Facebook, its hate speech policies and everything else you need to know

on

On 14 August, a report highlighting the challenges of monitoring content with a large social media userbase – specifically India – went viral. The report by The Wall Street Journal claimed that Facebook’s top public policy executive in India, Ankhi Das, “opposed applying hate-speech rules” to at least four individuals and groups linked with the BJP, despite being “flagged internally for promoting or participating in violence.”

Facebook employees reportedly found that the account of one of the individuals – Telangana BJP MLA T Raja Singh – should have been banned under a policy called “Dangerous Individuals and Organisations”. According to the policy, content that praises or supports activity such as “organised hate, mass murder, hate crimes, or terrorist attacks” is to be banned.

Das, however, allegedly told the employees that “punishing violations” by the politicians “would damage the company’s business prospects in the country”.

Facebook’s user base in India is the largest at 346 million, according to Statista.

Image: Reuters

Meanwhile, Facebook spokesperson Andy Stone, acknowledged in a statement to WSJ that Das had raised concerns about the political fallout that could result from banning T Raja Singh from the platform. However, he said that her opposition wasn’t the sole factor in the company’s decision to let him remain on the platform.

Stone also said that Facebook is still debating whether a ban on Raja Singh was warranted.

Facebook’s response

Ajit Singh, the vice president and managing director of Facebook India, has responded to the allegations of bias and removal of hateful content from public figures. Singh says, “we have an impartial approach to dealing with content and are strongly governed by our Community Standards. We enforce these policies globally without regard to anyone’s political position, party affiliation or religious and cultural belief.”

The Facebook India head indicates that T Raja Singh’s posts did not violate its Community Standards.

As for the Dangerous Individuals and Organisations policy, Ajit Singh says that the platform decides if someone falls under the policy by looking at “a combination of signals and are made by our dangerous organisations team, who have deep expertise in terrorism and organised hate, and pay attention to global and regional trends.”

“Individuals who are designated as “dangerous” under our policies are removed from our services altogether, and all praise, support and representation of them is taken down, as well. Because the penalty associated with designation is so severe, it’s important that our analysis is comprehensive and detailed, and that our process applies consistently and fairly around the world,” he added.

T Raja Singh denies onus of the content on his account

According to the Wall Street Journal, Facebook deleted some of Singh’s posts after a query from the publication, and said that he was no longer allowed to have an official account.

Meanwhile, in a video posted on Twitter, Singh claimed that he never had a verified account on Facebook and did not personally post any of the content mentioned in the report.

He further claims in the video that his Facebook account was “hacked and blocked” in 2018.

What warrants a ban on Facebook, according to its own Community Standards

By Facebook’s Community Standards, content and/or individuals that are inauthentic, or that threaten safety, privacy or dignity of others are all in offence of violating the platform’s community standards.

However, Facebook also says that “our commitment to expression is paramount”.

And as part of that commitment, Facebook says “we want people to be able to talk openly about the issues that matter to them, even if some may disagree or find them objectionable. In some cases, we allow content that would otherwise go against our Community Standards – if it is newsworthy and in the public interest.”

Different lands, different rules?

While Facebook took a different stance in India, instances of “Dangerous Individuals and Organisations” aren’t new to the platform. In the past, Facebook has banned radio host Alex Jones, Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan, and numerous other white supremacists for the same reason.

Numerous activists in Tunisia, Syria and Palestine were banned from Facebook for documenting human right abuses in their lands, according to reports by the Middle East Eye and The Syrian Archive.

Closer to home, in February, Facebook labelled the communal riots in Delhi as a “hate crime” under the Dangerous Individuals and Organisations policy, according to a report by The Indian Express.

Meanwhile, a situation similar to the ongoing one in India took place in the US in May this year. US President Donald Trump put up a post calling mail-in ballots ‘fraudulent’. While Twitter slapped a fact-checking label on his post, Facebook chose not to flag the misinformation. Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg said that his company’s approach has “distinguished us from some of the other tech companies in terms of being stronger on free expression and giving people a voice.”

Facebook’s policies are its own

While Facebook and its CEO Mark Zuckerberg have pledged on various occasions to address the various policy concerns with the company, the promise of accountability is just that: a promise. Activists and administrations have been trying to hold the company’s policies and community standards against its actions, but the truth of the matter is, as policies expert Arijit Sengupta explains, Facebook’s public and privacy policies are “self-appointed rules”. Sengupta says, “there are no regulations or norms on what should constitute a tech company or a social media platform’s community standards. There is no national framework. These can be amended by the owners from time to time.”

So far, Facebook has been walking the thin line between hate speech and freedom of expression. But as expression continues to become more wanton and egregious, this is becoming a bad look.



from Firstpost Tech Latest News https://ift.tt/3lwIClx

Comments

Post a Comment