It’s still formulating policy changes, but it discussed the medical misinformation case specifically, saying that its takedown approach “will not change” while the pandemic is ongoing. Facebook determined it violated hate speech policies because it didn’t explicitly condemn Goebbels, but “Facebook is not sufficiently clear that, when posting a quote attributed to a dangerous individual, the user must make clear that they are not praising or supporting them,” the board said.įacebook suggests it won’t take a softer line on COVID-19 misinformationįacebook says it will apply the precedent from these rulings to similar content on the network, although it didn’t give a specific number of posts that were affected. A US-based post, for instance, compared a quote from Nazi propaganda leader Joseph Goebbels to American political rhetoric. Other decisions hinge on Facebook explaining its policies badly, rather than the specific content of the post. However, it declared that “statements referring to Muslims as mentally unwell or psychologically unstable are not a strong part of this rhetoric,” and “while the post might be considered pejorative or offensive towards Muslims, it did not advocate hatred or intentionally incite any form of imminent harm.” Facebook initially interpreted it as saying “ something wrong with Muslims psychologically,” but a later translation rendered it as “ male Muslims have something wrong in their mindset,” which was deemed “a commentary on the apparent inconsistency between Muslims’ reactions to events in France and in China.”Ī post about Muslims in Myanmar was considered “offensive” but “did not reach the level of hate speech”Īs the Facebook board acknowledges, Myanmar is in the grips of an ongoing genocide against the Rohingya Muslim minority, incited partly through inflammatory Facebook posts. The post was written in Burmese, and the decision was based on some fine translation differences. But it overturned a decision in Myanmar, saying that while the post “might be considered offensive, it did not reach the level of hate speech.” A panel upheld Facebook removing a Russian post with a demeaning slur against Azerbaijani people. Two other cases show the bounds of what the board considers hate speech.
Facebook had already restored the photo, but the board objected to the initial removal, saying the fully automated decision “indicates the lack of proper human oversight which raises human rights concerns.” In Brazil, the board ruled in favor of a woman whose Instagram post about breast cancer was automatically removed for nudity. The five cases covered posts across four continents. One case objected to Facebook’s automated takedown system
0 kommentar(er)
