Date: July 14, 2016
“What [Mark Zuckerberg] didn’t mention is the downside of being connected. Employees inside Facebook tell NPR the company is struggling internally to deal with the fallout…
Both men take Facebook’s initial decisions as a sign of political bias: The platform is stacked against their cause or community.
Monika Bickert, Facebook’s head of policy […] “We look at a how a specific person shared a specific post or word or photo to Facebook.”
Meaning, if one person shared the cop killer cartoon to condemn it, that’s OK. If another person shared it as a call to arms, it’s not.
She says Facebook considers “was it somebody who was explicitly condemning violence or raising awareness? Or was it somebody who was celebrating violence or not making clear their intention or mocking a victim of violence?”
According to LinkedIn data, many of the people at Facebook who make these editorial decisions about hate speech are recently out of college, and have a real range of bachelor’s degrees — in business, math, managing medical records, and psychology.”
Oh…I bet they are having quite the rough time with this…
…Just recently, it was documented that dehumanizing hate speech [and threats of violence and death] against MAPs on Facebook, do not violate the Facebook terms of service [rules of conduct, or whatever]…
…Yet, a well meaning guy cannot keep up a Facebook page, which merely clarifies that “child molester” is not the same thing as “pedophile”.
…It seems, arguing that honesty is necessary and that MAPs need their rights protected, also…well…that does, inexplicably, violate some sort of rule on Facebook…But, we’d be hard pressed to figure out, exactly which rule…or why…and Facebook isn’t talking, is it?
…”The platform is stacked against their cause or community.”…
This feels so, so familiar as a MAP…doesn’t it?