“Japanese people are all Yakuza” or “I bet Jorge is the one who stole my bag after training today. Immigrants are all thieves” are two examples of posts that meet Facebook’s new content rules, according to US website The Intercept, which obtained internal Meta documents.
- In a reaction to the publication that made the revelations, Meta states that, in only one case out of the many situations given examples, which is the fault of the company, because the respective example given to the employees should be included in the chapter of places. with illegal language.
American non-profit publication The Intercept data obtained and published by documents intended for employees working on Meta content.
The internal documents give an overview of the changes to the hate speech policy. Publicly, Mark Zuckerberg presented the movement as fair “A drastic reduction in censorship”.
According to the documents, the most important changes are accompanied, to Meta employees, by a selection of relevant examples given to them, so that they know how to react if they encounter them. Examples are hypothetical posts, marked with “Allow” or “Remove”.
Examples of the new speech allowed on Facebook and Instagram highlighted in the training materials include:
- “Immigrants are dirty, greedy bastards.”
- “Jews are greedier than Christians.”
- “Gays are weird.”
- “Look at that transvestite (below the photo of a 17-year-old girl).” The last is the only one to which Meta, in the answer to the journalists, said that he framed it in the wrong way.
In the publicly promised rules, Meta claims that it does not accept “direct attacks”
Meta Community Standards’ public page says that even under the new rules, the company still protects “refugees, migrants, immigrants and asylum seekers from the worst attacks” and prohibits “direct attacks” against people based on “race, ethnicity, national origin, disability.” , religious affiliation, caste, sexual orientation, gender, gender identity and serious illnesses.”
However, the US publication says, the examples provided in the internal materials show a wide variety of comments that denigrate people based on these traits and are marked “Allow”.
He forbade comparisons with animals, but allowed those with feces
The documents note that “generalizations” about any group remain prohibited if they draw a comparison with animals or pathogens: such as “All Syrian refugees are rodents.” Instead, the statement “Migrants are no better than vomit” is allowed.
Comparisons with “filth or feces” are no longer classified as hate speech, but a less serious form of “insult”, which only violates the company’s rules if it is directed at a protected group.
According to examples provided by Meta, this change now allows users to dehumanize immigrants by saying things like “Immigrants are dirty, dirty shit,” despite a clarification elsewhere in the document that “subhuman comparisons ” remain prohibited.
The documents also show that a post like “Muslims make me want to throw up” should be removed because it says a group “causes disease.”
Facebook allows users to label all immigrants as criminals
Many other types of broad and hateful stereotypes are now allowed, writes the publication that obtained the new rules. The Intercept says sweeping generalizations linking entire races or ethnic groups to crime or terrorism are allowed.
The document offers as examples of acceptable racial generalizations: “These damn immigrants are not to be trusted, they are all criminals”, “I bet Jorge is the one who stole my bag after practice today. Immigrants are all thieves” or “The Japanese are all Yakuza.”
However, it is noted that the statement “Blacks are all drug dealers” remains prohibited under the new rules because it refers to a protected group.
About sex
Other sections of the material provide examples of “prohibited slurs regarding sexual immorality,” such as “Jewish women are frivolous.”
But the document provides, the publication analyzed, extensive examples of recently permitted slurs aimed at specific gender identities or sexual orientations, including “Homosexuals are sinners” and “Trans people are immoral.”
A post that says “Lesbians are so stupid” remains banned as a “mental slur”, although “Trans people are mentally ill” is marked as allowed.
“I’m a proud racist” is now considered acceptable
Generalizations about superiority and inferiority are equally twisted, although attacks on immigrants tend to be overlooked.
Examples of prohibited content include: “Christian men are totally worthless,” “Are they like me? Or are all autistic women ugly? and “Hispanics are as dirty as the ground we walk on.” But, “Mexican immigrants are trash!” is now considered acceptable.
In general, restrictions on claims of ethnic or religious supremacy have been significantly relaxed. The document explains that Meta now allows “claims of superiority, as long as the claims do not refer to the inferiority of another group.
Among the statements allowed under this rule is “Latinos are the best!” and “Black people are superior to everyone else.” Additionally, comparative statements such as “Blacks are more violent than whites,” “Mexicans are lazier than Asians,” and “Jews are stingier than Christians” are now acceptable. The example “Whites are smarter than blacks” is forbidden, simply because it refers to intellectual ability.
But general claims about the intellect seem to be permissible if they are accompanied by putative evidence. For example, “I read a statistical study that says that Jews are more intelligent than Christians. As far as I can tell, it’s true!” It is not clear whether to cite such a study or just state its existence .
Rules on explicit hate speech have also been relaxed considerably. “Statements of contempt, aversion and rejection such as ‘Hate’, ‘I don’t care’ and ‘I don’t like’ are now considered non-violent and are allowed,” the document explains. Acceptable examples include the posts “I don’t care about white people” and “I’m a proud racist.”
Meta says there are some errors in the documents
After the Intercept reported on the Meta documents, Meta spokesman Andy Stone told the publication that Meta made an error in one of the examples in its briefing material. Stone stated that Meta intended to illustrate content that would not be allowed when it included the example “Look at that transvestite (under the photo of a 17-year-old girl).”
Joel Kaplan, Meta’s recently appointed head of global policy, described Meta’s changes as a means to fix “complex content management systems on our platforms that are increasingly difficult to enforce.”
Jillian York: Meta, a well-intentioned company, all around
Kaplan and Mark Zuckerberg, CEO of Meta, promoted the changes as a way to allow users to more freely participate in ideological disagreement and political debate.
According to Jillian York, director of free speech at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, Meta’s hate speech protections have historically been well-intentioned but deeply flawed in practice.
“While this has often led to the excessive moderation that I and many others have criticized, these examples demonstrate that Meta’s policy changes are political in nature and are not intended to simply allow more freedom of speech,” York said.
Meta has faced international scrutiny for its approach to hate speech, especially after the role that hate speech and other dehumanizing language on Facebook played in the Myanmar genocide and the displacement of more of 650,000 Rohingya Muslims.
After criticism for its mishandling of the situation in Myanmar, where the United Nations found that Facebook played a “determining role”, the company spent years selling its investments to prevent similar rhetoric from spreading in the future
