Documents found at FB show a cold dark attitude after Charlottesville shooting

A collection of leaked documents appears to show Facebook redefining rules around hate speech and re-educating content moderators following the Charlottesville protest in 2017.

According to leaked internal documents obtained by Motherboard, the 2017 Charlottesville protests were a moment of intense introspective for Facebook, which scrambled to redefine what they consider “hate speech” and to educate content moderators about American white nationalists. One training document obtained shortly after the protests reads: “Recent incidents in the United States (i.e. Charlottesville) have shown that there is potentially confusion about our hate org policies and the specific hate orgs in specific markets.”

A log of updates to hate speech policy documents show some of the new phrases and sentiments that were defined as hate speech following the Charlottesville protest. In November 2017, trainers added the comparison of Mexican people to worms as an example of hate speech, in December they added the comparison of Muslims and pigs, and in February, trainers added that referring to transgender people as “it” rather than their preferred pronouns was hate speech.

Five months after the Charlottesville protests, Facebook added slides explaining the social media firms position on white nationalism, supremacy, and separatism. Interestingly, the slides stated that the company does not “allow praise, support, or representation of white supremacy as an ideology” but does allow positions on white nationalism and separatism to be praised or discussed.

Facebook notes that nationalism as an ideology is not specifically racist, stating that it is an “extreme right movement and ideology, but it doesn’t seem to be always associated with racism (at least not explicitly).” Facebook then notes that “In fact, some white nationalists carefully avoid the term supremacy because it has negative connotations.”

However, Facebook notes that the difference between nationalism and supremacy expressed by some users can be hard to distinguish. “Overlaps with white nationalism/separatism, even orgs and individuals define themselves inconsistently,” says one slide in a section titled “challenges” for white supremacy. Another slide asks: “Can you say you’re a racist on Facebook?” Facebook’s official response to this is “No. By definition, as a racist, you hate on at least one of our characteristics that are protected.”

See the papers at: FB papers

Previous articleKorea summit after all?
Next articleHow about a different view on Collusion!
The Real Side
Posts categorized under "The Real Side" are posted by the Editor because they are deemed worthy of further discussion and consideration, but are not, by default, an implied or explicit endorsement or agreement. The views of guest contributors do not necessarily reflect the viewpoints of The Real Side Radio Show or Joe Messina. By publishing them we hope to further an honest and civilized discussion about the content. The original author and source (if applicable) is attributed in the body of the text. Since variety is the spice of life, we hope by publishing a variety of viewpoints we can add a little spice to your life. Enjoy!

 

Join the conversation!

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse.