My Feedback on Facebook’s “Community Standards” Part III

https://www.facebook.com/communitystandards/objectionable_content Facebook’s code is in italics. My comments on it are not.

11. Hate Speech

We do not allow hate speech on Facebook because it creates an environment of intimidation and exclusion and in some cases may promote real-world violence.

The ultimate form of intimidation and exclusion is “we do not allow” type censorship! What a contradiction within your very first sentence! Perhaps this is why you are getting into trouble.

Besides, hate is a virtue. https://bible.knowing-jesus.com/topics/Hating-Evil

We are called to hate evil. Don’t you hate evil? What? You mean you would not hate a man for hacking an innocent child to death? I hate even looking at violence. And you know this.

Hate is also only an emotion. And an appropriate one in most circumstances. Banning emotions is banning human thought and beliefs and humanity itself.

I thought the liberal left was in love with the emotions? What are you thinking?

I’ll try to understand your rational below, but also, point out where you are not rational.

We define hate speech as a direct attack on people based on what we call protected characteristics — race, ethnicity, national origin, religious affiliation, sexual orientation, caste, sex, gender, gender identity, and serious disease or disability.

I see hypocrisy. How can you prevent hate, a basic human emotion, one we are supposed to have against evil, when also the Hebrew and Greek, the Jewish and Christian scriptures, basic religious texts, call for hate against evil? How can you try to protect “all religions” against hate, when hate is a fundamental command of two or more conflicting major religions on the planet? You are literally fighting against God here. If you ban Judeo/Christian/Muslim hate, you are making a direct attack on the religious beliefs of those groups, and violating your own policy against attacking people based on religious affiliation, and thus acting in hypocrisy.

Here is my logic, expressed very simply. My religion tells me to hate. You tell me I can’t hate or I’ll be banned. You are thus discriminating and hating on my religion, which you say you ban people for doing. If your policy requires you to ban yourself, your policy must be wrong.

We also provide some protections for immigration status. We define attack as violent or dehumanizing speech, statements of inferiority, or calls for exclusion or segregation. We separate attacks into three tiers of severity, as described below.

“Statements of inferiority”? That’s void for vagueness. That’s void for obvious hypocrisy. If you say I’m making a “statement of inferiority”, you are literally saying my speech is so inferior it does not deserve to be protected by free speech and should be attacked via exclusionary censorship and segregation, and thus acting in total hypocrisy.

But literally, the entire point of philosophy, argumentation, debate, and discussion is to determine which arguments are more valid and which arguments and beliefs are less valid. Or another word for that is “inferior”.

Speech is, by definition, the exact opposite of being violent, which is a physical attack. Internet speech is, by definition, almost impossible to be violent, unless it is a direct threat to do immediate harm, which is nearly impossible given the extremely long distances inherent between random people on the internet.

Now, I have been physically attacked by a man, whom I exposed over the internet. He threatened me in his emails, used foul language, and so I published his demeaning comments. Months later, I later met him in person at a mining convention, and he literally grabbed me by the arm in a violent way. I believe he was drinking. I called for help in the hotel lobby. Seemingly ashamed, he let go. Whatever. But my point is that it is better to let people expose themselves by their own bad talk, in fact, even publicise their bad behavior, rather than censoring them. Going the other way, to share the bad behavior of others, rather than cover it up is a teaching of the Apostle Paul in the Bible.

1 Timothy 5:20 Them that sin rebuke before all, that others also may fear.

Ephesians 5:11 Have nothing to do with the fruitless deeds of darkness, but rather expose them.

If someone is doing something bad, covering it up can actually make you an accessory to the crime. This is what the “me too” movement is all about. Through an overly broad application of censorship, your policy might do things like cover up people, like Harvey Weinstein? https://www.wnycstudios.org/story/harvey-weinstein-after-decades-censorship-why-now

Remember what happened to Michael Richards who played “Kramer” on Seinfeld during a stand up comedy bit? His racist comments destroyed his own career. No censorship was needed. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Richards#2006_Laugh_Factory_incident And many other celebrities destroy their careers by putting foot into mouth. Another example, the Dixie Chicks. Natalie Maines, from Texas, said: “…we’re ashamed that the President of the United States is from Texas.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dixie_Chicks#2003%E2%80%932005:_Iraq_War_comments_and_blacklisting That hurt their career.

Let people say dumb things. And let their reputations go down appropriately, as they should.

Sometimes people share content containing someone else’s hate speech for the purpose of raising awareness or educating others. In some cases, words or terms that might otherwise violate our standards are used self-referentially or in an empowering way. People sometimes express contempt in the context of a romantic break-up. Other times, they use gender-exclusive language to control membership in a health or positive support group, such as a breastfeeding group for women only. In all of these cases, we allow the content but expect people to clearly indicate their intent, which helps us better understand why they shared it. Where the intention is unclear, we may remove the content.

We allow humor and social commentary related to these topics. In addition, we believe that people are more responsible when they share this kind of commentary using their authentic identity.

Click here to read our Hard Questions Blog and learn more about our approach to hate speech.

The fact that you have a “hard questions blog” on this topic, I think, goes to show you are off base on this one.

Your three tiers of “no nos” are not so much a reference to the strength of what you dislike so much you ban it, but three main classifications of “no nos”. https://www.facebook.com/communitystandards/hate_speech/

Tier 1 appears to be no dehumanizing comparisons.

Tier 2 appears to be no statements of inferiority, and you get specific about things like IQ and morals.

Tier 3 appears to be no calls for exclusion.

Blocking people, censoring them, for expressing Christian content, is discrimination based on religion, and is an illegal “hate crime”, as follows:

Civil Rights Act of 1968[edit]

Main article: Civil Rights Act of 1968

The Civil Rights Act of 1968 enacted 18 U.S.C. § 245(b)(2), which permits federal prosecution of anyone who “willfully injures, intimidates or interferes with, or attempts to injure, initimidate or interfere with … any person because of his race, color, religion or national origin”^[1] or because of the victim’s attempt to engage in one of six types of federally protected activities, such as attending school, patronizing a public place/facility, applying for employment, acting as a juror in a state court or voting.

Facebook is clearly “interfering with people, based on religion”, specifically discriminating against the Christian religion. Imagine if a movie Theater denied entrance to Jews? Same thing at facebook.

All three of these types of bans would ban Jesus Christ, or direct statements by Jesus Christ, and thus violate facebook’s own principle of not discriminating against the protected class of religious orientation.

1. Jesus compared people to animals. Jesus compared King Herod to a fox, which is an animal. “Luke 13:32 He replied, “Go tell that fox, ‘I will keep on driving out demons and healing people today and tomorrow, and on the third day I will reach my goal.'” Jesus compared the Pharisees to a snake, a viper. Matthew 23:33 “You snakes! You brood of vipers! How will you escape the sentence of hell?”
2. Jesus directly attacked the morals of the Pharisees in the same chapter: Matthew 23:23 Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You pay tithes of mint, dill, and cumin, but you have disregarded the weightier matters of the law: justice, mercy, and faithfulness. You should have practiced the latter, without neglecting the former. 24 You blind guides! You strain out a gnat but swallow a camel. … 28 “In the same way, on the outside you appear to be righteous, but on the inside you are full of hypocrisy and wickedness. “
3. Jesus explicitly said they will be excluded from the kingdom of heaven: Matthew 23:13 Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You shut the kingdom of heaven in men’s faces. You yourselves do not enter, nor will you let in those who wish to enter. Jesus explicitly rebuked the Pharisees for their hypocrisy seven times in that chapter. Jesus defined hypocrisy at the very beginning of Matthew Chapter 23: “they do not practice what they preach”.

As an aside, to the reader, not to Facebook: (The first day that I noticed how Facebook’s community standards on “hate speech” would ban Jesus Christ, and I mean all three of their Tiers would ban Jesus, I thought how odd that Facebook would have somehow insulated themselves from Conservative and Christian voices so well that they don’t even know that their standards would ban Jesus. As if they don’t even have one single Christian or Theologian on staff to help guide them? Also, I’ve known Atheists who know the text of the Bible better than they seem to. They must be in quite a bubble of their own making.)

(The next day, I began to wonder, perhaps it’s not a coincidence or outcome of their liberal bias at all. Perhaps it’s deliberate? But what kind of influence then, does this suggest that they would they be under? I can think of two or three possibilities, but it’s pointless to speculate. Very peculiar. The big point, and it’s big enough, is that their “community standards” require a ban on Jesus, but also require not banning Jesus!)

I guess I can’t really be too upset that Facebook gets this wrong. I’ve been banned from countless religious forums for quoting the Bible. People really just get upset when you tell them they are wrong. That’s human nature.

Note my rebukes to Facebook often touch on this very concept. In banning people, you are not practicing what you preach, because banning people is the very practice of exclusion. In other words, if someone else hints at “excluding people”, you take that as a call to action to do worse, and actually exclude them with a ban. That is hypocrisy. That means you don’t follow what you preach, and you don’t obey your own value system. And this exposes your own value system as seriously flawed, and inherently contradictory, and self-condemnatory, and is a form of “self harm”; one that I’m trying to save you from.

I find your “community guidelines” of “no statements of moral inferiority” to be particularly egregious. That means shockingly bad, which, yes, is a value judgement that I’m expressing, which directly violates your policy. But your entire list of things you don’t like is your own value judgement just the same. Don’t you see the hypocrisy? You say making value judgments is bad, but you make value judgments in the process of saying that.

I seriously think a large part of the problem here is that you have taken modern 15 year old Facebook liberal media values to an extreme, without considering core values expressed over 2000 years ago, which you claim should be “protected”, but you don’t protect them, or even seem to know them.

The entire point of literally any debate is to showcase which arguments, or perhaps even which religious beliefs, are less valid than other arguments. Or less moral. Or less intelligent. The right conclusion of any argument, such as “wow, can you see how we have exposed the stupidity, or flaw, or inherent contradiction of this point” should not be the subject of banning, but rather, should be celebrated, as getting there is the entire point.

That’s a main reason why people talk about things. To help get people to abandon wrong ideas, and adopt better ones. That should not be a reason to censor people.

I am particularly offended by your Tier II’s ban on terms of mental deficiency.

Tier 2 attacks, which target a person or group of people who share any of the above-listed characteristics, where attack is defined as

Statements of inferiority or an image implying a person’s or a group’s physical, mental, or moral deficiency

Mental (including but not limited to “retarded,” “cretin,” “low IQ,” “stupid,” “idiot”)

It is a fact of life that people have differences in IQ. Tests show some people have lower IQ than other tests. It is a fact of life that some people are just stupid. While my own IQ typically is in the 130 range, I have had many “stupid” moments in my life where I’ve done or said dumb things. We have all had these encounters with either stupid people, or our own stupid moments. I’ve even encountered very wise and esteemed men, asked them pointed questions, and thought that their answers on certain subjects on which I was seeking clarity, happened to be so invalid, that their answers were shockingly stupid.

To ban people, and censor people, over having a stupid moment, or banning other people for even pointing out that I had a stupid moment, is the most stupid thing I can imagine. Believe it or not, if I say something stupid, I hope to God someone who cares about me, will care enough to actually enlighten me and tell me that I did or said something stupid, and why I was stupid, so that I can correct my mistake. But maybe that’s me, being wise.

I understand where you are coming from, and what you are trying to do. That low IQ is a “disability” and that people of “disability” should be protected from “attack” or “exclusion” or that they should be able to feel safe on Facebook. That is a lofty goal. But putting a chill on everyone who may feel unsafe to even point out obvious truths is not helpful for the overall goals of having a society where people should feel free to tell the truth as they see it. Some people and some arguments are just dumb. And even Facebook admits you make mistakes in your “community guidelines” policy as you say it’s ever evolving. It’s ever evolving because you have made some “dumb decisions”, which I’m trying to point out. Let people say things like this. It’s a crucially important part of society working together to help everyone do better.

Calling someone stupid is not necessarily “hate speech”. It’s actually a form of “helpful speech”.

READ MORE

12. Violence and Graphic Content

We remove content that glorifies violence or celebrates the suffering or humiliation of others because it may create an environment that discourages participation. We allow graphic content (with some limitations) to help people raise awareness about issues. We know that people value the ability to discuss important issues like human rights abuses or acts of terrorism. We also know that people have different sensitivities with regard to graphic and violent content. For that reason, we add a warning label to especially graphic or violent content so that it is not available to people under the age of eighteen and so that people are aware of the graphic or violent nature before they click to see it.

READ MORE

I really like this policy and form of censorship. You are not banning this kind of content, just placing a warning on it. Well done. Consider doing this for all content you wish to ban.

13. Adult Nudity and Sexual Activity

We restrict the display of nudity or sexual activity because some people in our community may be sensitive to this type of content. Additionally, we default to removing sexual imagery to prevent the sharing of non-consensual or underage content. Restrictions on the display of sexual activity also apply to digitally created content unless it is posted for educational, humorous, or satirical purposes.

Our nudity policies have become more nuanced over time. We understand that nudity can be shared for a variety of reasons, including as a form of protest, to raise awareness about a cause, or for educational or medical reasons. Where such intent is clear, we make allowances for the content. For example, while we restrict some images of female breasts that include the nipple, we allow other images, including those depicting acts of protest, women actively engaged in breast-feeding, and photos of post-mastectomy scarring. We also allow photographs of paintings, sculptures, and other art that depicts nude figures.READ MORE

Yeah. I report porn on Facebook if I see it, a few times a year. There is less of this these days, which is good. Oh, wait, is that a banned value judgment I made based on the protected class of sex and/or gender? Do you see how awful and chilling your guidelines can be if they were taken seriously by people who can think? The vast majority of people never take the time to read all your excessive and silly “guidelines” bullshit. See, my guideline is that I get to tell the truth about things, regardless of your feelings about it. In fact, my intent is to shame you into doing the right thing, and change your policy where it is in error. That’s kind of an important part of the human interaction experience, I’ll call it “feedback”.

14. Sexual Solicitation

As noted in Section 8 of our Community Standards (Sexual Exploitation of Adults), people use Facebook to discuss and draw attention to sexual violence and exploitation. We recognize the importance of and want to allow for this discussion. We draw the line, however, when content facilitates, encourages or coordinates sexual encounters between adults. We also restrict sexually explicit language that may lead to solicitation because some audiences within our global community may be sensitive to this type of content and it may impede the ability for people to connect with their friends and the broader community.

READ MORE

I believe you are referring to “prostitution”, and not when people list their status as “single” on facebook. Seriously, you need to fire your lawyer who drafted that due to excessively bad thinking on his/her part. For a multi billion dollar company, your policy is sophomoric. Sexual encounters are not necessarily bad. Just change your wording there. Perhaps add the word “paid” before the words “sexual encounters”.

15. Cruel and Insensitive

We believe that people share and connect more freely when they do not feel targeted based on their vulnerabilities. As such, we have higher expectations for content that we call cruel and insensitive, which we define as content that targets victims of serious physical or emotional harm.

READ MORE: ” Content that depicts real people and laughs at or makes fun of their implied or premature death, serious or fatal disease or disability, non-consensual sexual touching, domestic violence, or serious physical injury “

Oh, come on! We’ve all seen the pictures of Joe Biden touching little girls very weirdly.

Previous Post in this Series: https://revealingfraud.com/2019/07/political/my-feedback-on-facebooks-community-standards-part-ii/

Next Post in this Series: https://revealingfraud.com/2019/07/political/my-feedback-on-facebooks-community-standards-part-iv/