Facebook’s hate speech policies censor marginalized users

[Ivanstone]

Intent, shmintent. White people can say nigger without being racist.

How many black people can the n-word and be a racist? Very few if any.

How many white people can the n-word and be a racist? At best its a coin flip. The ones that aren't being racist are probably just quoting Mark Twain.

- - - Updated - - -

Sorry, but "reclamation" is an irrational concept. If you want to "disempower" a word, stop using it and/or stop taking offense at it. Trying to claim a word that's historically been used as a slur is now "acceptable" but only within the group it targets does nothing but perpetuate victimhood and ignorance.

I'm not claiming its rational or irrational. People's opinions and actions vary. I prefer to err on the side of not using them at all. I can usually determine someone's intent in any case.

[Roxinius]

i was actually banned for making a comment to someone posting something obvious "and in other news water is wet, back to you jim" the bolded part is what got me banned

[Mistame]

I'm not claiming its rational or irrational. People's opinions and actions vary. I prefer to err on the side of not using them at all. I can usually determine someone's intent in any case.

Most people can. But companies with policies have no obligation to recognize such infantile concepts. This case is quite literally a "marginalized" group playing "victim" to a policy put in place to protect them. It's fucking stupid.

[Ivanstone]

Most people can. But companies with policies have no obligation to recognize such infantile concepts. This case is quite literally a "marginalized" group playing "victim" to a policy put in place to protect them. It's fucking stupid.

/shrug. I think its probably possible to let some people use words to describe themselves while at the same time shutting down assholes who want to use the same words to hurt others. Facebook took the easy way out and faceplanted. They'll have to put some effort into their policies now. Not a big deal.

[Mistame]

/shrug. I think its probably possible to let some people use words to describe themselves while at the same time shutting down assholes who want to use the same words to hurt others. Facebook took the easy way out and faceplanted. They'll have to put some effort into their policies now. Not a big deal.

No, it's not. No algorithm can detect context or intent. So no, they didn't "take the easy way out". They took the rational way out. "You kids want to argue over whose scoop of ice cream is bigger, so neither of you get ice cream." These self-proclaimed <insert word> can just get over themselves.

[Ivanstone]

No, it's not. No algorithm can detect context or intent. So no, they didn't "take the easy way out". They took the rational way out. "You kids want to argue over whose scoop of ice cream is bigger, so neither of you get ice cream." These self-proclaimed <insert word> can just get over themselves.

They took the easy way out.

Its not a matter of who's scoop is bigger.

Its a matter of Person A wanting to have ice cream. That person might want to eat it, snort it, stick in their butts. Its their decision, their body, their ice cream.

Person B might say they want to argue about the size of the portions but what they really want is to throw the ice cream at Person A and then stab them with the cone.

A one size fits all solution of taking away all the ice cream doesn't really work.

[Powerogue]

That's the problem with censorship via algorithms. Robots do not know of your puny human "context."

[BuckSparkles]

That's the problem with censorship via algorithms. Robots do not know of your puny human "context."

Nor should they. Folks want those scary mean words banned? Guess what, banned for them too. No special treatment, no "reclaiming."

Freedom of speech doesn't seem so bad now, does it?

[Ooid]

"We want you to censor these other people!"

"Ok"

"Wait your censorship is affecting us! Stop it!"

[spanishninja]

Well, how would you like being called a nerd or a geek?
Yet, you wouldn't have any qualms using some of/all these words to describe yourself, now would ya?

Same concept: owning the term, but not letting outsiders use it as they have absolutely no idea what it entails.

well first of all, nobody has ever been lynched or denied bathroom usage based on being a nerd or a geek.

secondly, nerd and geek are both mainstream things now.

[Lochton]

https://www.wired.com/story/facebook...nalized-users/

It is almost like rules are great for some but not for others.

Nope, rules are perfectly fine for all. If one side can't use it, then the other can't either. Just don't post bullshit online and there won't be a problem.

[Arkthugal]

This isn't hard to figure out.

No, but it is stupid and self-defeating, because they still yell at everyone else for using those words because they're racist/sexist/whatever. Almost like they haven't reclaimed them at all and are just undermining themselves.

[Jeezy911]

See all those grey areas on the map? No legal protections whatsoever. The other areas have varying protections, mostly only concerning government employment.

One political party explicitly runs on a platform of denying LGBTQ people legal protections. Guess which one?

So you like special rules for different people? Equality.

- - - Updated - - -

That's the problem with censorship via algorithms. Robots do not know of your puny human "context."

Thankfully.

[McTroll]

well first of all, nobody has ever been lynched or denied bathroom usage based on being a nerd or a geek.

secondly, nerd and geek are both mainstream things now.

Hold on a sec, ever? You sure about that? I mean, to nerds as a group, it's never been done formally, but through school bullying a good 30-40 years ago, that stuff happened on an individual basis. And no, just because you were not born then doesn't mean it "doesn't count".

But even then, what was the point you were trying to make though that? Aside from randomly picking a fight, that is?

As for nerd/geek being mainstream, just because people decided to make a ton of cash using those terms through fashion trends doesn't mean it's "mainstream". Less obscure? Sure. But not mainstream. The stigma still exists. Not remotely as bad as it was, but it still exists to some extent.

[spanishninja]

Hold on a sec, ever? You sure about that? I mean, to nerds as a group, it's never been done formally, but through school bullying a good 30-40 years ago, that stuff happened on an individual basis. And no, just because you were not born then doesn't mean it "doesn't count".

But even then, what was the point you were trying to make though that? Aside from randomly picking a fight, that is?

As for nerd/geek being mainstream, just because people decided to make a ton of cash using those terms through fashion trends doesn't mean it's "mainstream". Less obscure? Sure. But not mainstream. The stigma still exist. Not remotely as bad as it was, but it still exists to some extent.

Bullying is not the same as being publicly hanged, and again, there have never been "nerd/geek-only" theaters mandated by the government.

Yes, I was born in the 80s and was the target of some bullying. It was more so because I was an immigrant as well. But I do not pretend it's the same as being a black man in the late 1800s or early 1900s. I cannot believe you would equate being called a nerd as being called ANY type of racial slur.

[Mistame]

They took the easy way out.

Again, no they didn't. They took the only way out. An algorithm cannot detect context or intent. There's literally only two options: Banning the words or not banning them. They've no obligation whatsoever to cater to the idiosyncrasies of the emotionally-challenged.

A one size fits all solution of taking away all the ice cream doesn't really work.

Neither does "taking ownership" of a slur because you're too stupid to ignore it.

[jibberbox85]

That moment when you keep pushing censorship, and it comes back to bite you in the ass.

Same thing happend in youtube btw.

Yup. They can't have it both ways.

- - - Updated - - -

That's the problem with censorship via algorithms. Robots do not know of your puny human "context."

Right, the same can be said for sarcasm.

- - - Updated - - -

They use the words because they are taking back the language that was used to oppress them. Its a way of disempowering the language and using it for self-empowerment. Not every individual within a minority group agrees with this tactic but some obviously embrace it.

This isn't hard to figure out.

Wait, so we have one group that wants to take back something that was oppressive language to another group that wants to eliminate symbols that were symbolic to an oppersive era? This keeps getting better, and better.

[Ivanstone]

Again, no they didn't. They took the only way out. An algorithm cannot detect context or intent. There's literally only two options: Banning the words or not banning them. They've no obligation whatsoever to cater to the idiosyncrasies of the emotionally-challenged.

Who gets to decide who is emotionally challenged? Why are they emotionally challenged?

Facebook took the easy way out. They let an algorithim do the job of a person. If the latter costs too much money? Well too damn bad. Don't take the easy way out next time. This is called option #3.

Neither does "taking ownership" of a slur because you're too stupid to ignore it.

Why do you presume they're stupid? Because they disagree with you? How you describe yourself is much different than how other people describe you? Why can you not grasp that distinction?

- - - Updated - - -

So you like special rules for different people? Equality.

Not especially but some people have no interest in playing fair so we have to keep on making laws that protect people.

At least you can't be fired for being a straight cis white male christian in some states. Just as you can't be fired for being a gay trans balck female muslim in those some states.

[Bapestar]

They use the words because they are taking back the language that was used to oppress them. Its a way of disempowering the language and using it for self-empowerment. Not every individual within a minority group agrees with this tactic but some obviously embrace it.

This isn't hard to figure out.

For him, and most of mmoc it is.

[Mistame]

Who gets to decide who is emotionally challenged? Why are they emotionally challenged?

Throwing a fit over not being able to use slurs for your own personal use is infantile.

Facebook took the easy way out. They let an algorithim do the job of a person. If the latter costs too much money? Well too damn bad. Don't take the easy way out next time. This is called option #3.

All this tells me is that you have no grasp on the scale or workings of social media. Just a sample of Facebook's stats:

- 1.32 Billion Daily Active Users
- 5 Profiles New Created per Second
- 300 Million Photos Uploaded per Day
- Every 60 Seconds there are: 510,000 Comments Posted, 293,000 Updated Statuses and 136,000 Photos Uploaded

An algorithm is the only way to handle this level of volume. You can call it the "easy way out" all you want, but it doesn't change the facts.

Why do you presume they're stupid?

Because thinking you can "take ownership" of a word to make you feel better about that word is stupid. Don't get me wrong, if that's what they want to believe, that's fine. They've the right to believe whatever the hell they want. What they don't have a right to do is demand that a private company give them special treatment because of those beliefs.