9 Comments

Summary:

Facebook has admitted that it failed to apply its policies about offensive content to some disturbingly misogynistic pages. But is this a victory for the social network’s critics, or just another stop on the slippery slope of censorship?

As my colleague Eliza Kern has reported, Facebook has apologized for the way it handled “hate speech” against women on the social network, after repeated complaints from advocacy groups alleging that it was turning a blind eye to what was clearly offensive behavior. This has been hailed by some as a victory, since Facebook has admitted that its policies around such content are weak. But even if its policies are improved, do we really want Facebook to be the one deciding what qualifies as hate speech and what doesn’t?

What makes this kind of topic so difficult to discuss is that much of the content Facebook was accused of harboring is unpleasant in the extreme: some of the pages that were mentioned in the complaint by the group Women, Action and the Media advocated violence against women, promoted rape, and made jokes about abuse (one of the tamer examples was a page called “Kicking Your Girlfriend in the Fanny Because She Won’t Make You a Sandwich”). No one in their right mind would argue that this kind of content isn’t offensive.

Facebook decides what speech is free

The larger problem in making Facebook take this kind of content down, however, is that it forces the network to take an even more active role in determining which of the comments or photos or videos posted by its billion or so users deserve to be seen and which don’t. In other words, it gives Facebook even more of a licence to practice what amounts to censorship — something the company routinely (and legitimately) gets criticized for doing.

Screen Shot 2013-05-29 at 6.30.31 PM

To take just a few examples, Facebook has been repeatedly accused of removing content that promotes breast-feeding, presumably because it is seen as offensive by some — or perhaps because it trips the automatic filters that try to detect offensive content and send it to the team of regulators who actually police that sort of thing. The social network has also come under fire for removing pages related to the Middle East, as well as pages and content published by advocacy groups and dissidents in other parts of the world.

As Jillian York, the director for international freedom of expression at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, has pointed out, the entire concept of “hate speech” is a tricky one. In France, posting comments that are seen as homophobic or anti-Semitic is a crime, and Twitter is currently fighting a court order aimed at having the social network identify some of those who posted such comments. The company is resisting at least in part because it has staked its reputation on being the “free-speech wing of the free-speech party.”

It’s an increasingly slippery slope

Like button

Some groups have tried to convince Facebook that pages promoting heterosexuality qualify as hate speech, while others have complained that pages making fun of people who are overweight should fall into the same category. Many people would undoubtedly see the kind of content that Women, Action and the Media are complaining about as being clearly offensive in a way that these other pages aren’t — but not everyone would agree.

Where does Facebook draw the line on this particular slippery slope? Is it only the content that draws the most vocal criticism that gets removed, or the campaigns that influence advertisers?

As more than one free-speech advocate has noted, if popular protests about offensive content were what determined the content we were able to see or share a few decades ago, anything promoting homosexuality or half a dozen other topics would have vanished from our sight. There is at least a case to be made that the simplest course of action for a network like Facebook would be to only remove content when it is required to do so by law. But then what happens to the kind of content it just apologized for?

Screen Shot 2013-05-29 at 6.02.09 PM

Private entities making their own rules

To its credit, the social network has tried to find other ways of discouraging these kinds of pages — including requesting page administrators to identify themselves (although the company’s “real name” policy raises some equally troubling questions). And while Facebook’s behavior looks and feels like censorship, it isn’t legally an infringement of free speech because Facebook is a corporate entity, and free-speech rules only apply to governments.

And that fact about Facebook — that it is a proprietary platform controlled by private interests — is part of what makes this situation so complex. For large numbers of people, the social network is a central method for connecting with and sharing information with their friends, a combination of water cooler and public square. But like Twitter, it is not a public square at all: it is more like a shopping mall, with private security that determines what behavior is tolerated what isn’t.

That’s not a problem when you want security to remove the people who are offending or disturbing you, or when you agree with the company’s decisions — but it’s quite different when you are the one who is being accused of being offensive or disturbing. And Facebook has provided plenty of evidence that it can make just as many wrong choices as it can right ones.

Post and thumbnail photos courtesy of Flickr user Hoggarazi

  1. I do not, really, see a problem. As popular as it is, Facebook is a private company and can therefore set ‘community guidelines’. Google AdSense won’t deal with sites that feature pornography, promote violence or encourage piracy or ‘hacking’. There are any number of things that you cannot post to YouTube. TV channels and newspapers have lists of things they consider inappropriate. I don’t remember much of an outcry or hand wringing about slippery slopes when those decision were made.

    I disagree with Facebook about breast feeding but I agree with them about groups or individuals who promote rape, child pornography and violence in general.
    The internet is a big, big place and there are lots of places where people can share even the most offensive, misguided ideas. While Facebook might be highly interactive it is ultimately an entertainment channel. More specifically it is a for-profit entertainment channel with shareholders and, according to recent numbers, it is slipping in popularity. As a company they need to do what they can to keep their audience.

    If we’re going to start promoting the idea that corporations are subject to the same kind of free-speech laws that governments are, I’m all for it but why start with Facebook?

    Share
    1. Thanks, Justin. I take your point — but I think there is a danger in allowing corporations that are as large and central to the lives of many users as Facebook is to draw those lines. And I chose it because it is so central to people’s lives, in a way that Google isn’t (but would very much like to be). I’ve made some of the same criticisms and observations about Twitter as well, because I think it faces some of the same risks.

      Share
      1. If Facebook is truly the center of the lives of so many people, we’re in trouble as a civilization.

        Share
      2. Justin Beach Friday, May 31, 2013

        The argument could be made that MySpace was once central to people’s lives. I believe their complete lack of control was part of the reason they no longer are.

        Share
  2. Matthew,

    Do your homework. “Fanny” is extremely NOT “tame” in some places; look it up.

    Share
  3. Alessia Cesana Thursday, May 30, 2013

    I feel this is the usual case where we try to remove a problem by curing the symptoms instead of removing it at the root. I understand FB’s right to have a policy though I wish they would comply to the law on free speech, but people’s advocacy to remove stuff I don’t. Just because they can’t pour their misogynist black humour or whatever else people find offensive on FB it doesn’t make those people become less misogynist or hateful in real life. It can make it worse actually, because as long as you are in an open space there can be a discussion with the opposite point of view. When you are in the close circle of people who agree with you then you just feel your point is stronger. Yes, you don’t see it and you don’t get offended, but those people are still around with the same and free to promote inequality in a society that aims to be as fair as possible.

    Share
  4. Stupid communists. They are always trying to censer the masses. But I agree rape and child porno is wrong and against the law, so removing them is just. Removing fat jokes or heterosexual promo pages seem far fetched. I don’t have a petition with Over 9000! names, doesn’t make them any less stupid.

    Share
  5. Facebook is a private company, yes. And the operative word is ‘company’ as in ‘corporation’. And as such Facebook does what companies do; they protect their narrowly focused financial interests.

    I disagree with Facebook in principle about limiting speech. No one has to go to a Facebook group that promotes abuse of women. No one is forced to look at disturbing pictures. I honestly did not know that such FB groups existed before I read this article. Limiting speech is certainly legal in Facebook’s case, but still smacks many of us as quite ‘Un-American’.

    However, I will defend with all my might Facebook’s right to protect their financial interests through limiting speech on their site or by any other legal means. Through all the bluster and huffing and puffing, please keep in mind that this is really all that Facebook’s actions are about.

    Share
  6. About time for someone to step in and say enough is enough to abuse of regulations and the right to freedom of expression and a free media. hatred slogan is shame and it is a crime against one another, it is a threat to Global Peace & stability. Has a huge impact on global affairs and makes it more difficult for different nations with different cultural, religious or other beliefs and values to trust each other and work towards comprehensive good livig for all. Pilgrim should be for Love, not War.

    A Native American grandfather talking to his young grandson tells the boy he has two wolves inside of him struggling with each other. The first is the wolf of peace, love and kindness. The other wolf is fear, greed and hatred. “Which wolf will win, grandfather?” asks the young boy. “Whichever one I feed,” is the reply.
    Native American Proverb quotes

    Share

Comments have been disabled for this post