Facebook Still Deleting Non-Offensive Posts For Being Offensive

from the the-best-defense dept

Another day, another example of Facebook's attempt at applying automated morality going poorly. For a site designed for little else beyond expressive speech, I suppose some erroneous applications of any kind of puritanism would go awry. Perhaps then you might have forgiven Facebook's mistaking a children's illustration for man-horse-fucking, or the algorithm's inability to recognize satire.

But you would think that, in the wake of the tragic shooting that occurred at a nightclub in Orlando, one member of the LGBT community's perfectly cogent and innocuous rant wouldn't be gobbled up the by censor algorithm as being offensive. Here is the author's tweet complaining about its removal (twice), including a screenshot of the text, so that you can get an idea of what was taken down.


After removing the post a second time, Facebook apparently banned the author from doing anything else on the site for three days. That notice pretty clearly implies that the author had shared some kind of child pornography. Which wasn't true. The entirety of the post was text, imploring society to start to treat the LGBT community with a greater deal of respect. And, whatever your thoughts on the text of that post might be, certainly it is not something that should have been taken down as offensive, nevermind as any kind of pornography.

Look, I poke fun at Facebook over its morality attempts because it's funny, but I don't expect the site to be perfect. Still, when the censors are gobbling up legitimate viewpoints basically devoid of anything offensive as offensive, then perhaps we're better off with no filters at all.


Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 17 Jun 2016 @ 8:59am

    Sure Facebook delete and remove this, but don't bother stopping the Spam and Possibly Illegal Movie link posts and Chain posts.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 17 Jun 2016 @ 9:08am

    It's Facebook

    It will do whatever it feels is best for its bottom line.

    If you think a business should engage in any extra-business affairs then you are asking for trouble.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 17 Jun 2016 @ 11:47am

      Re: It's Facebook

      People like you disgust me.

      Businesses are NOT immune from criticism and I wholely reject your framing and any similar world view that deems businesses above any and all reproach unrelated to perceived profit-making.


      Onto the article itself - I don't know why Facebook is doing this, but I wager its due to the "hate speech" hysteria and McCarthyism that's gripped the Bay Area by storm over the past few years. I have no idea what the stick or carrot is to do this - there's been numerous examples over the past few years in the business and academic worlds that hamfisted hate speech policing is bad for business and pisses off an enormous amount of your userbase.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        Uriel-238 (profile), 17 Jun 2016 @ 7:35pm

        I'm not sure what he was saying was proscriptive.

        Our corporate culture is lousy with pushing for short-term profits in favor of long term profits or fitting into the community.

        It's hardly right, and in fact it shortens the lifespans of corporations and product lines, and hastens the degradation of the US but worshiping the short term bottom line is very common.

        Why is the topic of countless debates and many factors.

        I'm not sure Anonymous Coward was endorsing this state of affairs. I wouldn't. But it is the case.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Lesath, 24 Jun 2016 @ 10:27am

        Re: Re: It's Facebook

        Businesses are NOT immune from criticism and I wholely reject your framing and any similar world view that deems businesses above any and all reproach unrelated to perceived profit-making.

        So you're rejecting the basis of capitalism?

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          Uriel-238 (profile), 24 Jun 2016 @ 12:46pm

          Re: Re: Re: It's Facebook

          If Capitalism is about companies seeking profits using all available means, even those that are immoral or unethical, then yes the ideology of Capitalism is worth rejecting.

          It doesn't work anyway, since government lobbying towards regulatory capture produces one of the strongest profit margin. I could create a business model (and some have) of simply lobbying officials to subsidize me. And that could be (in some cases, is) vastly profitable without actually producing anything.

          Capitalism only works when tightly regulated.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 25 Jun 2016 @ 8:42am

            Re: Re: Re: Re: It's Facebook

            If Capitalism is about companies seeking profits using all available means, even those that are immoral or unethical, then yes the ideology of Capitalism is worth rejecting.

            As long as it's not "illegal", then anything goes.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 17 Jun 2016 @ 11:51am

      Re: It's Facebook

      this is the same Facebook that scolds employees for anonymously replacing "black lives matter" scribbles on campus with "all lives matter"?

      Trust The Moderation System. The Moderation System Is Your Friend.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 17 Jun 2016 @ 9:28am

    Facebook is cancer. Everything they touch turns to foolsgold.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 17 Jun 2016 @ 9:46am

    Facebook is Soma

    Facebook is a cultural anesthetic, numbing people to the reality of their lives and leaving them sedated zombies whose only purpose is to consume.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Rotanev, 24 Jun 2016 @ 10:31am

      Re: Facebook is Soma

      Facebook is a cultural anesthetic, numbing people to the reality of their lives and leaving them sedated zombies whose only purpose is to consume.

      The zombie apocalypse will occur, just slowly rather than all at once.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 17 Jun 2016 @ 9:55am

    Non-Offensive?

    Who says so? If Facebook says it's offensive, then it's offensive! I personally welcome our new overlord!

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      DannyB (profile), 17 Jun 2016 @ 9:57am

      Re: Non-Offensive?

      There are people who are offended by non-offensive posts, thus making them offensive.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        Bergman (profile), 18 Jun 2016 @ 6:50am

        Re: Re: Non-Offensive?

        The right to freedom of speech is the right to offend. It cannot be anything else without abolishing it as a right.

        No matter what you say, no matter how hard you try to make it inoffensive, someone somewhere will be offended by it -- Guaranteed.

        If one person being offended strips you of your freedom to speak, then you have no freedom to speak. Ever.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      bob, 17 Jun 2016 @ 10:20am

      Re: Non-Offensive?

      Yeah she was clearly trying to be offensive when she said "hey straight people". singling out a group of people like that is never appropriate.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 17 Jun 2016 @ 10:35am

        Re: Re: Non-Offensive?

        What she did say would be slightly offensive to some straight people given she is calling them homophobes among other things.

        Don't think what she said is worthy of censorship but it certainly was offensive.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 17 Jun 2016 @ 11:00am

          Re: Re: Re: Non-Offensive?

          Calling someone a homo is wrong.
          Calling someone a homophobe is okay.

          Man, such great logic right there!

          If you are insulted by something not intended to insult you then you are a fool.

          If you are insulted by something intended to insult you then you are an even greater fool, for you have played into the hands of your enemy.


          ~Can't remember who said that, thinking Mark Twain?

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • icon
            gigglehurtz (profile), 17 Jun 2016 @ 12:04pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re: Non-Offensive?

            Not logic, language.

            Homo is derogatory slang.

            Homophobe is defined in the Merriam-Webster online dictionary as "a person who hates or is afraid of homosexuals or treats them badly."

            So yeah, calling someone a homo is meant as an insult. Calling someone a homophobe is descriptive.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • identicon
              Anonymous Coward, 17 Jun 2016 @ 1:21pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Non-Offensive?

              Eh, there's plenty of jocular contexts where homo isn't meant as an insult.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • icon
              Richard (profile), 17 Jun 2016 @ 1:32pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Non-Offensive?

              I find the term homophobia to be offensive for the following reason.

              A phobia is an irrational fear, not under the control of who has it.

              Using the word homophobia as a term of abuse - which is what it effectively has become is offensive to people who suffer from phobias in the same way that use of the word "spastic" in a derogatory way (which was common in the 60's and 70's) is abusive of people with cerebal palsy.

              I very much doubt however that that was what was in the head of the facebook censor.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • icon
                Uriel-238 (profile), 17 Jun 2016 @ 7:22pm

                Homophobe / Homophobia

                I'm pretty sure that Kim Davis, Pastor Roger Jimenez of Verity Baptist Church and Pastor Steven Anderson of Faithful Word Baptist Church all are irrationally terrified of gays. If they are typical of people who detest gays, then yeah, homophobe and homophobia are serviceable terms.

                I've not encountered anyone who hates gays as a group that isn't terrified of them for one fictitious reason or another, usually claiming that gays are pedophiles or rapists, neither of which is statistically over-represented in the gay community.

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • identicon
                Anonymous Coward, 18 Jun 2016 @ 12:05pm

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Non-Offensive?

                "I find the term homophobia to be offensive for the following reason.

                A phobia is an irrational fear, not under the control of who has it.

                Using the word homophobia as a term of abuse - which is what it effectively has become is offensive to people who suffer from phobias in the same way that use of the word "spastic" in a derogatory way (which was common in the 60's and 70's) is abusive of people with cerebal palsy."

                It shorely is a white man's world, yes it is...

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • identicon
              Anonymous Coward, 17 Jun 2016 @ 1:42pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Non-Offensive?

              I don't think people know what the word phobia means. It is most certainly is being used as a derogatory term because most of the people it is used against have nothing to do with fear or mistreatment.

              Secondly, this person trying to lay the massacre at the feet of straights is disgusting. The attack was by a gay man so to drag straights into this is ridiculous. If they want respect they should realize respect is earned and blaming a group of people who had nothing to do with it will not win respect.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • icon
                Uriel-238 (profile), 17 Jun 2016 @ 11:07pm

                Michete isn't responding to straights as if they instigated the murder.

                Michete is responding to the flood of support from the straight community that has (in some cases) come with an implication that they've always been in best buds with the LGBTQ community.

                No they haven't. Anti-gay hate crime is still a pretty frequent deal, especially in the redder states. (Heh. When I was growing up red meant such a very different thing.)

                Particularly conspicuous was Ted Cruz who, only months ago was rallying with major anti-gay players such as Gordon Klingenschmitt, Gary Glenn, Flip Benham, Ron Baity, Glenn Grothman and Tony Perkins, all who are kill-the-gays extremists, pushing not only the gay-is-a-capital-crime legislation in Uganda, but preaching as much and encouraging lone wolf attackers here in the states.

                And yet, Cruz is trying to garner not pro-gay support after Orlando, but rather anti-Islam support. Because here in the US, nothing says Conservative Christianity like hate rhetoric.

                The thing is the gay community really does appreciate being acknowledged, and more to the point, not hated. But we'd really like it if we didn't have to eat so many bullet to be appreciated.

                And while yes, Michete was rather (IMO) ranty in the way she said it, that's what she was trying to say.

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • identicon
                Anonymous Coward, 18 Jun 2016 @ 12:07pm

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Non-Offensive?

                "I don't think people know what the word phobia means. It is most certainly is being used as a derogatory term because most of the people it is used against have nothing to do with fear or mistreatment.

                Secondly, this person trying to lay the massacre at the feet of straights is disgusting. The attack was by a gay man so to drag straights into this is ridiculous. If they want respect they should realize respect is earned and blaming a group of people who had nothing to do with it will not win respect."

                I stand by my previous statement, lawsey, lawsey...

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • identicon
              Lawrence D’Oliveiro, 17 Jun 2016 @ 9:43pm

              Re: Homo is derogatory slang.

              Is it really? Because we all belong to genus Homo, species sapiens, subspecies sapiens.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • icon
              Bergman (profile), 18 Jun 2016 @ 6:51am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Non-Offensive?

              Calling someone an asshole can also be descriptive. Doesn't mean it's not offensive.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • identicon
              Tegmen, 24 Jun 2016 @ 10:37am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Non-Offensive?

              So yeah, calling someone a homo is meant as an insult. Calling someone a homophobe is descriptive.

              Calling someone a homo is descriptive. Calling someone a homophobe is meant as an insult.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • icon
            PaulT (profile), 19 Jun 2016 @ 2:46am

            Re: Re: Re: Re: Non-Offensive?

            "Calling someone a homo is wrong.
            Calling someone a homophobe is okay."

            Yep. One is a protected class and a state of being, like race or gender and thus attacking that is wrong. The other just means you're an ignorant bigot and can be attacked all you want, just as a racist or misogynist should be.

            As for your quote, that's true if someone is simply calling you names, but systematic oppression tends to require action.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • identicon
              Anonymous Coward, 24 Jun 2016 @ 10:43am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Non-Offensive?

              Yep. One is a protected class and a state of being

              Yeah, anyone should know better than to insult a member of a favored group. Everyone else is fair game, though.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • icon
                PaulT (profile), 25 Jun 2016 @ 5:34pm

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Non-Offensive?

                If a person is gay, that is usually in inherent part of their character and cannot be changed, although society has traditionally called upon it to be repressed. Homophobia is usually the result of ignorance or intolerance and can be changed through experience and education. So, yes, attacking someone because of who or what they naturally are is wrong, attacking them because they hold unsavoury opinions is OK. That holds whether you're talking about black people vs. racists, women vs. misogynists or homosexuals vs homophobes.

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        bob, 17 Jun 2016 @ 11:06am

        Re: Re: Non-Offensive?

        I guess I should have identified this as a sarcastic remark

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Annoy Mouse, 20 Jun 2016 @ 1:34pm

        Re: Re: Non-Offensive?

        Yeah, I'd bet half the people replying here didn't read the crap she wrote, so let me give a synopsis:
        If you don't agree 100% with the LGBT agenda, then you're homophobic and the reason 50 people were killed.

        She's min wage worker at Pizza Hut and the mentality of a child. I give zero phycks what she thinks or if FB blocks her. If they didn't I would prob block her anyway.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          PaulT (profile), 20 Jun 2016 @ 11:16pm

          Re: Re: Re: Non-Offensive?

          "Yeah, I'd bet half the people replying here didn't read the crap she wrote"

          Well, if Facebook weren't censoring her, maybe the images would be more legible. But, what I read was a call to stop the kind of hatred that leads people to go off the rails like this. What's the problem with that?

          "If you don't agree 100% with the LGBT agenda"

          Well, there's the thing. Homophobes usually can't explain what the "LGBT agenda" actually is in their minds. It's a meaningless term, created to get people who are afraid of "the other" to believe that there's some nefarious plot.

          To most of us, they're just fighting a battle to be accepted as human beings with the same rights and opportunities as straight people. When people start blathering on about an "agenda" without further explanation, that just makes you sound homophobic. Since homophobia is what feeds the kind of hatred that led to the Orlando massacre, the comparison is apt.

          "She's min wage worker at Pizza Hut"

          OK, anonymous person, what glorious career do you have that allows you to look down on others so?

          "If they didn't I would prob block her anyway."

          That's your choice, which is fine. Intelligent people would prefer if other people weren't making the choice for them.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    PaulT (profile), 17 Jun 2016 @ 10:26am

    Likely scenario: because it's a post in favour of treating the LGBT community like human beings it keeps getting reported by bigots and flagged by an automated process. When asked why they're reporting, they tick the porn category, which is why that's stated. Facebook either haven't had a human intervene yet, or have an equally bigoted admin who's letting it go down.

    Let's be honest, this is most likely to do with software rather than Facebook making an actual decision, and it'll get reversed when the PR storm hits. Not ideal, but can anyone else think of a process that will be effective at policing this much content without some silly false positives?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 17 Jun 2016 @ 10:27am

    Hey gay people, it may have been a gay club, but when they talked about the people actually murdered, quite a few of them (and in fact, the majority, although maybe the media covered them more)were not gay.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 17 Jun 2016 @ 10:43am

      Re:

      Doesn't matter - it's still murder.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 17 Jun 2016 @ 1:26pm

      Re:

      why would a large group of non gay people be at a gay club? I don't see the appeal there would be for them.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        Uriel-238 (profile), 17 Jun 2016 @ 7:26pm

        Is this from a news source?

        Well, I have a lot of gay friends, and at times that we hung out at clubs, they'd often be gay clubs.

        As I don't go to bars or clubs to hook up with strangers, it doesn't really make much of a difference what the venue is, so long as people are pleasant.

        I'd wager that plenty of others go to venues to hang with friends, and it's not about the singles around them.

        Also if there are live performances, people go to clubs less for the venue and more for the performer. Dunno about Pulse.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          Monday (profile), 18 Jun 2016 @ 4:33pm

          Re: Is this from a news source?

          Second that! Also, the Jars are affordable. Five bucks for a pint at a Bar or Pub - on your bike.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          PaulT (profile), 19 Jun 2016 @ 2:59am

          Re: Is this from a news source?

          Yeah, I know plenty of women who like to go to gay venues so that they don't get aggravated by wannabe PUA assholes all night, and as a veteran of the 90s UK house scene a lot of the music I was into was created at gay venues, even if I never personally visited one. I'd like to see figures for the original claim that more straight people were victims, but there's a lot of reasons to go to a gay club if hooking up with a stranger isn't a priority for your night out.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • icon
            John Fenderson (profile), 22 Jun 2016 @ 8:34am

            Re: Re: Is this from a news source?

            "I know plenty of women who like to go to gay venues so that they don't get aggravated by wannabe PUA assholes all night"

            Me too. In fact, when my wife goes out for a "girl's night on the town", a local gay nightclub is their destination of choice for precisely this reason. They don't get hit on so much, and they are treated with a great deal more respect all around.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 18 Jun 2016 @ 1:10am

        Re: Re:

        People like to mix.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anony Mouse, 20 Jun 2016 @ 1:42pm

        Re: Re:

        Two reasons I've gone to gay bars: It was the only after hours bar open, and otherwise, it was to hang out with friends who happened to be gay. I didn't care if I had 0 chance of hook up with opposite sex, or got hit on. I was there to just hang out.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Uriel-238 (profile), 17 Jun 2016 @ 7:29pm

      Heh, I got my subjects swapped.

      Is the count of gay and non-gay casualties from a news source?

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      PaulT (profile), 19 Jun 2016 @ 2:55am

      Re:

      Indeed, and I have read of at least one poor woman who was only there so she could have a night out with her gay son.

      But, in your quest to respect the straight victims, don't forget that the reason the club was targeted was because it was a gay club. If the media is covering the gay victims more, it's because they were the ones he wanted to kill.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Alkurhah, 24 Jun 2016 @ 10:52am

        Re: Re:

        Indeed, and I have read of at least one poor woman who was only there so she could have a night out with her gay son.

        Ewww. I would never take my mother out cruising with me. He couldn't give it up for one night to visit with his own mother?

        ...the reason the club was targeted was because it was a gay club.

        I thought the authorities were still trying to determine the reason. Do you have a source for that?

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          Uriel-238 (profile), 24 Jun 2016 @ 12:49pm

          "I would never take my mother out cruising with me."

          You presume he was cruising? And that Mom didn't want to go and would rather stay home?

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Alkurhah, 25 Jun 2016 @ 8:56am

            Re: "I would never take my mother out cruising with me."

            "You presume he was cruising?"

            Heh, you're funny. You really don't know what gay bars are about? LMAO

            "And that Mom didn't want to go and would rather stay home?"

            Yeah, I've heard about those kind of parents. The kind that like to go cruising gay bars with their kids. I still find it kind of creepy.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • icon
              Uriel-238 (profile), 27 Jun 2016 @ 12:01pm

              Re: Re: "I would never take my mother out cruising with me."

              You really don't know what gay bars are about? LMAO

              It appears I've been to more gay bars than you have. Not all bars are singles hook-up establishments. That goes for gay bars as well.

              To be fair, I don't know if The Pulse had a theme or reputation other than than being a disco.

              Yeah, I've heard about those kind of parents. The kind that like to go cruising gay bars with their kids. I still find it kind of creepy.

              It sounds like your experiences with culture have not extended outside the suburbia in which you were raised. You may be in for a shock from the breadth of diversity.

              Some cultures regard dance as something more than a mere means to coax bedfellows.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Uriel-238 (profile), 17 Jun 2016 @ 10:49am

    Facebook's censorship policies

    Breastfeeding, bronze booby art and women eating ice cream: OFFENSIVE!

    Islamic State beheadings and cat torture videos: AOK!

    I will dance on your grave, Facebook. I will dance on your grave and sing merry songs.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      John85851 (profile), 17 Jun 2016 @ 4:47pm

      Re: Facebook's censorship policies

      Oakley sunglasses spam? AOK!

      T-shirts on sale for 50% off spam? Perfectly okay.

      Spammers tagging your friends in spammy "I made $9,821 using this work-at-home secret" spam posting? Just fine!

      Talking about gay and lesbian issues and getting reported by bigots? Bad!

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Docrailgun, 17 Jun 2016 @ 10:57am

    Doesn't look like...

    ...it'seems going poorly at all. They'really doing just fine deleting posts. We can make arguments on both sides of what they'really doing is misguided or not, but they're succeeding in actually deleting things.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 17 Jun 2016 @ 11:06am

    It's way to easy to have regular posts removed on facebook, just takes a few people to report it and it's automatically taken down and there's no way to contact anyone about it or appeal it. But that's only for normal posts, if it's spam, porn, someone impersonating you or something illegal then facebook likes to leave that shit up.

    A friend of mine had many people making fake accounts pretending to be her and scamming some people and it was damn near impossible sometimes to get facebook to do a damn thing about them but of course her account would get suspended all the time.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Queex, 17 Jun 2016 @ 1:03pm

    And yet, Britain "We Will Take Direct Action Against the Mayor of London" First still have a page which, according to facebook, is fine and dandy.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 17 Jun 2016 @ 1:20pm

    you will be politically correct how facebook tells you to be politically correct or you are banned.

    Why are people still using this platform?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Skeeter, 17 Jun 2016 @ 3:55pm

    The Truth About Facebook

    Never forget the one over-arching principle of Facebook. It was NOT designed and financially supported to be a 'social networking site'. It was designed to be a 'individual data gathering tool', and the history is there to prove it.

    This clearly implies that you are NOT allowed to post ANYTHING that is though-provoking, tension-charged or socially-questionable, unless those who financed it see that it serves their needs. If it does, you can post. If it doesn't, you are banned (for a while, but since they still need your data, it won't be forever).

    Now, knowing this, watch what is banned, and what isn't, and you can pretty-much blueprint what 'the-powers-that-be' (or the financiers that finance) really want society to do. It's not hard, then again, you have to turn the TV off and focus for a few minutes to see it.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 18 Jun 2016 @ 8:21am

    Facebook is shit, it will end up like MySpace..

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Monday (profile), 18 Jun 2016 @ 8:27am

    I'm not so sure it was 'automated'.

    I have read the FB post and anything attached with it, and I am not so sure it was automated. The environment, although worldly in support of condemning the act in Orlando, still has haters and misogynists, homophobes and puritans.

    I submit this was removed twice because of complaints - haters of free will and free speech seem to have a voice now, and if they can silence one voice, anonymously, they will do it...

    It is quite easy to 'takedown' a post, when there is little, if any actual human involvement in this decision making processes.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 21 Jun 2016 @ 12:15pm

      Re: I'm not so sure it was 'automated'.

      Exactly. I'm sure some jerk flagged it and Facebook didn't bother to vet the complaint because the complaint itself had to do with children.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Zen (profile), 20 Jun 2016 @ 4:56am

    Adopt penalties for false reporting.

    People with an agenda probably reported it as child porn. In that case the Facebook will take it down automatically without human intervention.

    What they need to do is simply add harsh penalties to people who abuse the reporting system. Ban their accounts, and then issue an even longer ban over their ability to report content.

    Add an appeal process, where a human gets to view the content but add an even longer ban if the appeal is denied.

    Have a moderation system where a randomly selected "jury" of facebook users get to decide about the accuracy of the claim.

    They don't have the man power to review things. There ways to solve that problem.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 21 Jun 2016 @ 12:10pm

    Correction

    "For a site designed for little else beyond expressive speech" ..as long as it makes Facebook money.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Use markdown for basic formatting. HTML is no longer supported.
  Save me a cookie
Follow Techdirt
Special Affiliate Offer

Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads

Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.