Facebook Content Moderator: ‘If Someone is Wearing a MAGA Hat, I Am Going to Delete Them for Terrorism’ /

[Steeleballz 7,550]

5 minutes ago, yuna628 said:

Hey I was just pointing out we're really big into calling and dismissing things fake these days unless of course one agrees with the particular subject matter emphatically. But yes, they have a terrible track record making them low on the believable scale.

Just musing hypotheticals... 😉

 

 

 

  Yeah, it seems people have this really big issue with fake news that all of a sudden disappears once they find the fake news they agree with.

[Burnt Reynolds 5,058]

32 minutes ago, Steeleballz said:

 

   Denying that a real life massacre happened versus not believing a video made by a right wing activist group that has history of putting out fraudulent videos is not really a logical contrast.

They called those people actors, with nothing but the most scant grainy pictures and some things that raise questions. They were no more dangerous than truthers, yet targeted more vehemently than people making terrorist threats, and more importantly, a convenient crutch for censorship of entire swaths of political viewpoints, not to mention the current practice of election interference.

 

As for fraudulent videos, feel free to let me know which videos are just actors and are fraudulent. If you were to say that they are biased, I'd agree. If you were to say they use methods you don't agree with, I'd agree. But I've yet to see their publications, especially in the Trump era, where their journalism is actually fraudulent.  I'll wait.

 

28 minutes ago, Steeleballz said:

 

  Well I could, (and I agree), but I was responding to your specific quote calling people "ultra left". I didn't actually see any accusation(s) made of anyone being "ultra right". 

I don't either, because none of these corporations behaving like this are right wing. Conveniently, the "right wing" overwhelmingly defend the ridiculous partisan censorship by social media. Free speech is a liberal concept, not a conservative one. Evangelical conservatives yearned for most of the Republic to institutionalize blasphemy laws in the constitution and failed, thankfully. And its failure was not merely because of the idea of government, but because it was part of American culture, where we categorically reject people being unable to speak freely in a free society without fear of retaliation. Even if they talk about the companies' freedom, which I don't dispute at all, targeting large swaths of one's own user base along with the election interference attempts are suicidal business choices. The problem I have is reaping benefits of public platforms while behaving as a publisher. Also spineless "conservatives", but that's another story. 

 

There's no workable business in a country with the methodology the left have recently employed aimed at destroying people they politically disagree with. Because I know the left aren't morons, their adoption of this methodology can only rationally be interpreted as purely malicious and hostile, and needs to be identified and counteracted as such. 

 

21 minutes ago, yuna628 said:

Hey I was just pointing out we're really big into calling and dismissing things fake these days unless of course one agrees with the particular subject matter emphatically. But yes, they have a terrible track record making them low on the believable scale.

Just musing hypotheticals... 😉

 

 

Look no further than the Russian hoax, along with the hate crime hoaxes, assault/rape hoaxes. We don't need a list, it's already exhaustive. You have fun with the "hypotheticals" though, real life is already interesting enough without the mythology.

Edited June 24, 2020 by Burnt Reynolds

[Dashinka 24,740]

13 minutes ago, Burnt Reynolds said:

They called those people actors, with nothing but the most scant grainy pictures and some things that raise questions. They were no more dangerous than truthers, yet targeted more vehemently than people making terrorist threats, and more importantly, a convenient crutch for censorship of entire swaths of political viewpoints, not to mention the current practice of election interference.

 

As for fraudulent videos, feel free to let me know which videos are just actors and are fraudulent. If you were to say that they are biased, I'd agree. If you were to say they use methods you don't agree with, I'd agree. But I've yet to see their publications, especially in the Trump era, where their journalism is actually fraudulent.  I'll wait.

 

I don't either, because none of these corporations behaving like this are right wing. Conveniently, the "right wing" overwhelmingly defend the ridiculous partisan censorship by social media. Free speech is a liberal concept, not a conservative one. Evangelical conservatives yearned for most of the Republic to institutionalize blasphemy laws in the constitution and failed, thankfully. And its failure was not merely because of the idea of government, but because it was part of American culture, where we categorically reject people being unable to speak freely in a free society without fear of retaliation. Even if they talk about the companies' freedom, which I don't dispute at all, targeting large swaths of one's own user base along with the election interference attempts are suicidal business choices. The problem I have is reaping benefits of public platforms while behaving as a publisher. Also spineless "conservatives", but that's another story. 

 

There's no workable business in a country with the methodology the left have recently employed aimed at destroying people they politically disagree with. Because I know the left aren't morons, their adoption of this methodology can only rationally be interpreted as purely malicious and hostile, and needs to be identified and counteracted as such. 

 

Look no further than the Russian hoax, along with the hate crime hoaxes, assault/rape hoaxes. We don't need a list, it's already exhaustive. You have fun with the "hypotheticals" though, real life is already interesting enough without the mythology.

Remember when Tipper Gore was strongly advocating censorship?  I may be fairly fiscally conservative, but from a free speech standpoint, I am clearly Libertarian.  Seeing this fascism coming from the Left is very troubling, but the narratives are out there.  The BLM organization, not the idea, clearly has a strong leftist political strategy, destroy the nuclear family, destroy capitalism, transform us to the Marxist/Leninist model where of course they are in charge, and create the false narrative regarding law and order.  The MSM of course loves it as many of the “reporters” there are activists themselves, and they love a train wreck.

[Steeleballz 7,550]

13 minutes ago, Burnt Reynolds said:

 

I don't either, because none of these corporations behaving like this are right wing.

 

  People tend to see and hear that which they want to believe. There is bias on the left and right.  People who see no right wing bias very likely are right wing. People who don't see left bias probably are left wing. It exists on both sides, so people who don't see it really don't want to see it. It's not hard though. Granted, some would write 10 paragraphs attempting to rebut and defend their position rather than accept truth, but it's really not that complex.

[Burnt Reynolds 5,058]

34 minutes ago, Dashinka said:

Remember when Tipper Gore was strongly advocating censorship?  I may be fairly fiscally conservative, but from a free speech standpoint, I am clearly Libertarian.  Seeing this fascism coming from the Left is very troubling, but the narratives are out there.  The BLM organization, not the idea, clearly has a strong leftist political strategy, destroy the nuclear family, destroy capitalism, transform us to the Marxist/Leninist model where of course they are in charge, and create the false narrative regarding law and order.  The MSM of course loves it as many of the “reporters” there are activists themselves, and they love a train wreck.

I didn't even know that. But Tipper Gore also wasn't a policy maker, one of her key organizational censorship efforts failed (having to put pointless stickers on music rather than banning outright from certain outlets) and her censorship efforts were definitely not endearing to liberals (Al Gore would be fried for making censorship his platform), so even in hindsight it didn't (and doesn't) worry me much. (full disclosure, I voted for Gore)

 

The fascism you describe though, I agree, very troubling, and it's very rapid, specifically done in such a way to keep people off-balance and making it difficult to react. Even more, what interests me is the web of relationships that results in neocons, the left, neoliberals, and libertarians being aligned in their NeverTrumpism to the point where they threaten to trash everything and everyone unless they're given their way. These things also don't happen with pure support, they also are able to propagate because people who don't agree look the other way, excuse it, don't stand up to it, the usual psychological attempts people make to achieve some semblance of cognitive equilibrium when the troubling things causing that dissonance is off the charts. I'd hate to invoke that "weak people" meme, but it's quite accurate, especially as I watch virtue signaling people on the right engage in outrage monetization, including Ben Shapiro, who loves the term "virtue signaling", or juxtapose standing up to the left as "supporting Trump", "being racist", basically, all the invalid gaslighting the left engage in. Weak people, career in politics, meritocratic attitude, nothing but a speedbump at best.

 

32 minutes ago, Steeleballz said:

 

  People tend to see and hear that which they want to believe. There is bias on the left and right.  People who see no right wing bias very likely are right wing. People who don't see left bias probably are left wing. It exists on both sides, so people who don't see it really don't want to see it. It's not hard though. Granted, some would write 10 paragraphs attempting to rebut and defend their position rather than accept truth, but it's really not that complex.

I'm open to examples of this same kind of bias from the corporate right wing. What's a non-starter is the attribution+false equivalence of "both sides do it therefore they do it equally!", especially when one is aware (and how aware everyone else is) of how pervasive it is from said demographic.

 

Edited June 24, 2020 by Burnt Reynolds

[sl1pstream 551]

1 hour ago, Burnt Reynolds said:

Look no further than the Project Veritas' journalism as to what "moderators" on these particular social media sites actually think. Whether that represents a large or small portion, it is of utter irrelevance, their views are confirmatory statements we unequivocally see as outcomes on the platform itself, with intensifying frequency.

You forgot to put "journalism" in quotation marks. Project Veritas has been proven to make up repeatedly.

[Burnt Reynolds 5,058]

2 minutes ago, sl1pstream said:

You forgot to put "journalism" in quotation marks. Project Veritas has been proven to make up repeatedly.

So which part of this was made up? You apparently have the proof, so go ahead and give it.

[Ban Hammer 13,491]

1 hour ago, Steeleballz said:

 

  Yeah, it seems people have this really big issue with fake news that all of a sudden disappears once they find the fake news they agree with.

like cnn and russian interference?

[sl1pstream 551]

19 minutes ago, Burnt Reynolds said:

So which part of this was made up? You apparently have the proof, so go ahead and give it.

I'm sure you have proof that this is happening that isn't fabricated by an organization that regularly fabricates things?

The Verge actually wrote a pretty good piece on Facebook moderation a while ago. It's pretty tough to read and way more interesting and depressing than the junk PV publishes for ad views. If anything, seeing a boatload of pro-Trump content will actually make these people believe the stuff that gets posted.

 

Quote

The moderators told me it’s a place where the conspiracy videos and memes that they see each day gradually lead them to embrace fringe views. One auditor walks the floor promoting the idea that the Earth is flat. A former employee told me he has begun to question certain aspects of the Holocaust. Another former employee, who told me he has mapped every escape route out of his house and sleeps with a gun at his side, said: “I no longer believe 9/11 was a terrorist attack.”

https://www.theverge.com/2019/2/25/18229714/cognizant-facebook-content-moderator-interviews-trauma-working-conditions-arizona

Facebook also outsources their moderation work to Cognizant, so I'm not exactly sure what this "Facebook insider" has to do with the content moderation.

EDIT: I didn't even realize the video claimed that this was at Facebook. So this is fake, since Facebook doesn't moderate the content. They outsource those garbage jobs to Cognizant.

Edited June 24, 2020 by sl1pstream

[sl1pstream 551]

Also, dumbass got fired, for being a manipulative dumbass.

https://www.theverge.com/2019/2/27/18243097/facebook-leaker-project-veritas-moderation-documents

 

Quote

Reached for comment, Facebook said the video gives a skewed portrayal of Facebook’s internal policies. “We fired this person a year ago for breaking multiple employment policies and using her contractor role at Facebook to perform a stunt for Project Veritas,” a spokesperson told The Verge. “Unsurprisingly, the claims she is making validate her agenda and ignore the processes we have in place to ensure Facebook remains a platform to give people a voice, regardless of their political ideology.”

and
 

Quote

The Veritas video specifically focuses on a moderation tag called “ActionDeboostLiveDistribution,” which the source believes was applied to conservative videos for ideological reasons. But Facebook says the tag has a more straightforward meaning. Starting in 2016, Facebook gave a significant News Feed boost to live videos as a way of encouraging users to broadcast live. Some pages tried to game that system by uploading pre-recorded videos through the live API, a violation of Facebook’s policies. If moderators found such a video, the “ActionDeboostLiveDistribution” tag would be applied to undo the News Feed boost otherwise applied to Live videos.

So yeah, this is dumb.

Edited June 24, 2020 by sl1pstream

[Burnt Reynolds 5,058]

13 minutes ago, sl1pstream said:

I'm sure you have proof that this is happening that isn't fabricated by an organization that regularly fabricates things?

The Verge actually wrote a pretty good piece on Facebook moderation a while ago. It's pretty tough to read and way more interesting and depressing than the junk PV publishes for ad views. If anything, seeing a boatload of pro-Trump content will actually make these people believe the stuff that gets posted.

 

https://www.theverge.com/2019/2/25/18229714/cognizant-facebook-content-moderator-interviews-trauma-working-conditions-arizona

Facebook also outsources their moderation work to Cognizant, so I'm not exactly sure what this "Facebook insider" has to do with the content moderation.

EDIT: I didn't even realize the video claimed that this was at Facebook. So this is fake, since Facebook doesn't moderate the content. They outsource those garbage jobs to Cognizant.

They source multiple companies for that role. Google did the same thing for countless positions. 

 

Regardless, you said "proven false", what is proven false here? I see a litany of people freely claiming that they censor Trump supporters, conservatives, people with MAGA hats, the whistleblower here showed a queue demonstrating their claim. Are the people here fake? What is false exactly? 

[sl1pstream 551]

9 minutes ago, Burnt Reynolds said:

They source multiple companies for that role. Google did the same thing for countless positions. 

 

Regardless, you said "proven false", what is proven false here? I see a litany of people freely claiming that they censor Trump supporters, conservatives, people with MAGA hats, the whistleblower here showed a queue demonstrating their claim. Are the people here fake? What is false exactly? 

Quote

The Veritas video specifically focuses on a moderation tag called “ActionDeboostLiveDistribution,” which the source believes was applied to conservative videos for ideological reasons. But Facebook says the tag has a more straightforward meaning. Starting in 2016, Facebook gave a significant News Feed boost to live videos as a way of encouraging users to broadcast live. Some pages tried to game that system by uploading pre-recorded videos through the live API, a violation of Facebook’s policies. If moderators found such a video, the “ActionDeboostLiveDistribution” tag would be applied to undo the News Feed boost otherwise applied to Live videos.

And Zuck loves Trump. It's pretty ridiculous to suggest that he's anti-Trump. Also, there's plenty of right-wing, far-right and pro-Trump content on Facebook, how exactly are they getting censored?

Maybe you should just look for another fake news source, one that's better at doing what they do?

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/nov/29/project-veritas-how-fake-news-prize-went-to-rightwing-group-beloved-by-trump

He's very bad at what he does. Like, very bad.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/11/28/the-6-most-puzzling-aspects-of-this-james-okeefe-project-veritas-botched-sting-debacle/

Edited June 24, 2020 by sl1pstream

[Burnt Reynolds 5,058]

4 minutes ago, sl1pstream said:

Also, dumbass got fired, for being a manipulative dumbass.

https://www.theverge.com/2019/2/27/18243097/facebook-leaker-project-veritas-moderation-documents

 

and
 

So yeah, this is dumb.

Lost at "Skewed portrayal". If there's proof of the claim made, the company can't even outright say it's false, it's true.

 

But all 60 pages in that circumstance presented as evidence? False too? 

 

Also...

 

That (your article/video):

 

 

 

.. and this (my thread/recent video):

 

 

 

Entirely different people, different year, and different claims.

 

That's a fail.

[sl1pstream 551]

8 minutes ago, Burnt Reynolds said:

Lost at "Skewed portrayal". If there's proof of the claim made, the company can't even outright say it's false, it's true.

 

But all 60 pages in that circumstance presented as evidence? False too? 

 

Also...

 

That (your article/video):

 

 

 

.. and this (my thread/recent video):

 

 

 

Entirely different people, different year, and different claims.

 

That's a fail.

So they tried again because it didn't work the last time? Is that the fail? Their last claim didn't make sense so they're making up other things? Maybe they just need to get better at lying about things?

Edited June 24, 2020 by sl1pstream

[Burnt Reynolds 5,058]

One sting has tens of thousands of records, another has a plethora as well. False? I don't see this disproven. 

 

Another shows people comfortable thinking they're not being recorded gleefully demonstrating their bias. We've seen this same thing at Twitter, with the very same problem. Fake actors? 

 

The Guardian/WaPo stories were about botched stings. There was no video or production made by PV to be "proven false". Those botches and making fake news (who haven't had a problem with running/monetizing "disproven" claims, from Russia conspiracies, to the litany of hate/assault hoaxes, just to start) mad is the risk they take by doing what they do. But I understand why PV might frustrate you. All that matters to me is whether or not its true. The point of journalism is to provide reliable information. That information is reliable. It's first hand information from people who worked there, along with documents. If PV was publishing lies, they can be sued into oblivion in court. So all the rhetoric about "skewed" and "biased", all devices aimed at trying to smear the source and not their facts.

Edited June 24, 2020 by Burnt Reynolds