I don't understand the way their enforcement works. I've reported videos of people literally setting live animals on fire and been told there was no violation, but my wife called someone a "loser" and got a week long ban.
I once made fun of Justin Bieber(said he acts like a baby) on IG, and got a warning. Some guy threatened to Hunt me and my family, kill us and do bad things to our bodies and IG said it didn’t violate any rules, when I reported it. My account can now not even post the word “chump” without warnings. Talk about backwards.
It’s very safe to say there is no adult in the room at FB/IG when it comes to rule enforcement. I simply cannot wait until they get the whip from some governments.
Fair and valid question. I got rid of Facebook over a year ago but still use IG, but I cringe when I do.
Sadly I’m happy I left Facebook but I will admit I’ve missed a lot of news and events in friends personal lives. A good friends mom, whom I was very fond of, passed away and I learned about it months later. Another friend had a fast growing tumor and I missed that news and never got a last phone call with him. Both of which I regret missing out on.
I’ll still maintain I’m happy with my departure, but it has its drawbacks unfortunately.
I've been a social media hermit for basically my entire life so far but folded in and installed IG a couple weeks ago once I entered university. It's sadly just the norm. Telling someone my age to "just not use social media" seems like a boomer's shriek, and almost every club or association manages does all its' event coordination and stuff over IG.
It's extremely hard to get by, keep up with people, or even make friends without it.
The same could also be said for Discord as well, which I've seen over the past 4-5 years grow from a gamer-exclusive chat platform to what is probably the #1 choice for students nowadays for group interactions.
As far as we've come though I still think these kinds of things are still in their infancy when it comes to their impact on us as a society, so I guess the best thing to do is just wait and see what happens.
Honest question: have you tried writing first? I communicate with a few people via email every few months. It might start with a forwarded email, or just a quick how-do-you-do, then it deepens into long multi-paragraph replies over the course of days. Being able to sit down to write and rewrite what's been going on without someone watching the little typing bubble means I can get more in-depth with how I've been feeling. I would give it a shot. Try sending people a quick email. If they never reply, no biggie. If they do, you may be surprised at the result.
I would feel kinda silly asking for someone's email address over a chat messenger, but you are correct there's no attempt my side either. "nobody would go for it" is an assumption on my part
Let us know how it goes. Our limbic system is more accurate than our perception abilities.
The issue with email is partly a slight inconvenience. Unless you input large content, the UX time overhead is significant enough to prefer IM. EMails has not been designed for frequent back and forth on the same thread even if occasional. From there you loose most people. Email hasn't changed much, from the time we barely had Internet connections, the burden to find a connected client was enough to forgive the UX issue.
Enter email address, autocomplete, type text, click send is enough a deterent for most of us to favor a chat window, type and press enter. And scroll up to see what was communicated prior. Got an image or audio? Drop it in, press enter. You can even record a quick audio message and boom, sent. Email client and protocol simply don't support that. At best you get addons which aren't necessarily supported on the other side.
Openness is the solution, but email protocol doesn't have what is needed for current needs of communication. Corporates building these tools now have the network effect, keeping the crowd in their walled gardens.
I have no overlap between people I know IRL and people I know on SM. They are wholly separate worlds. If I know them IRL, it's text and email - never ever SM.
For me, the point of SM is burnable bridges. It's a place to take risks and later apply the lessons to meatspace. In spite of that, I've cultivated many lasting online relationships but I can't see myself ever meeting any of them in person.
Build an open messaging protocol and decent clients. Oh wait, some did exactly that.
The problem sadly isn't tech related. It's education. Corporates will market to the masses who are mostly tech ignorant, if not politically and economically ignorant too. So even with alternatives, the power of commercial communication is greater than what non profit are able to afford.
We will have to wait for people to suffer further and further, more will open their eyes to it, until radical resistance settles in people's limbic systems. We are getting close I think, I hope.
Might be an unpopular opinion but if you have a connection that exists only via social media and not at least via phone calling or some other more personal forms of communication too, its not much of a real connection.
I wish I had time to text and call every one of my friends, but sadly I just don't. Facebook is perfect because I can post there and all my friends see it without me having to call or text every one of them the same story.
Then when we do get a chance to meet up, we can skip right to the discussion of the thing instead of me first having to tell the story.
Especially since some of my friends live very far away and have very busy jobs so we only see each other every few years, but this way I can still keep up on their lives and they on mine.
Because they employ blitzkrieg tactics that nobody should be able to get away with and by the time we notice it's too late to change our consumption habits
My wife (an American) also got flagged for saying "Americans are selfish". She then made a post about our RV (camper) asking about sewer "hook ups" at a campground and was flagged for posting what looked like a sex ad.
We (the kids and I) now lovingly call her "hate speech Mom".
I got warned for hate speech on FB for saying in a comment that Americans have the memory of a goldfish. I appealed it, the appeal was declined and my hate speech warning remains on my permanent FB record as being against community standards.
Pretty comical, considering it was accurate in context, and while you'd think American 1st amendment free speech rights would count, they don't, because FB is the private property of Zuckerberg.
No need for someone to point out that it's a publicly traded company. Zuckerberg controls 57.9% of the voting shares of FB. It is his personal property that he allows others to have an inconsequential piece of and everything that is wrong on the platform is because of him.
Especially after Jan 6, there are a couple of things you can say in an ordinary spirited political debate that will cop you a ban on FB. One is several flavors of "Americans are X," another is variants on "Kill the filibuster" (which I assume is pattern-matching to '[violence-word] the [congress-word], which they probably up-sampled in the threat modeling for, uh, obvious reasons).
The worse part is that in her eagerness to close the "prompt" on her phone she "agreed" she had posted this content (instead of appeal), which probably put some sort of permanent mark on her record. One can only hope she gets kicked off for good one of these days!
wtf?? I haven't been on FB for about 10 years now and every now and then a comment like this comes along which makes me realize just how out of touch with the global bureaucracy I've become
So Facebook now has an independent review board to determine whether their decisions to ban somebody follow their own policies. You can flag a decision to suspend your account for review by that board, but most decisions so flagged will not be reviewed.
I see it, and I note that (a) that's editorializing by the WSJ based on their interpretation of comments from law professor Kate Klonick and (b) the underlying facts are that Facebook claimed XCheck is used in "a small number of decisions" and the evidence in that article doesn't contradict that claim.
Nothing in the article gives hard numbers, so (unless WSJ has those numbers and forgot to report them), we have to extrapolate. XCheck-flagged accounts grew to 5.8 million users, but Facebook has 1.9 billion daily actives. If we assume about equal numbers of issues from the XCheck and non-XCheck accounts, XCheck accounts would make up less than 0.5% of all incidents. That's "a small number" if you're thinking in ratios. If you're thinking in absolute numbers, well, we don't have enough data to know what the absolute count looks like. Could be that a lot of XCheck'd accounts have zero incidents. Insufficient data.
This is actually discouraging non-brigades from reporting. I reported obviously spam accounts and got the same feedback after a few weeks. Now I don't bother.
Brigades on the other hand have the motivation to play the numbers.
Same, I've reported a ton of death threats only to be told they're not in violation. Only for my mum to cop an autoban for calling someone a spring chicken.
This is also the same company that allowed a terrorist to livestream a killing spree for 17 minutes despite it being reported over and over again. To add insult to injury they allowed copies of the same footage to proliferate across their platform for weeks.
Facebook spend a lot on PR talking up their AI capabilities and how it's being applied towards moderation. Would be nice if it actually worked.
I had the option to have the post re-reviewed, which took two days. I mean it could just be theatre, but I assumed on the second round a human reviewed it.
From the support response:
> The post was reviewed, and though it doesn't go against one of our specific Community Standards, you did the right thing by letting us know about it.
Setting squirrels on fire and watching the poor things scurry around I guess is cool with Facebook's Community Standards.
> Setting squirrels on fire and watching the poor things scurry around I guess is cool with Facebook's Community Standards.
Unfortunately nothing else you can do about it, either. Who do you even report this to? There's no LEO agency that would spend resources on that even though this is a well known pre-cursor to homicide.
Shit like that reminds me how failed society is - to be able to literally torture animals and face little to no repercussions, and get tons of clout and maybe even some money (ad revenue or whatever) in the process.
Most crimes, even if reported, are not meaningfully investigated. I am not sure that is really society failing. Society is still better on that than ever before.
The problem with animal cruelty is that modern industrial animal farming is torture, and torture of the worst kind. So it's diffucult to draw the line without angering powerful groups and rich advertisers.
A squirrel that lives freely in nature and is once set on fire, that it will likely survive (and even if not) has a better life than a sow in a cage indoors where it can't move, is constantly pregnant and crushes its own babies because there is no space.
Content policy is just like airport security: a theater. You cannot take a bottle of water on board a plane, but you can take a laptop with enormous batteries. In my experience it's much easier to set lithium batteries on fire, than water. But what do I know.
Yes. Precisely. I think it is because the community of squirrels have no ability to retaliate.
If we observe the trend, the pull down are proportionate to the strength of the retaliators. Being against say LGBT isn't the same as being anti christian. Hit a particular group of people or ideology, the bans are well automated at this point.
They can't retaliate against social media platforms. And as to your garden, they aren't retaliating, they simply explore the commons to continue on life. Theirs and also contribute to a well balanced ecosystem for life as a whole to continue.
You are in your right to scare them off, of somewhat fence your goods to keep them at bay. Torturing those animals, or any animal for that matter does nothing to controlling their damage to your previous fruits of labor. Keeping them away is the best investment of time and effort if you don't see their value.
Anyone want to bet that when some major news publication does a story about how these types of videos are being spread on Facebook they announce that they go against their community standards and that the company had no idea this is going on.
Some of the actions are automated based on some NN algorithm score, and then the appeals are human-powered. They have large third party content review offices that are operated like call centers in which humans review these things. I understand they're real meat grinders to work in.
I've reported clearly racist, harassing content before and had the reviewer report it as confirming to their standards. I know people that were banned for bullying for wishing people happy birthday. As much as I suspected a bunch of people are just quickly mashing random buttons to pump up their score, I read that they're evaluated based on the success and failure of appeals to their judgements, so I can't imagine they would be. There are clearly deep-seated problems with this process.
Yeah I gave up reporting. I’ve reported some people being extremely racist in comments, no action in either case. It’s either moderated by racist people, some poor AI or “rand()%2==0”
I got a 48h ban for calling the Japanese military "the japs" in the context of the Rape of Nanking. Wouldn't want to offend the group that raped and murdered millions now, would we?
A friend got a 48h ban for calling herself a "rital," a term for an Italian immigrant in France that used to be derogatory a century ago.
