Washington - Leaked documents on how Facebook deals with
violent, explicit and harassing content, as published in the Guardian, further
exposes the challenges the social network faces in policing the posts of its
nearly 2 billion users. It also shows that its censorship problem may not be
solvable any time soon.
The Guardian's report illustrated how stressful and
fast-paced the environment is for Facebook's content moderators. They often
only have 10 seconds to review something, and the guidelines that govern what
is acceptable on the site are not always consistent.
Facebook did not comment on whether the documents were
accurate, but did not dispute their accuracy either. "We work hard to make
Facebook as safe as possible while enabling free speech," said Monika
Bickert, Facebook's head of Global Policy Management at Facebook, in a
statement to The Post. "This requires a lot of thought into detailed and
often difficult questions, and getting it right is something we take very
seriously."
But, according to the Guardian report, these choices are
often subjective. Take, for instance, two examples that were highlighted in the
documents.
Do you think it's ok to post, "Someone shoot
Trump"? How about a post saying that the best way to snap a woman's neck
is to"make sure to apply all your pressure to the middle of her
throat"?
Per Facebook's rules, the Guardian reported, the first is
not allowed because it refers to someone - in this case a head of state - who
is in a "protected category." The second is permissible, as it is a
more general comment.
Read also: Facebook finally gets tough on fight fake news
In the case of video, which is a growing area for Facebook,
context also matters. Even something such as violent death is not always black
and white. Facebook looks at the issue this way, per the documents:
"Videos of violent deaths are disturbing but can help create awareness.
For videos, we think minors need protection and adults need a choice. We mark
as 'disturbing' videos of the violent deaths of humans."
Experts acknowledged the challenges Facebook faces, but said
the discussion around censorship would have been easier if the company had
released its guidelines by itself.
"Visibility shouldn't be an enemy to Facebook,"
said Benjamin Burroughs, professor at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas.
"It would let people see the decisions that they make and see how hard
they are."
Earlier this month chief executive Mark Zuckerberg said that
even adding an additional 3,000 workers to its vetting team would not solve the
issue.
"No matter how many people we have on the team, we'll
never be able to look at everything," Zuckerberg said in an earnings call
earlier this month.
The company is working with artificial intelligence to
address the problem too, but that won't fix everything and it will take time
for it to become useful, Zuckerberg added on the call.
Facebook will never please everyone, experts said. Mary Anne
Franks, professor at the University of Miami school of Law, said that Facebook
and its users should not get wrapped up in how a private company running a free
service deals with the First Amendment.
Getting past the debate about speech, Franks said, would
allow for a more useful conversation about the "about the principles
Facebook should be using instead."