Facebook prioritizing different types of hate speech

Page 1 of 12 [ 179 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 12  Next

ASPartOfMe
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Aug 2013
Age: 65
Gender: Male
Posts: 29,109
Location: Long Island, New York

05 Dec 2020, 3:23 pm

Facebook to start policing anti-Black hate speech more aggressively than anti-White comments, documents show

Quote:
Facebook is embarking on a major overhaul of its algorithms that detect hate speech, according to internal documents, reversing years of so-called “race-blind” practices.

Those practices resulted in the company being more vigilant about removing slurs lobbed against White users while flagging and deleting innocuous posts by people of color on the platform.

The overhaul, which is known as the WoW Project and is in its early stages, involves re-engineering Facebook’s automated moderation systems to get better at detecting and automatically deleting hateful language that is considered “the worst of the worst,” according to internal documents describing the project obtained by The Washington Post. The “worst of the worst” includes slurs directed at Blacks, Muslims, people of more than one race, the LGBTQ community and Jews, according to the documents.

As one way to assess severity, Facebook assigned different types of attacks numerical scores weighted based on their perceived harm. For example, the company’s systems would now place a higher priority on automatically removing statements such as “Gay people are disgusting” than “Men are pigs.”

In the first phase of the project, which was announced internally to a small group in October, engineers said they had changed the company’s systems to deprioritize policing contemptuous comments about “Whites,” “men” and “Americans.” Facebook still considers such attacks to be hate speech, and users can still report it to the company. However, the company’s technology now treats them as “low-sensitivity” — or less likely to be harmful — so that they are no longer automatically deleted by the company’s algorithms. That means roughly 10,000 fewer posts are now being deleted each day, according to the documents.

The shift is a response to a racial reckoning within the company as well as years of criticism from civil rights advocates that content from Black users is disproportionately removed, particularly when they use the platform to describe experiences of discrimination.

“We can’t combat systemic racism if we can’t talk about it, and challenging white supremacy and White men is an important part of having dialogue about racism,” said Danielle Citron, a law professor specializing in free speech at Boston University Law School, who also reviewed the documents. “But you can’t have the conversation if it is being filtered out, bizarrely, by overly blunt hate speech algorithms.”

In July, Facebook advertisers organized a high-profile boycott over civil rights issues, which put pressure on the company to improve its treatment of marginalized groups. It was also bitterly criticized by its own independent auditors in a searing civil rights report, which found Facebook’s hate speech policies to be a “tremendous setback” when it came to protecting its users of color. More than a dozen employees have quit in protest over the company’s policies on hate speech. An African American manager filed a civil rights complaint against the company in July, alleging racial bias in recruiting and hiring.

Black employees advocated for Facebook to launch a study, dubbed Project Vibe, to deepen the company’s understanding of Black users and their experience on the platform. The project explored four hypotheses about Black users, including whether Black sentiment toward the company was at risk because of their perception that Facebook applies its hate speech policies unfairly. Project Vibe was sponsored by Chris Cox, Facebook’s chief product officer and a longtime confidant of CEO Mark Zuckerberg.

Facebook said the analysis from Project Vibe was shared more broadly in 2020 and that the company eventually followed up on many of the proposals from the initiative under a new moniker, Project Blacklight, which kicked off in February 2

Color of Change’s Hatch said that in 2018 — at the same time that Facebook’s own Project Vibe had confirmed frustrations from Black users — company officials dismissed her concerns about Black voices being shut down, saying the issues were not systemic and were one-off mistakes by moderators.

A year after Project Vibe, the company commissioned an independent civil rights audit. The audit was part of an effort to better understand and address broad problems, such as the spread of white nationalism and white supremacy on the platform, as well as the company’s standing with its most marginalized users.

The first section of the civil rights audit, published in summer 2019 in consultation with more than 90 civil rights groups, found that Facebook was “overly enforcing” its content policies by removing content where people spoke out about discrimination.

The auditors found fault with Facebook’s policies, but also with its enforcement from content moderators and technology.

Facebook’s Aldous said the WoW project reflected an acknowledgment that underrepresented groups required more protection.

These steps may be too late for some Black users, a number of whom said the problems seem to be getting worse this year, not better. Watkins said she was fed up with all the infractions and that she plans to move her Facebook group to her own website soon.

“Talking about White privilege, White supremacy and problematic aspects of Whiteness is part of the work of race theory,” said Frederick Joseph, an entrepreneur and author. He said his posts on his recently published book “The Black Friend: On Being a Better White Person” seem to get less promotion from Instagram than other posts.


Critical race theory insidious indoctrination
Quote:
Critical race theory began as a leftist movement within critical legal studies to interpret American law, politics and society as a system used by white people (Euro-Americans) to maintain their historical advantages over people of color.

Critical race theory is a derivative of 1960s French postmodernism mixed with a large dose of Marxist social theory and group identity politics. Critical race theory argued that the law and legal institutions of Western civilization were inherently racist and that race itself, instead of being biological fact, was a social construct used by white people to further their socio-economic advantage over people of color.

Today, critical race theory argues that racism is ingrained in the fabric of American society and all aspects of governmental and legal systems, hence the term systemic racism that is popular in the modern era.

Since 1989, critical race theory has spread beyond the narrow confines of academia. In particular, some of the specific points of critical race theory:

• Institutional racism is pervasive.

• Power structures (government/corporate) are based on white privilege and white supremacy.

• Racism was essential to America’s founding and is ubiquitous in American society.

• Rejection of Enlightenment rationalism, liberalism, colorblindness and meritocracy.

• The 1960s civil rights movement was superficial rather than transformative.

The modern critical race theory movement is a collection of activists and scholars engaged in transforming the relationship between race, racism and government/corporate power.

Unlike traditional civil rights movements, which stressed incremental change and step-by-step evolution of American society, critical race theory attacks the very foundation and legitimacy of the American society, including the legal system, Enlightenment rationalism and neutral principles of constitutional law.

Critical race theory is openly anti-liberal. Traditional liberalism strove to make race largely irrelevant with the goal that American society would come to see skin color as having no more significance to a person’s worth or abilities than their hair color; essentially colorblindness.

Traditional liberal civil rights legislation was passed to ensure that race, gender, or sexuality does not prevent anyone from accessing any employment or educational opportunity. Colorblindness worked together with the traditional liberal goal of advancement through individual merit, or meritocracy, to optimize individual opportunity.

Critical race theory rejects both colorblindness and meritocracy as illusions that allow white people to perpetuate their cultural dominance. In this world view, traditional liberals who believe in colorblindness and meritocracy could be branded as racist.

Instead of advancement through individual merit, critical race theory recommends an exclusive focus on race in hiring and educational opportunities. Critical race theory promotes the use of race to create an Orwellian hierarchy of equality in which racial groups would be ranked “more equal” than others.

Rather than address socio-economic disparities through colorblindness and meritocracy, critical race theory advocates for governmental/corporate intervention based on race to “fix” American society. This explains California Proposition 16, the Repeal Proposition 209 Affirmative Action Amendment.

This movement is generally focused on the African-American community. It is less clear where Native Americans, Asian-Americans, Indian-Americans and Latinos would rate in the new hierarchy of equality.


Bolding=mine for the context of Facebook's decision


_________________
Professionally Identified and joined WP August 26, 2013
DSM 5: Autism Spectrum Disorder, DSM IV: Aspergers Moderate Severity

“My autism is not a superpower. It also isn’t some kind of god-forsaken, endless fountain of suffering inflicted on my family. It’s just part of who I am as a person”. - Sara Luterman


Last edited by ASPartOfMe on 05 Dec 2020, 3:40 pm, edited 2 times in total.

funeralxempire
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Oct 2014
Age: 37
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 17,924
Location: I'm right here

05 Dec 2020, 3:30 pm

Seems reasonable. Discussion of white privilege shouldn't be treated as hate speech just because there's a portion of users who are offended by the mere concept.


_________________
You can't buy happiness; steal it.
戦争ではなく戦争と戦う


TheRobotLives
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 7 Dec 2019
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,092
Location: Quiet, Dark, Comfy Spot

05 Dec 2020, 3:53 pm

"White privilege" is a racial generalization about people, so discussion about it is not allowed on this site either.


_________________
Then a hero comes along, with the strength to carry on, and you cast your fears aside, and you know you can survive.

Be the hero of your life.


funeralxempire
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Oct 2014
Age: 37
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 17,924
Location: I'm right here

05 Dec 2020, 4:35 pm

TheRobotLives wrote:
"White privilege" is a racial generalization about people, so discussion about it is not allowed on this site either.


You might want to discuss that with Alex, he's been pretty clear that it is allowed on this site.


_________________
You can't buy happiness; steal it.
戦争ではなく戦争と戦う


TheRobotLives
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 7 Dec 2019
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,092
Location: Quiet, Dark, Comfy Spot

05 Dec 2020, 4:48 pm

funeralxempire wrote:
TheRobotLives wrote:
"White privilege" is a racial generalization about people, so discussion about it is not allowed on this site either.


You might want to discuss that with Alex, he's been pretty clear that it is allowed on this site.

Recently, he said, you can call someone a racist, if their written words factually support the accusation.

However, the mods don't allow, blindly making generalizations meant to be personal attacks, like, "liberals are XXXX", "conservatives are XXXX".

I see "white privilege" as a racial generalization meant to be a personal attack on someone.


_________________
Then a hero comes along, with the strength to carry on, and you cast your fears aside, and you know you can survive.

Be the hero of your life.


funeralxempire
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Oct 2014
Age: 37
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 17,924
Location: I'm right here

05 Dec 2020, 4:51 pm

TheRobotLives wrote:
funeralxempire wrote:
TheRobotLives wrote:
"White privilege" is a racial generalization about people, so discussion about it is not allowed on this site either.


You might want to discuss that with Alex, he's been pretty clear that it is allowed on this site.

Recently, he said, you can call someone a racist, if their written words factually support the accusation.

However, the mods don't allow, blindly making generalizations meant to be personal attacks, like, "liberals are XXXX", "conservatives are XXXX".

I see "white privilege" as a racial generalization meant to a personal attack on someone.


You're welcome to view it that way, that doesn't mean your opinion will be supported by those with the power to make that call. Discussing a common social concern isn't a personal attack even if you are very emotionally invested in viewing it as such.


_________________
You can't buy happiness; steal it.
戦争ではなく戦争と戦う


TheRobotLives
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 7 Dec 2019
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,092
Location: Quiet, Dark, Comfy Spot

05 Dec 2020, 5:05 pm

funeralxempire wrote:
You're welcome to view it that way, that doesn't mean your opinion will be supported by those with the power to make that call. Discussing a common social concern isn't a personal attack even if you are very emotionally invested in viewing it as such.

It's a direct personal attack, suggesting something is wrong with the person.

They're too rich.
They're too classy.
They're not concerned about poor people.
They're not worried about policing
They don't care about social issues.
+1000 other things


_________________
Then a hero comes along, with the strength to carry on, and you cast your fears aside, and you know you can survive.

Be the hero of your life.


funeralxempire
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Oct 2014
Age: 37
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 17,924
Location: I'm right here

05 Dec 2020, 5:33 pm

TheRobotLives wrote:
funeralxempire wrote:
You're welcome to view it that way, that doesn't mean your opinion will be supported by those with the power to make that call. Discussing a common social concern isn't a personal attack even if you are very emotionally invested in viewing it as such.

It's a direct personal attack, suggesting something is wrong with the person.

They're too rich.
They're too classy.
They're not concerned about poor people.
They're not worried about policing
They don't care about social issues.
+1000 other things


It describes a social phenomenon, it carries no value inherent judgment. How exactly does it suggest something is wrong with the person when it doesn't even describe something that an individual can be responsible for? :scratch:

You're entitled to have different priorities, hell, you're entitled to not give a s**t, but discussing a broad social phenomenon really does not appear to be a direct personal attack on anyone, even people who are alleged to benefit from it. You didn't do anything to cause it to exist. You didn't ask to benefit from it and did absolutely nothing for that to occur. It's created by broadly existing social trends that individuals can only effect en masse.


_________________
You can't buy happiness; steal it.
戦争ではなく戦争と戦う


TheRobotLives
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 7 Dec 2019
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,092
Location: Quiet, Dark, Comfy Spot

05 Dec 2020, 6:09 pm

funeralxempire wrote:
TheRobotLives wrote:
funeralxempire wrote:
You're welcome to view it that way, that doesn't mean your opinion will be supported by those with the power to make that call. Discussing a common social concern isn't a personal attack even if you are very emotionally invested in viewing it as such.

It's a direct personal attack, suggesting something is wrong with the person.

They're too rich.
They're too classy.
They're not concerned about poor people.
They're not worried about policing
They don't care about social issues.
+1000 other things


It describes a social phenomenon, it carries no value inherent judgment. How exactly does it suggest something is wrong with the person when it doesn't even describe something that an individual can be responsible for? :scratch:

You're entitled to have different priorities, hell, you're entitled to not give a s**t, but discussing a broad social phenomenon really does not appear to be a direct personal attack on anyone, even people who are alleged to benefit from it. You didn't do anything to cause it to exist. You didn't ask to benefit from it and did absolutely nothing for that to occur. It's created by broadly existing social trends that individuals can only effect en masse.

It's as neutral as the social phenomena of the "Free Rider Problem" in economics regarding people who mooch off of productive people.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free-rider_problem

"Free riders" (moochers) is a loaded term that carries an implied thinking that something is wrong with people who FREE RIDE off of others.


_________________
Then a hero comes along, with the strength to carry on, and you cast your fears aside, and you know you can survive.

Be the hero of your life.


Pepe
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Jun 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 22,754
Location: Australia

05 Dec 2020, 6:57 pm

TheRobotLives wrote:
Recently, he said, you can call someone a racist, if their written words factually support the accusation.

However, the mods don't allow, blindly making generalizations meant to be personal attacks, like, "liberals are XXXX", "conservatives are XXXX".

I see "white privilege" as a racial generalization meant to be a personal attack on someone.


Yep. You need to back up your claim with a cogent argument, otherwise, you are simply being a dick. :mrgreen:

"White privilege" incorporates "collective guilt", which is absurd nonsense. 8)


_________________
Laughter is the best medicine. Age-appropriate behaviour is an arbitrary NT social construct.
Don't tell me white lies. Gaslight me at your peril. Don't give me your bad attitude. Hypnosis, psychosis. Tomarto, tomayto. There are *4* lights. Honey badger.
If I'm so bad, pass me by. ;)


And one more thing,



Also, as George Carlin said, "I have no stake in the outcome." I'll stick around for the comedy.

"A stranger is a friend gang-stalker you haven't met yet."
Truth may be inconvenient but it is never politically incorrect...The Oracle of Truth has spoken...8)
Read my lips:-I am not a fan of the orange man.-I would never vote for the Republican party given the chance.-I am interested in being objective and rational.


funeralxempire
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Oct 2014
Age: 37
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 17,924
Location: I'm right here

05 Dec 2020, 7:02 pm

It's dishonest when posters insist that the term white privilege implies collective guilt because it doesn't assign any inherent guilt, it merely describes a social phenomenon.

TheRobotLives wrote:
funeralxempire wrote:
TheRobotLives wrote:
funeralxempire wrote:
You're welcome to view it that way, that doesn't mean your opinion will be supported by those with the power to make that call. Discussing a common social concern isn't a personal attack even if you are very emotionally invested in viewing it as such.

It's a direct personal attack, suggesting something is wrong with the person.

They're too rich.
They're too classy.
They're not concerned about poor people.
They're not worried about policing
They don't care about social issues.
+1000 other things


It describes a social phenomenon, it carries no value inherent judgment. How exactly does it suggest something is wrong with the person when it doesn't even describe something that an individual can be responsible for? :scratch:

You're entitled to have different priorities, hell, you're entitled to not give a s**t, but discussing a broad social phenomenon really does not appear to be a direct personal attack on anyone, even people who are alleged to benefit from it. You didn't do anything to cause it to exist. You didn't ask to benefit from it and did absolutely nothing for that to occur. It's created by broadly existing social trends that individuals can only effect en masse.

It's as neutral as the social phenomena of the "Free Rider Problem" in economics regarding people who mooch off of productive people.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free-rider_problem

"Free riders" (moochers) is a loaded term that carries an implied thinking that something is wrong with people who FREE RIDE off of others.


The term free-rider problem isn't problematic, although if you're insisting on calling your fellow posters moochers that certainly would be.


_________________
You can't buy happiness; steal it.
戦争ではなく戦争と戦う


Antrax
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Feb 2019
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,639
Location: west coast

05 Dec 2020, 7:54 pm

I dislike the term white privilege for the simple reason that it reinforces racial classifications and thus contributes to racism, but fail to see how it violates PPR policies to discuss it here.


_________________
"Ignorance may be bliss, but knowledge is power."


TheRobotLives
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 7 Dec 2019
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,092
Location: Quiet, Dark, Comfy Spot

05 Dec 2020, 8:53 pm

Antrax wrote:
I dislike the term white privilege for the simple reason that it reinforces racial classifications and thus contributes to racism, but fail to see how it violates PPR policies to discuss it here.

This site has a rule that you're not suppose to make generalizations of people groups.

Such as "Liberals are XXXX" or "Trump supporters are XXXX" or "Autistics are XXXX".

"White privilege" is such a statement.

It declares all the people in the white racial people group are XXXX.


_________________
Then a hero comes along, with the strength to carry on, and you cast your fears aside, and you know you can survive.

Be the hero of your life.


cyberdad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Feb 2011
Age: 54
Gender: Male
Posts: 29,284

05 Dec 2020, 8:59 pm

If the American Psychological Association recognise "White privilege" as an evidence based phenomenon then it can't really be banned as its therefore an attack on freedom of speech.
https://www.apa.org/research/action/spe ... -privilege

In contrast Racism against black people is exclusively based on "hate" which does contravene standards on most internet sites.



cberg
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Dec 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,183
Location: A swiftly tilting planet

05 Dec 2020, 9:02 pm

There are better reasons to disagree with Facebook generally, but regardless of why you don't like the site, the obvious informed choice is not to use it.


_________________
"Standing on a well-chilled cinder, we see the fading of the suns, and try to recall the vanished brilliance of the origin of the worlds."
-Georges Lemaitre
"I fly through hyperspace, in my green computer interface"
-Gem Tos :mrgreen:


uncommondenominator
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 8 Aug 2019
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 777

05 Dec 2020, 11:58 pm

People sure are creative and imaginative when it comes to reinventing what they think "white privilege" means.

"White privilege" just means "a privilege specific to white people". It does not mean that all white people are privileged. It means that there are privileges that exist in society, that tend to disproportionately benefit white people.

You can kinda tell it doesn't mean "all white people are privileged", since it lacks the words "all" and "are", therefore it literally can't be saying that "all" anyone "are" anything. Much the same way "domestic violence" doesn't mean "all domestic couples are violent". It's describing a phenomenon (privilege) and what the qualifier necessary to receive said privilege is (being white). It does not automatically mean "all white people have and use this privilege" or that "they should feel guilty as a result". If you want to shoehorn them in on your own, and pretend they were there all along, that's your prerogative. But it doesn't magically become the truth just cos you chant it while clicking the heels on your ruby slippers.

The idea that america is totally 100% fair and impartial across the board is laughably naïve. Given how many people on here think society is collectively rigged against autistic people, it's wild how many of those same people think the idea of society being collectively rigged against a race or races is somehow absurd.