Showing posts with label hate speech. Show all posts
Showing posts with label hate speech. Show all posts

Tuesday, 7 May 2019

People and groups recently banned by Facebook for promoting hate and/or violence

Finally, a step in the right direction by Facebook Inc as it addresses hate speech and incitement to violence while coping with the possibility of a US$5 billion fine for the social media platform’s privacy issues.

The following have been banned from Facebook and Instagram:

English Defense League

Knights Templar International

Britain First

British National Party (BNP)

National Front

Louis Farrakhan

Alex Jones 

Paul Nehlen

Milo Yiannopoulos

Paul Joseph Watson

Laura Loomer.

Unfortunately Australia’s Fraser Anning and Andrew Wilson are not on this list.

Thursday, 9 August 2018

YouTube begins to face the Internet's darker realities in 2018

The Hill, 6 August 2018:

YouTube on Monday said it had banned Alex Jones’s Infowars channel, following similar actions taken against the controversial right-wing conspiracy theorist by other major U.S. technology companies.

After the channel violated YouTube's policies against child endangerment and hate speech, Jones was banned for trying to circumvent the site's enforcement measures, according to a source familiar with the company’s decision. The source said Jones received a 90-day moratorium on livestreaming for violating its policies and that he then tried to promote his flagship radio show on other YouTube pages, prompting a permanent ban.

Monday, 30 July 2018

July 2018 was not a good month for Zuckerberg and Facebook Inc - Channel 4 undercover investigation, a lawsuit, falling user numbers, sudden 19% drop in company value & US$12 billion hit to personal fortune

As the fall-out from manipulated US presidential campaign and UK Brexit national referendum continues try at it might Facebook Inc just can't give a cursory apology for its part in these events and mover on - users and mainstream media won't cease scutiny of its business practices., 27 July 2018:

Shares in Facebook plummeted 19 per cent to $US176.26 at the end of trading on Thursday, wiping out some $US120 billion ($A160 billion) — believed to be the worst single-day evaporation of market value for any company....

Founder Mark Zuckerberg, who has a 13 percent stake in Facebook, saw his fortune dropped by more than $US12 billion ($A16 billion) in less than 24 hours, to around $74 billion ($A100 billion).

The fall came after the social media giant revealed three million European users had closed their accounts since the Cambridge Analytica data scandal. The record decline pushed the tech-heavy Nasdaq more than one per cent lower.

CNet, 27 July 2018:

It began Wednesday with Facebook, which announced that daily active user counts had fallen in Europe, to 279 million from 282 million earlier this year. Facebook also indicated it was no longer growing in the US and Canada, two of the most lucrative advertising markets. Just as Facebook was working through its second year of nearly nonstop scandals over unchecked political meddling and data misuse, it was becoming clear that the days of consistent and relatively easy growth were fading.

Reuters, 28 July 2018:

NEW YORK (Reuters) - Facebook Inc (FB.O) and its chief executive Mark Zuckerberg were sued on Friday in what could be the first of many lawsuits over a disappointing earnings announcement by the social media company that wiped out about $120 billion of shareholder wealth.

The complaint filed by shareholder James Kacouris in Manhattan federal court accused Facebook, Zuckerberg and Chief Financial Officer David Wehner of making misleading statements about or failing to disclose slowing revenue growth, falling operating margins, and declines in active users., news release, 17 July 2018:

Dispatches investigation reveals how Facebook moderates content

An undercover investigation by Firecrest Films for Channel 4 Dispatches has revealed for the first time how Facebook decides what users can and can’t see on the platform. (Inside Facebook: Secrets of the Social Network, Channel 4 Dispatches, 9pm, 17 July)
Dispatches’ investigation reveals:
       *Violent content such as graphic images and videos of assaults on children, remaining on the site, despite being flagged by users as inappropriate and requests to have it removed.

·         *Thousands of reported posts remained unmoderated and on the site while we were filming, beyond Facebook’s stated aim of a 24-hour turnaround, including potentially posts relating to suicide threats and self-harm.

·        * Moderators told not to take any action if content shows a child who is visibly below Facebook’s 13-year-old age limit, rather than report it as posted by underage users, even if the content includes self-harming.

·         *Allegations from an early Facebook investor and mentor to Mark Zuckerberg, that Facebook’s business model benefits from extreme content which engages viewers for longer, generating higher advertising revenue.

·         *Pages belonging to far-right groups, with large numbers of followers, allowed to exceed deletion threshold, and subject to different treatment in the same category as pages belonging to governments and news organisations.

·       *  Policies allowing hate speech towards ethnic and religious immigrants, and trainers instructing moderators to ignore racist content in accordance with Facebook’s policies.

      Dispatches sent an undercover reporter to work as a content moderator in Facebook’s largest centre for UK content moderation. The work is outsourced to a company called Cpl Resources plc in Dublin which has worked with Facebook since 2010. The investigation reveals the training given to content moderators to demonstrate how to decide whether content reported to them by users, such as graphic images and videos of child abuse, self-harming, and violence should be allowed to remain on the site or be deleted. Dispatches also films day-to-day moderation of content on the site, revealing:
      Violent content:
      One of the most sensitive areas of Facebook’s content rulebook is about graphic    violence. When dealing with graphic violence content, moderators have three options – ignore, delete, or mark as disturbing which places restrictions on who can see the content.
      Dispatches’ undercover reporter is seen moderating a video showing two teenage schoolgirls fighting. Both girls are clearly identifiable and the video has been shared more than a thousand times. He’s told that Facebook’s rules say that because the video has been posted with a caption condemning the violence and warning people to be careful about visiting the location where it was filmed, it should not be deleted and instead should be left on the site and marked as disturbing content. Dispatches speaks to the mother of the girl involved who tells the programme the distress and impact the video had on her daughter. She struggles to understand the decision to leave the video up on the site. “To wake up the next day and find out that literally the whole world is watching must have been horrifying. It was humiliating for her, it was devastating for her. You see the images and it’s horrible, it’s disgusting. That’s someone’s child fighting in the park. It’s not Facebook entertainment.”

      Facebook told Dispatches that the child or parent of a child featured in videos like this can ask them to be removed. Richard Allan, VP of Public Policy at Facebook said, “Where people are highlighting an issue and condemning the issue, even if the issue is painful, there are a lot of circumstances where people will say to us, look Facebook, you should not interfere with my ability to highlight a problem that’s occurred.

      Online anti-child abuse campaigner Nicci Astin tells Dispatches about another violent video which shows a man punching and stamping on a toddler. She says she reported the video to Facebook in 2012 and received a message back saying it didn’t violate its terms and conditions. The video is used during the undercover reporter’s training period as an example of what would be left up on the site, and marked as disturbing, unless posted with a celebratory caption. The video is still up on the site, without a graphic warning, nearly six years later. Facebook told Dispatches they do escalate these issues and contact law enforcement, and the video should have been removed.

      One moderator tells the Dispatches undercover reporter that “if you start censoring too much then people lose interest in the platform…. It’s all about making money at the end of the day.”
      Venture Capitalist Roger McNamee was one of Facebook’s earliest investors, a mentor to CEO Mark Zuckerberg, and the man who brought Sheryl Sandberg to the company. He tells Dispatches that Facebook’s business model relies on extreme content:
      “From Facebook’s point of view this is, this is just essentially, you know, the crack cocaine of their product right. It’s the really extreme, really dangerous form of content that attracts the most highly engaged people on the platform. Facebook understood that it was desirable to have people spend more time on site if you’re going to have an advertising based business, you need them to see the ads so you want them to spend more time on the site. Facebook has learned that the people on the extremes are the really valuable ones because one person on either extreme can often provoke 50 or 100 other people and so they want as much extreme content as they can get.”

      Richard Allan told Dispatches: Shocking content does not make us more money, that’s just a misunderstanding of how the system works …. People come to Facebook for a safe secure experience to share content with their family and friends. The vast majority of those 2 billion people would never dream of sharing content that, like that, to shock and offend people. And the vast majority of people don’t want to see it. There is a minority who are prepared to abuse our systems and other internet platforms to share the most offensive kind of material. But I just don’t agree that that is the experience that most people want and that’s not the experience we’re trying to deliver.

      Underage users:
      No child under 13 can have a Facebook account. However, a trainer tells the undercover reporter not to proactively take any action regarding their age if the report contains an image of a user who is visibly underage, unless the user admits to being underage: “We have to have an admission that the person is underage. If not, we just like pretend that we are blind and we don’t know what underage looks like.” Even if the content contains images for self-harm for example, and the image is of someone who looks underage the user is treated like an adult and sent information about organisations which help with self-harming issues, rather than being reported for being underage: “If this person was a kid, like a 10-year-old kid we don’t care, we still action the ticket as if they were an adult.” Facebook confirmed to Dispatches that its policy is not to take action about content posted by users who appear to be underage, unless the user admits to being underage.

Hate speech:
       Dispatches’ undercover reporter is told that, while content which racially abuses protected ethnic or religious groups violates Facebook’s guidelines, if the posts racially abuse immigrants from these groups, then the content is permitted. Facebook’s training for moderators also includes a post including a cartoon comment which describes drowning a girl if her first boyfriend is a negro, as content which is permitted. Facebook confirmed to Dispatches that the picture violates their hate speech standards and they are reviewing what went wrong to prevent it from happening again.

     “Shielded Review” – Popular pages kept up despite violations:
Our undercover reporter is told that if any page is found to have five or more pieces of content that violate Facebook’s rules, then the entire page should be taken down, in accordance with the company’s policies. But we have discovered that posts on Facebook’s most popular pages, with the highest numbers of followers, cannot be deleted by ordinary content moderators at Cpl. Instead, they are referred to the Shielded Review Queue where they can be directly assessed by Facebook rather than Cpl staff. These pages include those belonging to jailed former English Defence League leader Tommy Robinson, who has over 900,000 followers, and who has been given the same protected status as Governments and news organisations. A moderator tells the undercover reporter that the far-right group Britain First’s pages were left up despite repeatedly featuring content that breached Facebook’s guidelines because, “they have a lot of followers so they’re generating a lot of revenue for Facebook. The Britain First Facebook page was finally deleted in March 2018 following the arrest of deputy leader Jayda Fransen.
      Facebook confirmed to Dispatches that they do have special procedures for popular and high profile pages, which includes Tommy Robinson and included Britain First.
      They say Shielded Review has been renamed ‘Cross Check’. Lord Allen told Dispatches: “if the content is indeed violating it will go….I want to be clear this is not a discussion about money, this is a discussion about political speech. People are debating very sensitive issues on Facebook, including issues like immigration. And that political debate can be entirely legitimate. I do think having extra reviewers on that when the debate is taking place absolutely makes sense and I think people would expect us to be careful and cautious before we take down their political speech.”
      Delays in moderating content:
      Facebook’s publicly stated aim is to assess all reported content within 24 hours. However, during the period of the undercover filming, Dispatches found a significant backlog. Moderators told the undercover reporter that due to the volume of reports, or tickets, they are supposed to moderate, they are unable to check up to 7,000 reported comments on a daily basis. At one point there is a backlog of 15,000 reports which have not been assessed, with some tickets are still waiting for moderation up to five days after being reported. Facebook told Dispatches that the backlog filmed in the programme was cleared by 6 April.
[my yellow highlighting]

Sunday, 3 June 2018

Meet the professional alt-right agitator who wants to disrupt Australian society

Twitter image
Lauren Cherie Southern is coming to Australia this month on a 'speaking' tour.

Given this basic profile I suspect that the general public is about to see a rise in the incidence of hate speech during her time in this country.

Wikipedia:  Lauren Cherie Southern (born 16 June 1995) is a Canadian far-right political activist, Internet personality, and journalist associated with the alt-right. 

Vice News, 11 March 2017: Lauren Southern has denied rape culture exists, faked transitioning genders and denounced Black Lives Matter’s “fascistic tendencies.” She’s more popular than ever.

The Abbotsford News, 17 May 2017: A former Langley Libertarian candidate was detained by the Italian Coast Guard for trying to block a ship that rescues stranded refugees. Right wing activist Lauren Southern, who ran as a Libertarian candidate in Langley in the 2015 federal election, was detained on May 12.

The Independent UK, 13 March 2018: Canadian far-right activist Lauren Southern has been detained in Calais and banned from entering the UK….A Home Office spokesperson told The Independent: “Border Force has the power to refuse entry to an individual if it is considered that his or her presence in the UK is not conducive to the public good.”, 28 May 2018: A CONTROVERSIAL political commentator heading for Australia says her ideas “will shock people”.

Canadian Lauren Southern will tour Australia and New Zealand starting next month on a speaking tour that stops at Melbourne, Sydney, Brisbane, Adelaide, Perth and Auckland. 

Southern, who previously worked for Rebel Media — the same media organisation former Labor leader Mark Latham aligned himself with — calls herself an “independent journalist”.

She is known as one of the torchbearers for the alt-right movement in her country and will be touring with countryman Stefan Molyneux.

Friday, 3 November 2017

Abbott's love affair with US 'hate group'

“Alliance Defending Freedom seeks to recover the robust Christendomic theology of the 3rd, 4th, and 5th centuries. This is catholic, universal orthodoxy and it is desperately crucial for cultural renewal. Christians must strive to build glorious cultural cathedrals, rather than shanty tin sheds.” — Blackstone Legal Fellowship website, 2014
In January 2016 sacked former Australian prime minister Tony Abbott addressed a far-right Christian ‘hate group' in New York USA during the parliamentary break, on the subject of family values and marriage.
On 23 October this year the Courier Mail reported:

backbencher and staunch “no” advocate, Tony Abbott has made the decision to return to the US at the end of the month and once again address the Christian right-wing organisation, the Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF).

Defined by the Southern Poverty Law Centre (SPLA) in the US as an anti-LGBTI hate group, the ADF not only supports the recriminalisation of homosexuality — in the US and overseas — but according to the SPLC website, it has also “defended state-sanctioned sterilization of trans people abroad; has linked homosexuality to paedophilia and claims that a ‘homosexual agenda’ will destroy Christianity.”

Abbott states he’s “honoured” to be invited to speak to this group again…..

While his first trip to the US to speak to the ADF last year drew raised brows and concerns, this second trip is obviously timed to ensure Abbott will not only have whatever ammunition he needs to water down any consequent legislation arising out of a conscience vote on SSM, but also demonstrate his zealotry towards another cause that, post being PM and regardless of his party’s position, he’s made his own.

This second time around Abbott once again turned to family values and marriage, with the addition of the same-sex marriage postal survey currently underway.

Offering up gems such as these: 

“Romantic love alone can’t always sustain the life-long commitment and the shared sacrifice for the common good that’s at the heart of marriage. We will all lose, in the brave new world of same sex marriage, if commitment is watered down; and if fewer people marry, fewer couples have children, fewer relationships last, and fewer children have stable homes” 
“Campaigns for same sex marriage and the like are a consequence of our civilizational self-doubt and the collapse of cultural self-confidence. The decline of belief has meant a reluctance to assert principles and a fear of giving offence. We find it hard to say “no” to gays who want to marry; just as we’re finding it hard to say “no” to Muslims who want several wives. We’re reluctant to let Christian parents take their children out of sex education classes; but once the local imam gets involved, I suspect, our cultural diffidence and our double standards might start to run the other way. Here in America, organisations like the Alliance Defending Freedom are a sign that Western civilisation still has its friends. The organisation in Australia, as yet largely informal, as yet basically ad hoc, as yet nameless, that has sprung into being to defend marriage shows that, in my country too, there remain embers of respect for our traditions.

Sunday, 27 January 2013

Tony Abbott cries "Censorship!" as he starts the final leg of his race for The Lodge

The Australian on 23 January 2013 reported:
What Abbott appears to be objecting to can be found in this section of the draft Human Rights and Anti-Discrimination Bill 2012:
1 Division 3—Racial vilification
2 51 Racial vilification is unlawful
3 When racial vilification is unlawful
4 (1) It is unlawful for a person (the first person) to engage in racial
5 vilification.
6 (2) Conduct of a person is racial vilification if:
7 (a) the conduct is reasonably likely, in all the circumstances, to
8 offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate another person or a
9 group of people; and
10 (b) the first person engages in the conduct:
11 (i) because the other person, or one or more members of
12 the group, is of a particular race, or because the first
13 person assumes that to be the case; or
14 (ii) because the other person, or one or more members of
15 the group, has an associate who is of a particular race, or
16 because the first person assumes that to be the case; and
17 (c) the conduct is engaged in otherwise than in private.
18 (3) For the purpose of subsection (2), conduct is engaged in otherwise
19 than in private if:
20 (a) it causes words, sounds, images or writing to be
21 communicated to the public; or
22 (b) it is engaged in:
23 (i) in a public place; or
24 (ii) in the sight or hearing of people who are in a public
25 place.
26 This subsection does not limit the circumstances that may
27 constitute engaging in conduct otherwise than in private.
28 Exception
29 (4) Subsection (1) does not make it unlawful for a person to say or do
30 something, reasonably and in good faith:
31 (a) in the performance, exhibition or distribution of an artistic
32 work; or
1 (b) in the course of any statement, publication, discussion or
2 debate made or held for any genuine academic, artistic or
3 scientific purpose or any other genuine purpose in the public
4 interest; or
5 (c) in making or publishing:
6 (i) a fair and accurate report of any event or matter of
7 public interest; or
8 (ii) a fair comment on any event or matter of public interest
9 if the comment is an expression of a genuine belief held
10 by the person making the comment.
Abbott’s objection raises a problem because the current Racial Discrimination Act 1975 contains this section (below) which also uses the phrases to offend and causes words, sounds, images or writing to be communicated to the public.
An act of parliament that during his time in government from 1996 through to 2007 he apparently did not seek to amend to remove the alleged threat to free speech.
Tony Abbott appears to have 'found' a censorship trigger within the bill before Federal Parliament just in time for this year’s election campaign.
Part IIAProhibition of offensive behaviour based on racial hatred
18C Offensive behaviour because of race, colour or national or ethnic origin
(1) It is unlawful for a person to do an act, otherwise than in private, if:
(a) the act is reasonably likely, in all the circumstances, to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate another person or a group of people; and
(b) the act is done because of the race, colour or national or ethnic origin of the other person or of some or all of the people in the group.
Note: Subsection (1) makes certain acts unlawful. Section 46P of the Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986 allows people to make complaints to the Australian Human Rights Commission about unlawful acts. However, an unlawful act is not necessarily a criminal offence. Section 26 says that this Act does not make it an offence to do an act that is unlawful because of this Part, unless Part IV expressly says that the act is an offence.
(2) For the purposes of subsection (1), an act is taken not to be done in private if it:
(a) causes words, sounds, images or writing to be communicated to the public; or
(b) is done in a public place; or
(c) is done in the sight or hearing of people who are in a public place.
(3) In this section:
public place includes any place to which the public have access as of right or by invitation, whether express or implied and whether or not a charge is made for admission to the place.
18D Exemptions
Section 18C does not render unlawful anything said or done reasonably and in good faith:
(a) in the performance, exhibition or distribution of an artistic work; or
(b) in the course of any statement, publication, discussion or debate made or held for any genuine academic, artistic or scientific purpose or any other genuine purpose in the public interest; or
(c) in making or publishing:
(i) a fair and accurate report of any event or matter of public interest; or
(ii) a fair comment on any event or matter of public interest if the comment is an expression of a genuine belief held by the person making the comment.

Thursday, 5 January 2012

A Christian view of domestic violence [exit laughing cynically]

The Canberra Times reports on U.S. evangelical creationist Jack Chick's hateful Chick Publications, 4 January 2012:

The pamphlet, entitled Is Allah Like You?, depicts an Islamic man who abuses his wife and son until he converts to Christianity and learns the error of his ways.

I wager that comforts the millions of women and children, down the centuries and up to this very minute, who have suffered domestic violence at the hands of ‘good’ Christian men.

CLC Christian Bookworld Australasia and ELE Trust of Queensland and Word Bookstores of Victoria should be ashamed of selling this arrant nonsense.

Thursday, 4 August 2011

I wonder how many bloggers have hosted hate content from Norway?

Right-wing, occasional Fox News op-ed writer, Pamela Geller, uploads onto YouTube at atlasshrugs2000 and has a blog called Atlas Shrugs.

After self-censoring her own blog content (after the 22 July 2011 Norway terrorism attacks) by removing two sentences, We are stockpiling and caching weapons, ammunition and equipment. This is going to happen fast., guess who forgot to contact Google with a request to remove the cache for the original version of that Email from Norway post?

Ms. Geller definitely does not like the post-atrocities media attention she is attracting:

The now censored email (which had been up on this personal blog unamended since Sunday 24 June 2007) ends with; Never fear, Pamela. God is with you too in this coming time.

Obviously a sentiment she may also find uncomfortable as the blogosphere continues to speculate on that email’s provenance and, speculates that the writer actually identified himself to her on the basis of this exchange in the post comments section:

turn said...
……….So...yes. A very nice letter to you, Pam, from a Norwegian Atlasite (Atlasonian?). Unfortunately, he or she could be prosecuted under hate-speech laws for writing or posting in Norway what you have passed on to us.
Pamela Geller said...
yes turn, which is why I ran it anonymously

Rather strangely for an American blog, Atlas Shrugs has enough content pertaining to or sourced from Scandinavia/Norway by herself and Fjordman that there is even an achive tag called Norway.

Posts listed on The Fjordman Files as being hosted on Atlas Shrugs:
Atlas Shrugs

Perhaps Pamela should take to heart her own one-line bio; Evil is made possible by the sanction you give it. Withdraw your sanction.

On Saturday 30 July 2011 Ms. Geller posted on her blog; Breivik did not write the letter. Many Norwegians see their country imploding. However, as yet she offers nothing to support that statement. Although it is possible that the writer is Fjordman or a like individual, as it is apparent that she has had some form of correspondence with Scandinavian wingnuts generally. On 25 July 2011 Fjordman also denied any association with Breivik, but on 27 July admitted that under the pen name Year2183 Breivick had possibly posted comments on one of his blogs.

According to The Guardian on 30 July 2011:

The same month Breivik responded to Fjordman, he also surfaces on another hardline blog, Stormfront, a white supremacist forum run by a former grand wizard of the Ku Klux Klan and popular among neo-Nazis across the world. Britain, Breivik warns, will be among the first western countries to face a "civil war due to Muslim immigration".