Social Fakebook sanctions violent threats against "dangerous individuals"?

Discussion in 'The War Room' started by Starman, Jul 10, 2019.

  1. Starman

    Starman Brown Belt

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2014
    Messages:
    3,218
    Likes Received:
    3,328
    Location:
    Mexico?
    https://www.facebook.com/communitystandards/credible_violence/

    [​IMG]

    "Do not post: Threats that could lead to death (and other forms of high-severity violence) of any target(s) where threat is defined as any of the following:

    Statements of intent to commit high-severity violence; or

    Calls for high-severity violence (unless the target is an organization or individual covered in the Dangerous Individuals and Organizations policy)."


    Does this mean that Fakebook now condones calls for high-severity violence against Tommy Robinson, Alex Jones, Paul Joseph Watson, and others?

    I genuinely don't understand, and feel like I must be misreading this, but maybe this really is the direction we are headed in.

    [​IMG]

    Thoughts?
     
  2. WhiteMousse

    WhiteMousse Brown Belt

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2015
    Messages:
    3,820
    Likes Received:
    5,032
    Location:
    Stratholme
    Different culture, hard to judge
     
    MoparOrNoCar, GtehMVP and uppercutbus like this.
  3. HereticBD

    HereticBD Titanium Belt

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2010
    Messages:
    37,543
    Likes Received:
    55,984
    That's pretty fucked up, actually. I know it would be impossible to police the entirety of Facebook, but to actually put in your TOS that it's okay to threaten violence against anyone, regardless of how bad they are, seems irresponsible just from a company standpoint.
     
    EL CORINTHIAN, ssBaldy, MT7 and 14 others like this.
  4. Trotsky

    Trotsky Gold Belt

    Joined:
    May 20, 2016
    Messages:
    20,562
    Likes Received:
    51,664
    I'm guessing they mean persons like Osama Bin Laden and groups like ISIS.

    I mean....can we guess who would be the first people to cry and make a Sherdog thread if someone got banned for saying "die, ISIS!!!" The whining about liberal corporations being cucked by Islamic extremists would be heard for miles.
     
  5. Job Interview

    Job Interview Speaker to Animals

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2015
    Messages:
    53,449
    Likes Received:
    78,323
    Location:
    Puppeteer fleet of worlds
  6. SleepyBoy

    SleepyBoy Silver Belt

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2003
    Messages:
    12,052
    Likes Received:
    3,512
    Location:
    in bed
    I agree. But not sure if putting it in their tos is a good idea. Maybe a defacto look the other way is good. But I would be very weary of allowing any threats as a matter of policy. I would also be weary of anyone making frequent threats, no matter who the target is. (if i owned a social media company that is)
     
    Starman likes this.
  7. nostradumbass

    nostradumbass Gold Belt

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2008
    Messages:
    22,119
    Likes Received:
    35,551
    Who the fuck does zuckercorn think he is? Credible threats of "high-severity violence" aren't even protected by law, but that autistic ginger manlet says it's ok, and what he says goes. Get fucked. This idiot has been slammed with privacy violations over and over, ignores subpoenas in other countries, and is hemorrhaging users because facebook is shit. Anyone still on facebook is a fool.
     
  8. Trotsky

    Trotsky Gold Belt

    Joined:
    May 20, 2016
    Messages:
    20,562
    Likes Received:
    51,664
    Yeah, I tend to agree with you and @HereticBD on this point, but I think it's pretty silly to feign outrage over it. It may be in place to prevent PR-nightmare enforcement scenarios like banning Parkland kids for making posts about Nicholas Cruz, etc.
     
  9. Not A Theist

    Not A Theist Purple Belt

    Joined:
    May 25, 2018
    Messages:
    1,590
    Likes Received:
    2,959
    I guess that too but... Aren't you a lawyer? You have to realize that the danger in such a policy is that it is very easy to interpret to some very unseemly ends.
     
  10. HockeyBjj

    HockeyBjj Putting on the foil

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2012
    Messages:
    12,891
    Likes Received:
    22,589
    Assuming this is what's on the list, then yeah that makes sense. Facebook making that list public knowledge would help alleviate fears that it can be abused

    https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-48142098

    BBC article has the verbage of Facebook justifying its ban of the likes of Alex Jones, Farrakhan, and Milo yanapowhatever for them being "Dangerous individuals" . So it could stand to reason that Facebook is A ok with direct death threats to those types of people, not just the full blown terrorists leaders and groups.

    Dug up and found their terms for this dangerous individuals and organizations policy so that we can actually be knowledgeable and understand what we're debating here
    https://m.facebook.com/communitystandards/dangerous_individuals_organizations

    Their description of Hate groups seems vague enough to be abused

    Hate organisations and their leaders and prominent members (<- these people are fair game for death threats under the other policy @Starman posted in his ts)

    A hate organisation is defined as:

      • Any association of three or more people that is organised under a name, sign or symbol and that has an ideology, statements or physical actions that attack individuals based on characteristics, including race, religious affiliation, nationality, ethnicity, gender, sex, sexual orientation, serious disease or disability.

    So unfortunately, they do not mean just full blown terrorists and mass shooters, but anyone part of a hate group, and they internally decide what is a hate group based off some very loose guidelines. Chick fil A could qualify as a hate group under this policy and make threatening to bomb their restraunts or kill the board members allowable.
     
  11. Leagon

    Leagon Silver Belt

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2007
    Messages:
    10,484
    Likes Received:
    4,528
    Location:
    Vegas
    Your av is so perfect with your posts. A powerless man who thinks he's a superhero sitting alone and drinking his bitterness away.

    "Who the fuck does zuckercom think he is?" Lol. He's the owner of Facebook and one of the richest men in the world and he isn't even 40 yet. I imagine that's who he thinks he is.

    Anyway, I think it's a reasonable policy for the reasons @Trotsky stated, though given how left-leaning fb is, I imagine this will result in a lot of sanctioned abuse of conservatives.

    Which I think I'm okay with at this current political moment. During Obama, liberals were outta control and I was generally okay with them being persecuted for their overreach. Under Donald, many conservatives are acting similarly foolishly. Getting chased off of free, optional social platforms is a pretty fair consequence for being an asshole.
     
    7437 and sloppypie like this.
  12. Trotsky

    Trotsky Gold Belt

    Joined:
    May 20, 2016
    Messages:
    20,562
    Likes Received:
    51,664
    Allegedly

    Yeah, in theory, but I don't think it poses any realistic problems (persons who are unhinged and will make death threats in the public space aren't likely to research terms and conditions to cross-reference their targets; if anything, I suspect it will mostly spurn right-wing troll-types who try to make some incoherent point about free speech). I think its gravest function is to expose Facebook to greater potential legal liability.
     
    BarryDillon and Kafir-kun like this.
  13. Canned Tuna

    Canned Tuna Silver Belt

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2009
    Messages:
    10,256
    Likes Received:
    6,069
    Location:
    St. Louis
    Milo and Alex Jones don't meet that criteria because they aren't known members of a "hate organization". It's pretty clear that it has to be an organized group of people.

    How they define a hate organization is still widely open to interpretation, though. Like, do the Proud Boys count?
     
    SleepyBoy likes this.
  14. Not A Theist

    Not A Theist Purple Belt

    Joined:
    May 25, 2018
    Messages:
    1,590
    Likes Received:
    2,959
    I think it's a bit of a false assumption that this would require extensive research and cross-referencing on the threatener's part for this to lead to death threats not being moderated. Death threats happen online quite commonly and are (hopefully) moderated when they happen. All this will mean is that when they happen to certain designated public and polarizing individuals/group members it won't be considered an issue.

    With the policy posted in post #7 for what a hate group is:

    "Any association of three or more people that is organised under a name, sign or symbol and that has an ideology, statements or physical actions that attack individuals based on characteristics, including race, religious affiliation, nationality, ethnicity, gender, sex, sexual orientation, serious disease or disability."

    That's a very loose description which you could argue countless groups into liking ranging from Greenpeace to Chick Fil A to, quite possibly, more radical feminist groups.

    You're a smart guy. I can't help but get the impression that your line about cross referencing and research is a deliberate attempt to make this seem like it could only be enacted in a very small sampling of cases when, the reality is, it would make the very common phenomenon of online death threats acceptable against disturbingly large, and loosely defined, groups of people.

    You use the term "feign outrage" above and I don't think that really applies here. I'm not particularly outraged about this, nor does one have to be to point out how incredibly sketchy such a policy is, and that it could well lead to a very large acceptable class of death threats on one of the world's largest social media platforms.
     
    MMAisGod, Fronk, newerest and 3 others like this.
  15. HockeyBjj

    HockeyBjj Putting on the foil

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2012
    Messages:
    12,891
    Likes Received:
    22,589
    In the terms there, Facebook states-
    We do not allow the following people (living or deceased) or groups to maintain a presence (for example, have an account, Page, Group) on our platform:

    And when Jones/Milo/Fark got the ban, Facebook said it was because they were "dangerous individuals"

    To the second point, yeah, that is very wide. Is antifa a hate group? Proud boys? The guys who tried to make a straight pride rally? How 'prominent' does one have to be where slinging death threats is acceptable on Facebook? Who gets to actually make those decisions behind the scenes? And, of course, will there be a bias since it is not well defined?
     
  16. Canned Tuna

    Canned Tuna Silver Belt

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2009
    Messages:
    10,256
    Likes Received:
    6,069
    Location:
    St. Louis
    Under the individuals part it specifies "leaders or prominent members of organizations..."
    I guess they're calling the alt right an organization and Milo is a leader? Idk how the fuck else they justify that one
     
    uppercutbus likes this.
  17. nostradumbass

    nostradumbass Gold Belt

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2008
    Messages:
    22,119
    Likes Received:
    35,551
    Lol, aren't you the same retarded amateur psychologist who made a thread trying to convince everyone that some schizo off his meds might also be a racist?

    Regardless of how inspirational you find Mark Zuckenberg, pretty sure for most people, having broken the law is of greater concern than a facebook posting violation, the same way having killed someone is probably of greater concern than whether a sherdog amateur psychologist thinks he's a secret racist. You have 0 sense of proportion.
     
  18. Leagon

    Leagon Silver Belt

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2007
    Messages:
    10,484
    Likes Received:
    4,528
    Location:
    Vegas
    You said "Who the fuck does he think he is?" like some poorly written cop from an 80s action movie. Not only is it a corny thing to say, but you're saying it about one of the most famous, powerful, and wealthy men in the world on an issue pertaining to his own creation. It's not like Mark Zuckerberg invaded Somalia. Or started a clothing line for pregnant women. He's making policy for his own website. It's literally his job, lol.
     
  19. djacobox372

    djacobox372 Gold Belt

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2006
    Messages:
    20,107
    Likes Received:
    3,987
    All facebook is covering with that clause is the right for someone to call for the death penalty in a murder case, or for military action against terrorist organizations or the like.
     
  20. TUFNewb

    TUFNewb Black Belt

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2009
    Messages:
    5,327
    Likes Received:
    11,688
    Not that this couldn't happen because facebook moderation is outsourced shit... but this looks super fake. A screenshot alone should not mean shit considering how much of this crap that gets circled in right wing community is trolling or just outright fake agitprop. This is also at least 2 years old.
     
    James Bomb, panamaican, tonni and 2 others like this.

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.