In response to my mother’s Facebook post in which she stated that NATO promised to never expand I wrote the following:
I received a message from Facebook telling me this was a violation of their Terms of Service regarding hate speech. So I went ahead and appealed the decision, and, after further review, they found that I had in fact violated the terms of service and they considered my post hate speech. So I get one more appeal where I get to write an impassioned essay about why I didn’t violate the terms of service for them to review.
Am I the asshole here? I didn’t attack Russians on the basis of their national origin, I didn’t wish for violence against them, nor did I use any dehumanizing language to describe them. It just seems so odd for that post to have been flagged.
The run costs would be higher but it does seem like there’s a current market gap for something like Facebook but which has a properly paid, trained, and sufficiently resourced moderation team.
The question would be whether the free market would move to it or people would prefer to stay with ol’ addiction generator Facebook?
Facebook is trending down and getting older. Kids (30 and unders) keep finding new places far quicker than the middle-ageme and older people can keep up with.
There probably already is a Facebook alternating that is run better that we’re not aware of.
From the total context, when you wrote, “The Russians are the bad guys in this scenario,” it seems pretty clear to me that you’re referring to the Russian government and military as bad guys, not that Russians, as members of that particular ethnolinguisitic group, are bad guys, per se.
But given the sheer size of Facebook and the sheer volume of complaints they have to deal with, I can understand why they might have a rule that classifies any post along the lines of, “Group X are bad guys”, as hate speech, and to err on the side of caution.
But, I can definitely see your point here, as well. From your perspective, what you wrote clearly wasn’t hate speech, and it should probably be obvious from the context what your meaning actually was.
So, tl;dr, I personally don’t think you’re the asshole here, but I don’t think in this specific instance that Facebook is really the asshole, either. I don’t think there really is an asshole in this situation (well, except the Russian government and military, of course…)
In my appeal, I did mention that based on the context of the conversation it was clear I was talking about the Russians being the bad guys in this particular scenario rather than saying they were bad guys in general. We’ll see I guess. Ultimately it’s not really that big of a deal. I typically avoid political statements on Facebook but once in a while I crack under pressure and make comments.
Eh. It seems like it’s bots all the way down. I would be surprised if human beings got involved, or if they did, whether they do anything other than spend less than 2 seconds glancing at any appeal before rejecting it.
Of the ones from people I know, my favorite might be an engineer saying that Americans are terrible for not going metric. Clearly sarcastic and exasperated more than mean-spirited.
This was tagged as hate speech and the appeal for the 5-day ban was rejected almost instantly upon the request for review.
Facebook: Metric is stupid, y’all! America, Fuck Yeah!
I posted a bunch of things on FB Marketplace. One of them was a small, preserved alligator head. This was flagged as FB does not allow the sale of live animals. As I made clear in the photos and description, this was a disembodied, taxidermied gator head. I appealed on that basis. My appeal was rejected. In the end, I gave the thing to Goodwill.
It was my thought as well. And why was Mom parroting a Russian talking point? Supposedly, NATO’s promise not to expand was made to get the Russians to peacefully leave East Germany when that country reunified. So what if NATO reneged on the promise? Whose side is she on?
(Lest there be any misunderstanding, note that the above quote is taken very much out of context. But I can see how it’s the kind of thing a mindless bot mind single out as hate speech.)
As an American who migrated to Europe, Facebook had a certain utilitarian value in terms of staying in touch with friends and family back in the States. But over time the usage friction has become intolerable, not to mention the fact that it’s no longer possible to ignore how Facebook management is a force for evil in the world.
The tipping point for me was when I submitted a subject access request to Facebook under the GDPR, requiring them to disclose the entirety of the personal data they maintain on me, as mandated under European regulations. They didn’t even bother with the courtesy of a half-assed response. They have flat-out ignored two written demands, in flagrant violation of the law. I’m currently in the process of escalating complaints through the appropriate national regulators, but I’m advised that I’m among tens of thousands affected by Facebook’s choice to disregard their legal obligations, so I shouldn’t expect attention any time soon.
They’re a gross and dangerous corporation with venomous contempt for everyone outside their “data is king!” cult.
I haven’t worked up the nerve to ask her why she supports an autocratic Russian state against the interest of the United States and her allies. It’s especially odd to me because her father was career army, my father was career army, my sister is in the navy, and my mother has been rah rah support the troops her entire life. And I’ll note, both her father and my dad spent the majority of their military careers with the Soviets as their main adversaries.
The only answer I have now is that she’s fallen down the online rabbit hole and is convinced we have a bio-weapons lab in Ukraine, that Biden and others are making billions off working with Ukraine, and that Ukraine is just as bad as Russia somehow. She’ll claim she’s neutral and doesn’t support Putin but everything she says is in support of Putin.
I suspect the dynamic here is Facebook would rather piss you off than take the risk of pissing Russia off. Russia and its followers are capable of making more trouble for the company than you are. So they bend over backwards to prohibit anything that might offend any Russians.
So, many correct observations have been made at this point in the thread. I won’t restate those.
However, 2 things to take note of:
Facebook’s moderation system isn’t all automated. Some of it is like SDMB, initiated by user reports.
In the past 24 hours, Facebook has (quite remarkably) relaxed its restrictions about calling for the death of Russian invaders. (cite)
Russia isn’t dumb. Their propaganda efforts on the Facebook platform is well-known, and I think we can reasonably assume this includes systematic efforts to report “Russophobic” posts. I suspect OP got burned by Russian bots and trolls gaming the moderation system.
I would suspect this is why Facebook temporarily dropped the standard around moderating “Russophobic” comments. Their moderation system has probably been overwhelmed by bullshit reporting by Russian factions, so this action allows Facebook to signal that the moderation system can no longer be abused as a Russian censorship arm.
Another thing I speculate, without much proof, is that Facebook wanted to pull out of Russia like the other major companies. But lacking the courage or will to do so outright, they simply pursued a policy that would cause Russia to ban them.
That threads the needle quite neatly for them. They can tell the anti-Russia public that they’re out of Russia. And they can tell the pro-Russia public (conservative Republicans, Facebook investors, etc) that it’s because Russia kicked them out.