Facebook guidelines explicitly allow calls for death of public figures

Posted:
in General Discussion
Facebook's anti-harassment policies are much more lenient for public figures, even allowing uses to call for celebrity deaths in most cases, leaked moderation guidelines show.

Credit: Brett Jordan
Credit: Brett Jordan


The Guardian has obtained a trove of Facebook bullying and moderation guidelines, and they show that there are major differences between how the social media platform handles harassment of public and private individuals.

According to Facebook, public figures range from celebrities to those who have a large social media following or who are infrequently covered in local newspapers. It also includes any politician, no matter the level of government, and any journalist who is employed to "write/speak publicly."

These public figures, Facebook adds, are permissible targets for certain types of abuse "because we want to allow discussion, which often includes critical commentary of people who are featured in the news."

"For public figures, we remove attacks that are severe as well as certain attacks where the public figure is directly tagged in the post or comment. For private individuals, our protection goes further: we remove content that's meant to degrade or shame, including, for example, claims about someone's sexual activity," the documents read.

Facebook explicitly bans "calls for death" for private individuals. They're allowed for public figures, however, as long as they are not "purposefully exposed" to the calls. In other words, a user can call for a public figure's death, but cannot tag the figure in the post.

There is a broad exception for certain individuals who are "involuntary" public figures. Facebook defines these people as "not true celebrities, and who have not engaged with their fame." The exception is if an individual has been accused of criminal activity.

As The Guardian notes, Facebook's moderation guidelines are exhaustive, and include incredibly specific rules. For example, Facebook users are allowed to bully dead people, but only if they died before 1990. Fictional characters are also a safe target for harassment.

While "calls for death" are allowed, Facebook's policies do prohibit users making direct threats, derogatory sexualized terms, or threats to release information for public figures.

According to insiders, Facebook is planning on updating the definition of public figures to "raise the threshold in increasingly digitally engaged times." That could include additional protections for journalists or activists in high-risk situations.

"We think it's important to allow critical discussion of politicians and other people in the public eye. But that doesn't mean we allow people to abuse or harass them on our apps. We remove hate speech and threats of serious harm no matter who the target is, and we're exploring more ways to protect public figures from harassment," Facebook told The Guardian.

When asked why these guidelines are not publicly available, a Facebook spokesperson said it intends to make more documents available to the public and claimed that the company already provides "more more transparency than any technology company."

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 12
    BeatsBeats Posts: 3,073member
    Facebook is like Twitter. They are more lenient to certain beliefs. These include gender and politics. 
    GG1
  • Reply 2 of 12
    rob53rob53 Posts: 3,241member
    So I could call for the death of a public figure and Facebook would allow it? Not sure this type of speech is covered under the first amendment so why is it allowed on Facebook?
    Fred257watto_cobra
  • Reply 3 of 12
    This news makes it very tempting to start calling for something to happen to the almighty Zuk. ;-)
    viclauyycOferwatto_cobra
  • Reply 4 of 12
    dewmedewme Posts: 5,328member
    Facebook's policies regarding public vs private figures appear to mirror libel laws. Personally, I'd like to see all "death threats" prosecuted severely, but I have zero influence over such things. It's hard to fathom why anyone, or should I say an adult, should ever feel that they can make such threats on social media with impunity, such as the death threat made against an Ohio State basketball player after the team lost a game recently, but it happens far too often. Track 'em down and prosecute them.
    fotoformatGG1watto_cobra
  • Reply 5 of 12
    WgkruegerWgkrueger Posts: 352member
    This news makes it very tempting to start calling for something to happen to the almighty Zuk. ;-)
    Zuckerberg is covered by their “"involuntary" public figures” definition. 
    ronnGG1watto_cobra
  • Reply 6 of 12
    From my own personal experience, threats against right leaning celebrities are tolerated by FarceBook far more than those towards left leaning ones.

    My own experience.  Not yours.  Not anyone else's.
    mobirdGG1macseekerHank2.0watto_cobra
  • Reply 7 of 12
    Fred257Fred257 Posts: 236member
    There is legislation being worked on where platforms that allow this will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.  First amendment does not cover this regardless 
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 8 of 12
    Wasn't Parler shutdown because it wasn't doing a good enough job moderating exactly this? But Facebook actually allows it? Really? I don't think it's acceptable anywhere. The Facebook app should be banned from the App Store for exactly the same reasons Parler's app was. Parler reportedly has changed their moderation system in an effort to comply with Apple even though Apple are refusing to let them back on. But Facebook are not even trying to limit this exact same type of content and are explicitly allowing it.

    What's good for the goose is good for the gander. I don't think Apple has the spine to actually practice what it preaches though.
    macseeker
  • Reply 9 of 12
    StrangeDaysStrangeDays Posts: 12,834member
    From my own personal experience, threats against right leaning celebrities are tolerated by FarceBook far more than those towards left leaning ones.

    My own experience.  Not yours.  Not anyone else's.
    I'd like to test your hypothesis, however I can't find any democrat congressional members calling for the execution of the Vice President or the Speaker of the House. Just the right. Hmm.
    edited March 2021 williamlondonronnviclauyycmontrosemacsOferRayz2016badmonkwatto_cobra
  • Reply 10 of 12
    StrangeDaysStrangeDays Posts: 12,834member
    beeble42 said:
    Wasn't Parler shutdown because it wasn't doing a good enough job moderating exactly this? But Facebook actually allows it? Really? I don't think it's acceptable anywhere. The Facebook app should be banned from the App Store for exactly the same reasons Parler's app was. Parler reportedly has changed their moderation system in an effort to comply with Apple even though Apple are refusing to let them back on. But Facebook are not even trying to limit this exact same type of content and are explicitly allowing it.

    What's good for the goose is good for the gander. I don't think Apple has the spine to actually practice what it preaches though.
    Yes, Parler was shut down for failing to moderate its members, who were openly calling for the deaths of other Americans (sometimes in gruesome detail) and threatening to bomb Amazon warehouses. 


    williamlondonronnmontrosemacsOferRayz2016watto_cobra
  • Reply 11 of 12
    StrangeDaysStrangeDays Posts: 12,834member
    Beats said:
    Facebook is like Twitter. They are more lenient to certain beliefs. These include gender and politics. 
    Yeah no. Calling for the death or physical harm of *anyone* is against Twitter service rules. You can be reported in violation and (rightly) deleted.
    ronnOferRayz2016watto_cobra
  • Reply 12 of 12
    EsquireCatsEsquireCats Posts: 1,268member
    Seems deliberately designed to be as hands off and ineffective as possible - regardless of the severity of the issue.
    ronnwatto_cobra
Sign In or Register to comment.