
Publishing Our Internal Enforcement Guidelines and Expanding Our Appeals Process - uptown
https://newsroom.fb.com/news/2018/04/comprehensive-community-standards/
======
jawns
I'm interested in this section:

[https://www.facebook.com/communitystandards/objectionable_co...](https://www.facebook.com/communitystandards/objectionable_content/hate_speech)

The guidelines refer to "protected characteristics — race, ethnicity, national
origin, religious affiliation, sexual orientation, sex, gender, gender
identity, and serious disability or disease."

Under Tier 2 attacks, it bans "Statements of inferiority implying a person's
or a group's physical, mental, or moral deficiency."

Several of those protected characteristics -- I'm thinking specifically about
religion and sexual orientation -- absolutely have a moral dimension. Religion
explicitly deals with morality, and the reason attitudes about sexual
orientation have shifted over the last few decades is because views about the
morality of gay relationships have shifted.

What I'm wondering is: Would a post criticizing the morality of certain
religious adherents violate these standards? Would a post in which someone
argues that Obergefell was decided wrongly, and that marriage should be
between a man and a woman violate these standards? Would a post in which a
person says they believe homosexual acts to be morally wrong violate these
standards?

~~~
fortythirteen
Would a post stating the inferiority of people at the middle of the bell curve
in these categories be considered a "Tier 2 attack"? Traditionally they have
not on Facebook.

------
kawsper
I have reported videos that people share that includes sexual acts, gun
violence (with deaths), gang executions and bloody traffic accidents, and I
think Facebook removes around 10% of what I report, the rest continues to live
on their platform.

However, my friend who takes model pictures (some (most) with not a lot of
clothes on) have received month long bans for not covering up nipples
correctly, here is some of his shots:
[https://www.instagram.com/tonnynathanfoto/](https://www.instagram.com/tonnynathanfoto/),
it is interesting how a bit of nipple can result in a month long ban, but
someone executing another person on camera is just fine.

~~~
PeterisP
By incorrect covering of nipples, do you mean this example from his portfolio?

[https://www.instagram.com/p/BhHcR7eg7LZ/?taken-
by=tonnynatha...](https://www.instagram.com/p/BhHcR7eg7LZ/?taken-
by=tonnynathanfoto)

~~~
kawsper
That one passed the filter/reports, I think he was testing it a bit.

------
foodislove
This reads like an investment bank's disclaimer that's 5 pages long in tiny
print at the back when they sell you questionable risky investments.

It's designed to make it look like there is a full vetted and functioning
process when at the end of the day, it's just a human mod who makes the call.

Like with banks and other customer care agents, the only times these actions
can really be challenged or changed is if there is a furore that affects FB's
image.

There is just so much trolling and bullying on fb that if they had a real
appeal process, it'll quickly become a flood because if they take Hate speech
seriously, then the slippery slope leads them to monitor other online problems
that is caused by FB.

So no. I think this is just a nice sounding disclaimer for a process that'll
only be used when the next storm hits fb but won't actually help clean up all
the hate and evil on fb.

------
ceejayoz
I'm fascinated by some of the stuff in here.

[https://www.facebook.com/communitystandards/objectionable_co...](https://www.facebook.com/communitystandards/objectionable_content/adult_nudity_sexual_activity)

> Do not post images of real nude adults, where nudity is defined as...
> "visible anus and/or fully nude close-ups of buttocks _unless photoshopped
> on a public figure_..."

or this bit:

> Uncovered female nipples except in the context of breastfeeding, birth
> giving and after-birth moments, health (for example, post-mastectomy, breast
> cancer awareness, or gender confirmation surgery), _or an act of protest_

which would seem to allow people to post nipple photos _to protest Facebook 's
no nipple policy_ and get away with it.

~~~
mynameisvlad
> and get away with it.

Good luck. With that. It'l still probably be taken down and there's nothing
stopping them from denying the appeal as well.

~~~
fenwick67
Just photoshop a male nipple on top

------
mtgx
I'm seen a FB announcement every other day these past two weeks. Kogan has it
right, Facebook is in a PR crisis, and I think that's happening because the
effects of the CA scandal are impacting the business much more than they're
letting on.

[https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/apr/24/facebook-
in-...](https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/apr/24/facebook-in-pr-crisis-
mode-over-cambridge-analytica-scandal-outrage-hallow-aleksandr-kogan)

------
danso
Viewing the actual guide requires logging into Facebook:
[https://www.facebook.com/communitystandards/](https://www.facebook.com/communitystandards/)

~~~
cryptoz
> We are committed to removing content that encourages real-world harm,
> including (but not limited to) physical, financial, and _emotional injury._

(Emphasis mine)

That's rich. Facebook is in the business of intentionally showing users
emotionally distressful content on purpose in order to drive them into a
depression. They do this on purpose, they tell us about it proudly, they are
not shy. Facebook experiments on its users by taking content they now deem
bad, and specifically increasing the amount users see it, so as to
intentionally affect their mood and make then sad and depressed. Facebook is
so proud of it too!

This guide is a bunch of corporate speak for PR. It means nothing to Facebook;
it couldn't, they love breaking the rules they try to assign to others.

Edit: Also Facebook happily separates out the time you spend on Facebook from
what they call the "real world". I'd argue that logging in to Facebook and
seeing any content at all is likely to cause a person "real world harm" for
all kinds of reasons. But Facebook would like you to think that only your
friends can hurt you in the "real world", not Facebook itself. But they do
hurt people. Every day. And that will be x1000 if they helped foreign powers
elect a dictator in the USA.

~~~
cabaalis
Humans are strange creatures. Most people I know on FB literally put their
absolute best face forward on there. Pictures of doing things with their
family, sharing good things that happen to them, etc. However the net effect
is reducing the happiness of everyone. I am not sure that this is a problem
Facebook can solve.

[https://hbr.org/2017/04/a-new-more-rigorous-study-
confirms-t...](https://hbr.org/2017/04/a-new-more-rigorous-study-confirms-the-
more-you-use-facebook-the-worse-you-feel)

------
mgleason_3
Hilarious to have this and 2 lines below in the HN feed is a story from vice
about how they ignored stolen identities posted to their platform for years -
including SSNs, drivers licenses, etc.

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16913056](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16913056)

------
forgottenpass
The existence of a formalized system tricks the brain. You start debating the
questions the system itself poses, not questioning the things the system holds
axiomatic.

For example: Debating the boundaries of Facebook's nudity rules when it comes
to breastfeeding, or newsworthy image like that napalm image in news is
misdirection. Allowing a nipple here and there is the fake debate Facebook has
framed for us.

The real problem is that facebook has decided, for me all my friends, that
we're all prudes. Without asking a single one of us, they just decided.
They've found that we can't be trusted with the ability to scroll past
hardcore porn in our timeline the same way we ignore photos of your ugly dog.
Not only can we not handle that, it can't be behind an account setting, or
twitter-style clickwall on every photo, or age gated over-18 accounts only.
Nope. It's all too harmful of content for us unwashed masses.

It's a con. Even if Facebook doesn't mean it as such. They're constantly
conning themselves too.

------
rdtsc
[From False News section]

[https://www.facebook.com/communitystandards/integrity_authen...](https://www.facebook.com/communitystandards/integrity_authenticity/false_news/)

> Reducing the distribution of content rated as false by independent third-
> party fact-checkers

Wonder who the independent 3rd party fact-checkers are. If one was in the
business of "manufacturing consent" and wanted to control what is pushed to
the front and what isn't, those fact checkers would be a great starting point.
How easy is to influence them?

> Collaborating with academics and other organizations to help solve this
> challenging issue

Does that include, say, think-tanks? Specific universities? How are those
picked and how are they rewarded for the collaboration. That seems like
another easy area to influence. Don't go just to Facebook, but go a step
further and try to influence these organization to push a particular story /
product / idea etc.

------
dosycorp
But if there's no accountability, then what's the point in publishing it?

They will execute against their published (or private) policies, and there's
no external oversight or way to get them to comply with anything other than
what they decide are the standards.

It's not a democratic system. It's a private, totalitarian censorship enforced
by a corporation with a clear liberal-politics bias ( why? because that's
where they think most of their resources are tied up -- their advertisers'
liberal city-dwelling customers are wealthier and thus more important than
conservative, poorer country folk, and their worker drones -- mostly Cali
based -- so FB staff will be predominantly liberal. )

