Facebook Wrong To Delete Anti-Iranian Posts
Facebook's oversight board says the site was wrong to delete a post protesting against the government in Iran. It's another example of the difficulties of moderating content online.
The ruling came from an independent body that reviews a selection of decisions made by Facebook moderators. In a very loose sense, the body works a little like the Supreme Court in that it looks at specific cases but its rulings set wider precedents.
In this case, a user had made a post which included the phrase "marg bar Khameni." Literally translates, that means "death to Khameni" and refers to Iran's Supreme Leader. The phrase has been widely used in anti-government protests.
Moderators removed the post saying it broke Facebook's guidelines. On the face of it, that makes sense as the words appear to be a direct incitement of violence against a named individual.
The person who made the post was given a content strike, bringing them a step closer to a complete ban. They were also blocked from posting any new content for seven days and taking part in Facebook groups for 30 days. Their initial appeal went unheeded by automated systems.
'Newsworthiness Allowance' Does Not Apply
However, the oversight board noted that the wording has been widely used in protests to rhetorically mean "down with" and indicate a desire for Khameni to be removed from power, or simply for his authority's policies to be changed.
The board reinstated the posts and noted that "a newsworthiness allowance permits otherwise violating content if the public interest outweighs the harm." It explained the wording was a "rhetorical, political slogan, not a credible threat." (Source: oversightboard.com)
Some Death 'Threats' Not OK
It also noted the same interpretation would not apply in other cases, for example regarding Salman Rushdie (the subject of a recent assassination attempt) or the riots in Washington DC on January 6, 2021. The board said in these cases there was clear evidence of a risk to life. It also noted statements including "death to" are "not generally used as political rhetoric in English, as they are in other languages."
The board also says Facebook should have paid more attention to the political situation and warned moderators in advance not to remove posts with the slogan. It said failing to do so "led to the silencing of political speech aimed at protecting women's rights, including through feature-limits, which can shut people out of social movements and political debate." (Source: bbc.co.uk)
What's Your Opinion?
Do you agree with the oversight board decision? Should content rules take more account of political and societal context? Can moderation using hard-and-fast rules ever work reliably?
My name is Dennis Faas and I am a senior systems administrator and IT technical analyst specializing in cyber crimes (sextortion / blackmail / tech support scams) with over 30 years experience; I also run this website! If you need technical assistance , I can help. Click here to email me now; optionally, you can review my resume here. You can also read how I can fix your computer over the Internet (also includes user reviews).
We are BBB Accredited
We are BBB accredited (A+ rating), celebrating 21 years of excellence! Click to view our rating on the BBB.
Comments
Moderators
Looks like fb has new moderators who are less overbearing.
Since I consider fb to be on the same level as the telephone, that's an improvement.
When they censor, they are a editorial board with a hidden agenda.
However, there's always tomorrow.
If the board is going to
If the board is going to consider context and assume intention, then that just creates even more of a mess. It's all subjective then.
It's ok if it's newsworthy, "...a newsworthiness allowance permits otherwise violating content if the public interest outweighs the harm." How much public interest does it take to outweight the harm?
But it's not ok if written in the wrong language, "...statements including "death to" are "not generally used as political rhetoric in English, as they are in other languages." And even within a single language and country there are differences in rhetoric, wit, and general use of the language.
So, in the article "a user had made a post which included the phrase "marg bar Khameni." Literally translates, that means "death to Khameni" and refers to Iran's Supreme Leader."
According to the oversight board, that was ok because of interpreted intent. But if the same person had self-translated it and wrote it in English then it would not be allowed. Go figure.