (7693) on Friday September 27 2019, @01:12PM (#899544) Journal

    The power of a Facebook post to whip huge numbers of naive people into a mob-mentality frenzy is unprecedented.

    • (Score: 1) by VacuumTube on Friday September 27 2019, @03:48PM (6 children)

      by VacuumTube (7693) on Friday September 27 2019, @03:48PM (#899605) Journal

      The cost of free speech is therefore much higher than the framers of the constitution could ever have imagined. Likewise, the difficulty of maintaining free speech while preventing such things as trolls inciting violence or illegally manipulating elections is a huge problem. Has our technology already surpassed our ability to control it?

      • (Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Saturday September 28 2019, @02:18AM (4 children)

        by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Saturday September 28 2019, @02:18AM (#899779) Journal

        You could argue that happened during the age of radio, if it comes to that. What's worrying about the modern version, though, is the "stickiness," the addictiveness of it.

        --
        I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
        • (Score: 2, Insightful) by VacuumTube on Saturday September 28 2019, @11:02AM (3 children)

          by VacuumTube (7693) on Saturday September 28 2019, @11:02AM (#899868) Journal

          Although you have a point, I think it's a fairly weak analogy. Radio has the ability to contact millions of people (vs the billions of Facebook users), but only select individuals could gain control of the microphones. There was abuse, sure, but the tools available to facilitate abuse today are far more powerful, and anyone with a mind to do so can have at it.

          I think most of us would like to have less government control of our lives and our businesses, but I don't see an alternative to using laws to prevent a greedy few from gaining absolute control of our society.

          • (Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Saturday September 28 2019, @01:47PM (2 children)

            by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Saturday September 28 2019, @01:47PM (#899900) Journal

            :) Mr. Hallow would tell you that that's a very anti-democratic view of the populace. Odd how the hard authoritarians pretend to some sort of concern for us little people, huh?

            --
            I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
            • (Score: 1) by VacuumTube on Sunday September 29 2019, @03:56PM (1 child)

              by VacuumTube (7693) on Sunday September 29 2019, @03:56PM (#900342) Journal

              I see I wasn't clear in my remarks. I don't advocate for an authoritarian government, far from it, but what do you think we would have right now if everything in this country was decided by popular vote? Our government was structured such that people would more or less democratically decide between qualified candidates. Unfortunately, the candidates aren't always qualified and we don't necessarily choose the best one. Looking at things as they are at present I have to believe that there's got to be a better way, I just don't know what it would be.

              • (Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Wednesday October 02 2019, @02:33AM

                by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Wednesday October 02 2019, @02:33AM (#901668) Journal

                Ranked-choice voting, elimination of first past the post, getting money the *fuck* out of campaigning, actually being serious about rooting out corruption, term limits...lots of things would go into "the solution" to all this.

                --
                I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 28 2019, @11:09AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 28 2019, @11:09AM (#899872)

        Has our technology already surpassed our ability to control it?

        I hope it has. The cure is far worse than the disease. Long live the trolls inciting violence and manipulating elections.

  • (Score: 2) by hwertz on Friday September 27 2019, @04:51PM (3 children)

    by hwertz (8141) on Friday September 27 2019, @04:51PM (#899636)

    I mean, I don't like letting nutjob Trump lie, post racist bullshit, and so on either. You'd really hope someone running for office, or in office, could behave like a normal human being so having to block them or not for violating site standards would not be an issue. (I'm a libertarian so I do believe in absolutely in first ammendment rights, but Facebook after all owns their site so they also have the right to allow or block as they see fit.)

    BUT, blocking someone running for office, or in office, given the nature of a site like Facebook would set a bad precedent, and it is perfectly reasonable for them to decide they will just keep out of it and let politicians post what they will. Also, it didn't work for nutjob Trump, but one would hope that when someone running for office lies, posts ugly rhetoric, contradicts themselves, threatens and bullies and so on, that they would be called out for it rather than elected to office; if these posts are just blocked instead, then the public can't see them to fully judge the candidate.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 27 2019, @05:24PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 27 2019, @05:24PM (#899647)

      Also, it didn't work for nutjob Trump, but one would hope that when someone running for office lies, posts ugly rhetoric, contradicts themselves, threatens and bullies and so on, that they would be called out for it rather than elected to office; if these posts are just blocked instead, then the public can't see them to fully judge the candidate.

      Yeah, I think you have gotten to the nub of the matter. It shouldn't be Facetwit's job to police political candidates. That should be a job for The People. Of course, when The People are a bunch of gibbering partisan morons...well, you get the clusterfuck we have now.

    • (Score: 2) by Rupert Pupnick on Friday September 27 2019, @05:39PM

      by Rupert Pupnick (7277) on Friday September 27 2019, @05:39PM (#899652) Journal

      I agree that Facebook should be the ones to decide what their fact checking policy is, but I think that that policy choice is bad.

      Politicians are the ones that can do the most damage by spreading falsehoods. So if you're not going to fact check them, then don't bother fact checking anyone. Everyone should be treated the same way whether they are public figures or not.

    • (Score: 3, Insightful) by rigrig on Saturday September 28 2019, @02:57AM

      by rigrig (5129) Subscriber Badge <soylentnews@tubul.net> on Saturday September 28 2019, @02:57AM (#899787) Homepage

      This is where most people are being so very, very wrong.

      We all assumed that when someone running for office lies, posts ugly rhetoric, contradicts themselves, threatens and bullies and so on, that they would be called out for it rather than elected to office.
      Because it seemed obvious that would happen.
      But it didn't, and Trump did get elected.

      From that we should have learned that our assumption was wrong, and we need to recalibrate our expectations.
      Even though a decade ago this would've sounded like some weird science fiction story, it seems we actually are living in a Post-truth [wikipedia.org] society.
      Which sucks.
      But denying it definitely won't make things better, and blissfully assuming that the next candidate to lie, posts ugly rhetoric, etcetera,wouldn't get elected because of those lies is just blatantly ignoring the evidence right in our faces.

      --
      No one remembers the singer.
(1)