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This discussion has been archived.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.
  • (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...