Social Fakebook sanctions violent threats against "dangerous individuals"?

[Starman]

https://www.facebook.com/communitystandards/credible_violence/

"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.

Thoughts?

 

[WhiteMousse]

Different culture, hard to judge

 

[HereticBD]

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.

 

[Trotsky]

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.

 

[OverCoronavirus Pressure]

No.

 

[SleepyBoy]

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.

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)

 

[nostradumbass]

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.

 

[Trotsky]

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)

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.

 

[Not A Theist]

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.

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.

 

[HockeyBjj]

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.

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.

 

[Leagon]

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.

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.

 

[Trotsky]

I guess that too but... Aren't you a lawyer?

Allegedly

You have to realize that the danger in such a policy is that it is very easy to interpret to some very unseemly ends.

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.

 

[Based and White Pilled]

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.

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?

 

[Not A Theist]

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.

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.

 

[HockeyBjj]

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?

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?

 

[Based and White Pilled]

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?

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

 

[nostradumbass]

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.

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.

 

[Leagon]

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.

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.

 

[djacobox372]

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.

 

[TUFNewb]

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.