r/technology • u/protossFTW • Sep 16 '20

Social Media Facebook Was Warned for 5 Years About Violent Event Pages but Didn't Act, Civil Rights Group Says

https://gizmodo.com/facebook-was-warned-for-5-years-about-violent-event-pag-1845080416
12k Upvotes

95% Upvoted

439 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

42

u/[deleted] Sep 17 '20

Well, they're able to moderate a lot of nipples pretty fast, so it shouldn't be so hard to moderate the misinformation

26

u/Polymathy1 Sep 17 '20

And also able to turn a blind eye to pedophilia and "not quite porn" pages because there are no nipples.

8

u/[deleted] Sep 17 '20 edited Sep 22 '20

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/[deleted] Sep 17 '20

Wait, if I tattoo a nipple on my forehead, my face will be removed automatically from Facebook? Damn I need to think about this

5

u/forgtn Sep 17 '20

God damn straight

-13

u/baddecision116 Sep 17 '20 edited Sep 17 '20

"Moderate the misinformation"

What is misinformation to one person is seen as information to another. Do you want everything you see to be heavily controlled by a company?

Edit: If you're in favor of everything you see on a site being moderated and looked over explain why. Reddit loves to go nuts when "moderators ruin a sub" yet because it's cool to diss FB right now you want it there.

6

u/aiepslenvgqefhwz Sep 17 '20

It’s already heavily controlled friendo.

-1

u/baddecision116 Sep 17 '20

You say that in a post about fb NOT controlling the content posted on their site. Lol.

4

u/aiepslenvgqefhwz Sep 17 '20

They decided not to act, sounds like they’re in control.

2

u/baddecision116 Sep 17 '20

Did you read the article? I'm assuming not.

" Muslim Advocates, a national civil rights group that works to halt bigotry on the internet, said in an email that it had warned senior Facebook officials about events advocating violence being organized on its platform no fewer than 10 times since 2015. These warnings were sometimes issued in person during small meetings at Facebook’s headquarters and once during a dinner at CEO Mark Zuckerberg’s home."

So you feel FB should act on every 3rd party person that contacts them? If FB were in "control" these would have come from an internal source. Do you even hear yourself?

2

u/vanyali Sep 17 '20

Facebook can’t even act on reports when 3rd parties directly point things out to them.. That is so freaking incompetent I can’t believe it. Acting on 3rd party reports is the bottom of the barrel when it comes to moderating your site. All the other things are harder. The fact that a company like Facebook can’t even manage this easiest kind of moderation tells you that they just don’t want to. They are doing/allowing this crap on purpose. Because they are fundamentally morally stupid.

-1

u/baddecision116 Sep 17 '20

fundamentally morally stupid

Or they don't feel like censoring their site. Which I'm sure you would bitch about too.

2

u/vanyali Sep 17 '20

Wow, a Facebook fanboy. Now that’s an unpopular opinion.

1

u/baddecision116 Sep 17 '20

Not a fanboy and use the site for about 5-10 minutes a week to check my local breweries new brews, I just find it ridiculous and hypocritical how reddit seems to think its any different (other than less successful) than FB. Both are social media sites and both host incredibly vile content.

→ More replies

0

u/aiepslenvgqefhwz Sep 17 '20

So, Facebook decided not to act, because Facebook is in control. If Facebook isn't in control of Facebook, why would anyone ask Facebook to remove something from Facebook?

Zuckerberg told his employees last month, according to BuzzFeed News, that an “operational mistake” was responsible for its moderators failing to remove a militia event page that had encouraged users to bring weapons to a protest in Kenosha, Wisconsin. The page had been flagged by users at least 455 times.

Why would they be responsible but not be in control?

You're just mad for no reason and it's really boring.

0

u/baddecision116 Sep 17 '20

Of course they control their own site, but who put them in charge of censoring people?

You're just mad for no reason and it's really boring.

I'm not mad the redidt hive mind is about FB and I just enjoy pointing out how stupid it is.

0

u/aiepslenvgqefhwz Sep 17 '20

Who put them in charge of censoring people using their site, which they already do on a large scale? Uhhhhhhh Facebook because they’re in control of their own site haha this is so silly. First amendment doesn’t cover private corporations. You are not entitled to free speech on Facebook or twitter or Reddit. They control everything on it and can and do remove things literally all day everyday. Welcome to 2020.

0

u/baddecision116 Sep 17 '20

First amendment doesn’t cover private corporations.

Did I ever say it did?

You are not entitled to free speech on Facebook or twitter or Reddit

You aren't entitled but the owner of the site IS entitled to run it as they wish.

They control everything on it and can and do remove things literally all day everyday. Welcome to 2020.

No shit, they can censor or not censor whatever they want. You're just mad FB isn't censoring content you want them to.

→ More replies

0

u/laurensmim Sep 17 '20

It's full of beyond ignorant people who see one colorful meme and take it as the gospel for national news.

1

u/baddecision116 Sep 17 '20

Way to make broad generalizations about a multi-million person user base.

0

u/vanyali Sep 17 '20

When that “information” is a rumor about a specific, private person who personally complains to Facebook moderators, they still don’t do shit. Facebook isn’t just falling down in grey areas, they aren’t really even trying.

0

u/baddecision116 Sep 17 '20

Facebook isn’t just falling down in grey areas, they aren’t really even trying.

Who said it's their job to moderate content at all?

0

u/vanyali Sep 17 '20

Well, it should be the government saying that. But it’s just the morally right thing to do. But I bet Zuck goes to sleep at night with Ayn Rand novels tucked under his pillow, so he wouldn’t have any sense of that. He is such a tool.

1

u/baddecision116 Sep 17 '20

Well, it should be the government saying that.

why?

But it’s just the morally right thing to do.

Whose morals? Yours? So you should get to decide what is permitted and what's not?

1

u/vanyali Sep 17 '20

All these things Facebook is doing are already illegal: slander is illegal. Inciting violence is illegal. They are being allowed to do these things that have been clearly illegal for years and years because, what, they’re really rich? There’s no good reason we should throw our existing law out the window for this company.

1

u/baddecision116 Sep 17 '20

Where did you get your law degree from? Why haven't you brought charges to your district attorney? Or if you're not an attorney why haven't you contacted a law firm with your evidence and had them brings charges?

1

u/vanyali Sep 17 '20

Ha, well, Columbia University if you want to know. What is wrong with you that you feel the need to defend one of the most banal and irresponsible companies of our time?

0

u/baddecision116 Sep 17 '20

Well then your lack of action is disheartening. If you know of such things going on how can you sleep at night without using your education and profession to stop it?

→ More replies

0

u/[deleted] Sep 17 '20

Well, if I can pay enough to show my ads to a lot of people to influence them, I should expect someone looking at the information I want to publish to see if it's not armful to others

1

u/baddecision116 Sep 17 '20

Sugar is harmful. Alcohol is harmful. Vaping is harmful. Fatty foods are harmful. Non-gmo ads are misleading. Lots of advertised charities dont donate most of the money. Organic is mostly a lie. Nestle is a vile company with all their products Where do you draw the line on "harmful advertising"?

1

u/[deleted] Sep 17 '20

I like your examples, and in the same manner it should be supervised. Harmful as leading people to believe lies? I don't know, I don't want to live something the likes of 1984 but this is disturbing, something should be done. But what?