Facebook fails again to detect hate speech in ads

Demanding the impossible is a cheap but frequent method of attack upon web 2.0.

Companies have to obey the rules when operating abroad, not US law (or sentiment). How does blocking a non-US national leader square with the stated desire of most Western countries in opposition to Putin, that borders should be respected? If you respect borders, you operate by national rules within those borders. So if you comply with the views of the US and EU regimes, you must recognise local rules and local leaders, allowing the posting of whatever they are saying.

Why is it wrong to 'dehumanise' forces threatening another nation's capital? Nobody gets banned for 'dehumanising' Putin, whose forces are threatening Kiev. Would we have been wrong if we had Facebook in 1939 to 'dehumanise' Nazis?

Will these activists demand that any internet service has experts in every language, or only operates in their own country. That's just backhanded censorship.

I think I counted eight internet scare stories on the BBC this morning. Maybe they will go the full Trump soon and start using all caps to drill the propaganda home.

Life isn't perfect and neither is social media. We all need to tolerate imperfections as it is far better to have an imperfect service than to ban, censor or shut down the technology we have, which is generally amazing, because it is not impossibly perfect.

Am I the only one suffering from activist fatigue?

If you don't like an internet service, don't use it. If you do use it, use the options available to block what you do not wish to see. Let others use it as they wish. And stop trying to silence everyone who says something that you don't agree with. Because that is a useful working definition of fascism.

Facebook fails again to detect hate speech in ads:

No big deal.

Even if it is very easy for hi-tech to detect hate speech in ads or otherwise and delete them accordingly, more hate speech would pop up in numerous other media.

Hate speech has achieved a pandemic status. So?...

Demanding the impossible is a cheap but frequent method of attack upon web 2.0.

The description of the test makes it clear is not impossible at all, or it should not be if any care is put into avoiding the hate speech, something that Meta has said it does. There is no excuse in approving explicit hate speech even after being warned this is happening. It clearly indicates the only priority is to profit in any way possible no matter what the company says it does.

The hateful messages focused on Ethiopia, where internal documents obtained by whistleblower Frances Haugen showed that Facebook's ineffective moderation is “literally fanning ethnic violence,” as she said in her 2021 congressional testimony. In March, Global Witness ran a similar test with hate speech in Myanmar, which Facebook also failed to detect.

Where is the reference to any law deeming the speech described as "hare speech", or is this just mere opinion?

There is no excuse in approving explicit hate speech even after being warned this is happening. 

Just calling something hate speech doesn't make it hate speech.

Hate speech is when violence is suggested between different opinions.

In the old days - 10 yrs ago - people would causally say - "he needs to be shot" - which was understood to mean that you simply disagreed with a policy or stance of someone else, not that someone should literally get an arrow or bullet and shot into another human.

But the world has changed. Advocating violence against someone else or another group is hate speech.

There is no absolute freedom of speech outside your home, even in the USA. The most common example is that causing a panic by yelling "fire!" in any crowded location isn't protected because a stampeding crowd is likely to kill some people.

In the UK, there's Speaker's Corner locations where anyone can talk about anything. These are typically wide open places and allows unhappy people to air their issues in public.

I bet pointing at a specific individual and yelling "beat him!" isn't protected. Inciting violence is against laws most places.

Disagreement on policy is still fine.

When there's a war going on, the platform has a stance, even if it isn't clearly stated. JT is anti-Russian invasion. This could be due to having servers near Dallas in the USA at Rackspace and using GoDaddy as their domain registrar. None of this is secret. It is all public record. I suppose pro-Russia websites would be in Russian and hosted closer to Russia and we know that all websites inside Russia are required by law to be pro-Putin and pro-war.

Just calling something hate speech doesn't make it hate speech.

Read the article, the messages were made explicitly as the worst examples of hate speech by design. If the authors of the message call them hate speech who are you to say they are wrong?

Facebook and its parent company Meta flopped once again in a test of how well they could detect obviously violent hate speech in advertisements submitted to the platform by the nonprofit groups Global Witness and Foxglove.

There is no starting point for a definition of what constitutes hate speech in this article other than someone calling it so. Just saying something is "blatant hate speech", and then providing a quote does not set any standard.

Read the article, the messages were made explicitly as the worst examples of hate speech by design. If the authors of the message call them hate speech who are you to say they are wrong?

If you read the article, you can see you are just repeating the same fallacy the author is committing.

If you read the article, you can see you are just repeating the same fallacy the author is committing.

The article made very clear the authors of the message formulated it explicitly with the purpose of being easily distinguished hate message and everybody involved recognized them as such, including Meta. Too bad that you made a rushed comment without reading the article, but there is no fallacy on the comment nor from the authors of the messages, your argument has no basis.

The article made very clear the authors of the message formulated it explicitly with the purpose of being easily distinguished hate message and everybody involved recognized them as such, including Meta. Too bad that you made a rushed comment without reading the article, but there is no fallacy on the comment nor from the authors of the messages, your argument has no basis.

Easily distinguished to everyone involved in the creation of whatever system is supposed to detect hate speech, which is easily distinguished by that group of those creators.

Interesting to see how you also fall victim to the basic fallacy, "It is what it is because I say that is what it is."

Interesting to see how you also fall victim to the basic fallacy, "It is what it is because I say that is what it is."

That would apply much more to your own invalid argument, this is an example of hate speech according to everybody involved, including the accused company. The only one saying this is not is you, and based only on that you refuse to accept it as such. This is obviously not a valid argument.

That would apply much more to your own invalid argument, this is an example of hate speech according to everybody involved, including the accused company. The only one saying this is not is you, and based only on that you refuse to accept it as such. This is obviously not a valid argument.

Your fallacious argument would be overlooked if you had provided evidence of a definition of what constitutes hate speech as referred to in the article, but instead you keep repeating your same misunderstanding of what constitutes a coherent argument.

Your fallacious argument would be overlooked if you had provided evidence of a definition of what constitutes hate speech as referred to in the article, but instead you keep repeating your same misunderstanding of what constitutes a coherent argument.

That is an invalid argument the moment everybody involved (including Meta) readily accepts the messages calling for the murder of people of ethnic groups constitute hate speech above any reasonable doubt.

You not accepting this based on nothing but your own opinion do not make the messages acceptable. Therefore the argument (from the accusers) is still correct and valid. Can you prove the opposite?

That is an invalid argument the moment everybody involved (including Meta) readily accepts the messages calling for the murder of people of ethnic groups constitute hate speech above any reasonable doubt. 

You still provide an invalid argument because nowhere in the ads is the word "murder" used; it is just something the creators are using to describe what they say is dehumanizing speech, so it is still circular reasoning.

You not accepting this based on nothing but your own opinion do not make the messages acceptable. Therefore the argument (from the accusers) is still correct and valid. Can you prove the opposite?

Your opinion that relies on a false premise is a classic representation of circular reasoning.

Hard to get out of the cycle, isn't it?

You still provide an invalid argument because nowhere in the ads is the word "murder" used; it is just something the creators are using to describe what they say is dehumanizing speech, so it is still circular reasoning.

There is no other way to describe message that "were explicit statements saying that this type of person is not a human or these type of people should be starved to death." Your argument is clearly disproved by this simple statement.

Your opinion that relies on a false premise is a classic representation of circular reasoning.

The arguments prove the premise is actually correct and the accused part readily accept it.

A closer example of circular reasoning is saying the argument is wrong because the premise is false and the premise is false because the argument must be wrong. Calling for people to be starved to death constitutes hate speech by any consideration. Unless you can prove the opposite this still applies.