Controversial, Harmful and Hateful Speech on Facebook

H

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
It looks like Facebook, in response to pressure from women's groups, will be cracking down on "controversial, harmful and hateful speech."

In recent days, it has become clear that our systems to identify and remove hate speech have failed to work as effectively as we would like, particularly around issues of gender-based hate. In some cases, content is not being removed as quickly as we want. In other cases, content that should be removed has not been or has been evaluated using outdated criteria. We have been working over the past several months to improve our systems to respond to reports of violations, but the guidelines used by these systems have failed to capture all the content that violates our standards. We need to do better – and we will.
Click to expand...
 
Why do I have a feeling this mostly applies to man on woman hate, and not vice versa? One thing women do most on Facebook—aside from playing games and posting inspirational pictures—is rag on men.
 
Smashing Young Man said:
Why do I have a feeling this mostly applies to man on woman hate, and not vice versa? One thing women do most on Facebook—aside from playing games and posting inspirational pictures—is rag on men.
Click to expand...

You're not exactly seeing women telling other women to go home and beat their men into submission so they don't rise up against them. This is moreso about what's going on in the middle east than what's going on in the US right now.
 
In recent days, it has become clear that our systems to remove speech have failed to work as effectively as we would like. Particularly when you comment on girls being slutty in the profile pics that catapulted us to this rockstar popularity level. In every case, your freedom of speech is not being removed as quickly as we want. In the remaining cases, your speech that should be removed has not been or has been evaluated using outdated ways to control what you think and speak. We have been working over the past several months to improve our systems to respond to reports of intelligence and knowing what you stand for in life, but the guidelines used by these systems to evaluate what ethics and morals we want to deem important for your life have failed to capture all the free thoughts that violate our standards. We need to do better – and we will.

-Annnnd there ya go, fixed that for ya.
 
ballistic90 said:
You're not exactly seeing women telling other women to go home and beat their men into submission so they don't rise up against them. This is moreso about what's going on in the middle east than what's going on in the US right now.
Click to expand...
More about what's going on in the US is starting to look like government regulations from the middle East so your statement is becoming less viable while they remove individual right by individual right. Also I see about a 300% influx of these "Middle East" immigrants in America you are discussing ONLY being in the Middle East so your ignorance towards America is astounding.
 
Smashing Young Man said:
Why do I have a feeling this mostly applies to man on woman hate, and not vice versa? One thing women do most on Facebook—aside from playing games and posting inspirational pictures—is rag on men.
Click to expand...

Makes me think of the Bill Burr stand up where he points out the double standard that a guy gets his dick cut off and run down the garbage disposal. All the women on a talk show have a laugh and think it's hilarious and when one person is asked "Do you think he deserved it?" and the answer is "Depends on what he did".

What would happen if a man cut off a woman's breast? Would the male announcers on ESPN get away with having a laugh at her expense? Could they say "well she did xyz so she deserved it."
 
mh15216 said:
In recent days, it has become clear that our systems to remove speech have failed to work as effectively as we would like. Particularly when you comment on girls being slutty in the profile pics that catapulted us to this rockstar popularity level. In every case, your freedom of speech is not being removed as quickly as we want. In the remaining cases, your speech that should be removed has not been or has been evaluated using outdated ways to control what you think and speak. We have been working over the past several months to improve our systems to respond to reports of intelligence and knowing what you stand for in life, but the guidelines used by these systems to evaluate what ethics and morals we want to deem important for your life have failed to capture all the free thoughts that violate our standards. We need to do better – and we will.

-Annnnd there ya go, fixed that for ya.
Click to expand...

You have no right to freedom of speech in this case, you are using Facebooks (etc.) system, so you are required to follow their rules.
 
So feminazi groups go on and on about how they are being put down, and can do anything men can do and do it better, etc etc ... a few people say "shut up and get back in the kitchen and make me a sammich" and feminazis (and white knights) fire back and it's a full on flame hate war...
 
Lulz at "freedom of speech" issues on Facebook. Why do so few people know what freedom of speech actually is?
 
Spidey329 said:
You have no right to freedom of speech in this case, you are using Facebooks (etc.) system, so you are required to follow their rules.
Click to expand...

This.

I've had several temp bans on FB, yet I don't complain since it's their service.
 
ballistic90 said:
You're not exactly seeing women telling other women to go home and beat their men into submission so they don't rise up against them. This is moreso about what's going on in the middle east than what's going on in the US right now.
Click to expand...
Ah, well I didn't read the whole thing. If that's what they're talking about, then yeah . . .
 
NLW said:
Lulz at "freedom of speech" issues on Facebook. Why do so few people know what freedom of speech actually is?
Click to expand...

A lot of Americans seem to think free speech means you can be as big an asshole as you want, anywhere you want.

Anyone who thinks you have free speech on a site run by someone else: Send an email to Kyle and CC it to Steve calling them panty-waist faggots and see how long it takes you to get banned.
 
Because there is a problem with women posting pictures of men with the caption
"tape em and rape em"

This whining by men only hurts men who actually have problems
 
I find it easy to weed out the unintelligent misogynistic ones by their terminology.
Using "femnazi" puts you in that group.

How does watching Rush Limbaugh work for ya?


Facebook is finally agreeing to take down the thousands of images and posts that threaten/glorify rape and violence against women. It takes a special kind of disgusting to be against that
 
Says the person who does not have to deal with threats of rape/sexual assault often or at all.
Do you truly think people who want images of a woman taped up with the caption
"tape em and rape em" taken down are whining?
 
gabhpr said:
Says the person who does not have to deal with threats of rape/sexual assault often or at all.
Do you truly think people who want images of a woman taped up with the caption
"tape em and rape em" taken down are whining?
Click to expand...

I dont know about you but i am dealing with threats of rape on a daily basis. To be fair though i dress like a slut so i deserve it.

This message has been brought to you by freedom of speech (unless of course someone censors or deletes it).
 
" To be fair though i dress like a slut so i deserve it."

I just can't tell if this is sarcasm or just pure misogyny.

I used to love this site back when dad was on it ( and alive) but now im not so sure.

This message has been brought to you by freedom of speech <-- makes this think this was sarcastic because intelligent ( which I assume you are....)people know that freedom of speech does not apply companies LOL
 
what about all the super racist stuff to japan during the world cup? Is this worse?
 
Spidey329 said:
You have no right to freedom of speech in this case, you are using Facebooks (etc.) system, so you are required to follow their rules.
Click to expand...
Still gay though. I mean, crap, there I done did it and hate speeched. *kicks self* Seriously, all these "thought crime" people can go suck an egg while they slowly grow a slightly thicker skin. :rolleyes:
 
And "freedom of speech" matters to companies when there are more people passionate about protecting it than there are special interest easily offended namby pambies that demand to eliminate it.

If a crapload of people just said, hey, I'm going to stop using Facebook because of their strict censorship rules, suddenly Facebook would care about freedom of speech. And last I checked, virtually everything in the modern world is owned by some company, so it should matter to you. Otherwise your google searches, ISP, web browser, cell carrier, etc that are all made by companies are going to make real freedom of expression an impossible task in practice to carry out.
 
Seems like facebook has brought out the worst in people, from the disgusting images to posting pictures of ill children for likes? as if 100,000 likes could cure anything
 
gabhpr said:
" To be fair though i dress like a slut so i deserve it."

I just can't tell if this is sarcasm or just pure misogyny.

I used to love this site back when dad was on it ( and alive) but now im not so sure.

This message has been brought to you by freedom of speech <-- makes this think this was sarcastic because intelligent ( which I assume you are....)people know that freedom of speech does not apply companies LOL
Click to expand...

You are free to take it however you wish but who the hell is dad?
 
Ducman69 said:
And "freedom of speech" matters to companies when there are more people passionate about protecting it than there are special interest easily offended namby pambies that demand to eliminate it.

If a crapload of people just said, hey, I'm going to stop using Facebook because of their strict censorship rules, suddenly Facebook would care about freedom of speech. And last I checked, virtually everything in the modern world is owned by some company, so it should matter to you. Otherwise your google searches, ISP, web browser, cell carrier, etc that are all made by companies are going to make real freedom of expression an impossible task in practice to carry out.
Click to expand...

I think a lot of people get confused about the whole "freedom of speech" thing because of the wording in this kind of argument. You first amendment rights have not a thing in the world to do with what you are talking about here as "freedom of speech." Policies that touch upon what you're talking about need a new term, to cut down on the confusion. Once we keep in mind this argument is about private company policy, and not the Constitution, then at least the argument makes sense. I might not agree with you on it, but it is something that can actually be debated upon now.
 
NLW said:
I think a lot of people get confused about the whole "freedom of speech" thing because of the wording in this kind of argument. You first amendment rights have not a thing in the world to do with what you are talking about here as "freedom of speech." Policies that touch upon what you're talking about need a new term, to cut down on the confusion. Once we keep in mind this argument is about private company policy, and not the Constitution, then at least the argument makes sense. I might not agree with you on it, but it is something that can actually be debated upon now.
Click to expand...
Private ownership is kind of the problem isn't it? In two ways.

One issue is that all the meaningful avenues of communication are now on privately owned venues. Going to the local park and speaking to the masses (if your not violating some civil ordinance) gets trumped by electronic communication by orders of magnitude. So if the only free speech venues are archaic means that were useful 200 years ago, that's not really of much value.

The other ownership problem is that 200 years ago, they had print. But print wasn't controlled by a single monopoly. Anyone could do it. You could leverage a different print shop if one print shop didn't want your business. Today we don't really have that much of a luxury. We have monopolies and oligopolies.

Facebook is a consumer made monopoly, but otoh, your local ISP, that's a local government made monopoly for many people. So not all these monoplies and oligopolies have been brought onto people by themselves. And you have a situation where a handful of companies could literal silence someone and be successful at it. That's not really perserving the spirit of free speach.
 
I like Facebook, they are the reason I am able to buy off lease dell servers on the cheap :).
 
gabhpr said:
I find it easy to weed out the unintelligent misogynistic ones by their terminology.
Using "femnazi" puts you in that group.

How does watching Rush Limbaugh work for ya?
Click to expand...

FYI, I don't watch nor listen to Rush Limbaugh, but like many things in media you do pick up things that are said as they are unavoidable and I found this piece of terminology absolutely brilliant. The term does not apply to all feminists in the least, it may have when he uses it but it has evolved beyond that. However it does apply to a certain sect that hold the "our way or the highway" approach to everything they feel is a slight against women, often ones who are fresh out of liberal arts college and sling the term misogynistic about like a toddler who just learned a swear word.

This isn't about defending posts/pictures that push some sort of "rape agenda" under the guise of some "freedom" we may or may not have, this is about looking at a far reaching blanket policy an seeing some potential flaws in it. In the same way as those who opposed the Patriot Act aren't pro-terrorism, however much like you have done you're calling everyone misogynistic just because they don't agree with your assessment of the implications of a policy like this. Imagine if the NAACP called everyone a racist if they didn't agree with every one of their policies... pssst... guess what you're doing.


FYI, I don't use Facebook either :p
 
jpm100 said:
Private ownership is kind of the problem isn't it? In two ways...
Click to expand...

I feel your concerns on the matter, but I kind of suspect (unless we see big changes in how practices change) that it's not really a big deal. Some major forms of communication are through privately owned venues, true, but that was always true. Yes, Facebook is big, but like 200 years ago, there are many other ways to speak and express your beliefs. I don't know that we've seen that big a change, other than the form in which speech is delivered. Don't like Facebook? Use another social media service, or get your own website. Does this restrict your ability to be heard a bit? Yes, but that was always true. If a private source didn't like what you had to say, even if it was the biggest, you had to find another.

The point that could become a problem is the ISPs, which you pointed out. However, they have thus far shown an interest in not monitoring the content they help deliver, which is key. Barring illegal activity, by and large, they don't get mixed up in who says what. So long as that's true, there's always a good avenue for speech of any kind.

The real question, though, is if everyone is all POed about this, what is the government to do? Tell Facebook (and other private businesses) how to manage its affairs? What happened to all the "keep gov't off the backs of businesses!" people? It could encourage competition amongst more ISPs, or nationalize the data infrastructure, or whatever else, but each as its drawbacks. I don't really know, as I don't care that much. This whole issue is about a bunch of fools bellyaching because Facebook won't let them act like idiots for the single purpose of acting like idiots. Don't care about Facebook and don't care about idiots being idiots.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top