Facebook Caught LYING About Censorship, Regulation Is Coming. Facebook banned several right wing figures but claimed this is normal for them but in a new report from the Associated Press we learned that not only does Facebook leave up the overwhelming majority of content that breaks the rules they actually compile it into celebratory videos.Researchers found only 38% was actually getting removed and the AP was able to easily find content that went well beyond anything Paul Joseph Watson every published. This flies in the face of Facebook's statement about banning and censoring content.Social media censorship seems to be reaching a tipping point as even Vox.com is pointing out the hypocrisy of Facebook and how it tends to target conservatives. If a far left site like Vox sees the lies then its only a matter of time before social media regulation drops.But while free speech is paramount this means the worst of the worst will be able to organize. Where do we draw the line?
Support the show (http://timcast.com/donate)
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
This is an unofficial transcript meant for reference. Accuracy is not guaranteed.
When Facebook band Paul Joseph Watson, lore, Loom or Molly anomalous and others they claimed in a statement to the press
but they always ban people or content. They find extreme or dangerous.
Most of us assumed that was a lie and it turns out it likely was
in a story from the Associated Press, we're alone, and that not only does Facebook leave up the majority of extremist content, they have actually been off,
generating celebratory videos using extremist content, and this shows
just how hypocritical they really are. They likely band these individuals associate with the right for press reasons. One of the key components of their defence of their censorship is section two thirty of the telecommunications Decency act, but that requires thereof
a form and not a publisher, however, were learning in a story from Fox that Facebook is trying to claim their both at the same time. Indifferent suits Facebook is completely hypocritical and regulation is coming
because people are realising that faced
been lying the whole time their selling
data and they're lying about, why and how they sensor people right. Let's take a look at this
stories as well as another story in Poland, which may be a land,
our case, which restricts censorship on Facebook, but before it gets done,
make sure you follow me on minds at minds: dot com slashed him guest.
I don't have all my eggs in one basket recently
stripped modernization away from saga of the cards. Are you just
danger. It is to have everything on one platform. Follow me at my
calm slashed him gas because a good platform and a great backup channel? If you support this video
just share it. On social media and hit that, like one our first story
from the Associated Press, Facebook, auto
rates, videos celebrating extremists, images, the story says the animated video begins with a photo of the black flag of jihad. Seconds later it flashes highlights of a year of social media posts, plaques of anti semitic versus talk of retribution
And a photo of two men carrying more jihadi flags when they burn,
stars and stripes. It wasn't produced by
we must it was created by Facebook and a clever bit of self promotion. The social media giant takes a year
users content an auto generates a celebratory video. In this case the user called himself up Del Rahim Moser the Caliphate, thanks for being here from Facebook. The video concludes in a cartoon bubble. Before flashing the coming.
Famous thumbs up Facebook likes to give the impression is staying ahead of extremist by taking down their posts, often before users even see them, but account
financial whistleblowers complaint to the Securities and Exchange Commission obtained by the AP alleges, the social media,
he has exaggerated its success even worse, it shows that the company is inadvertently making use of propaganda by militant groups to auto, generate videos and pages that could be used for networking by extremists so something
Wrong here you know if the like Paul Joseph Watson looming you novelist Jones, whatever the point as the content they make is objectionable, offensive or whatever it certainly not directly calling people to violence, it certainly not jihadi or overtly extremist. So white and Facebook target these individuals and actually leave up extremists content engine
rate content around their photos. The answer to me seems kind of obvious it. If you would ask me I'd, say they took down these individuals because its political, many of these people, they really did help Donald Trump get elected by pushing means and content that went viral now they're gone, but Facebook is leaving up extremists actual extremists. The AP continues according to the complaint over
five month period. Last year, researchers monitored pages by users who affiliated themselves with groups the. U S, State Department has designated as terrorist organisations in that period, thirty, eight percent of
only with prominent symbols of extremist groups were removed and its own review the ape. He found that, as of this month, much of the band content cited in the study and execution video images of separate heads, propaganda, honouring martyred militants slipped through the algorithmic web and remained easy too
find on Facebook. The complaint is landing as Facebook tries to stay ahead of a growing array of criticism over its privacy practices and its ability to keep hate speech
live stream, the murders and suicide off its service. In the face of criticism c o my
soccer Burg has spoken of his pride in the company's ability to weed out violent posts automatically through artificial intelligence
during an earnings call last month, for instance, he repeated a carefully worded formulation that Facebook has been employing
I would like to applaud the Associated Press for doing this story, doing the research and publishing it because for some
reason, there are many people associate with leftwing media there, obsessed with someone like Paul Joseph Watson or Carl Benjamin. They repeatedly right about offensive jokes instead of talking about
actual extremists on the platform and the content that is not being removed by Facebook. The narrative is always about the far right. They actually talk about, what's really happening in fact
when Twitter said, that innocent Muslims were being removed and innocent arabic individuals were being removed because their allies
I was trying to target ISIS. There was no outrage. The outrage was that they wanted more censorship and more algorithms to remove innocent people if it meant they could target white supremacist. But the eighty does include a statement from Representative Benny Thomas a Democrat from MRS Hippy, the chairman of the House, Homeland Security Committee, who expressed frustration.
Facebook has made so little progress on blocking content, despite reassurances he received from the company. This is yet another
Equally worrisome example of facebooks inability to manage its own platforms and the extent to which it needs to clean up its act. Facebook must not only read its platforms of tat
percent extremists content, but it also needs to be able to prevent it from being amplified stories like this typically lead to people calling for more censorship and more action.
As it stands. Online services are protected by something called section. Two thirty of the telecommunications Decency ACT which states that a plan
and will not be held liable for the content on their service, so you can't sue them
reliable or actually take any action against them because someone else posted to them, but in the broad first amendment argument they claim they can sense or any content they want. Most of this hinges on the fact that there are plans form not a publisher. Publishers are like the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal. They choose what goes on their front page there
or they are responsible. However, Facebook actually argues they're both so why
are they still being protected when they take this action in a story from Vocs the Facebook Free speech battle explained, is Facebook, a platform
Our publisher, when uses, are getting banned, it makes a difference. The story says: infill wars is a publisher Alex Jones was
the publisher and director of and for war since its launch in ninety. Ninety nine can publish what he wants on it. If I
pitch, Alex jobs and an article four info worse. He would be under no obligation whatsoever to publish it Amazon Kindle as a platform, which means Amazon provides the means by which to create or engage with content, but it doesn't create most of the content itself.
Or do a lot of the policing of it. They say an even better example. The platform might be a company like Verizon or T Mobile, which provide software and the network for you to make phone calls or send texts, but doesn't sensor your phone calls or texts. Even if your arranging to commit a crime vocs continues. Referencing section two thirty of the communications decency act and then goes on to say that Facebook is trying to have its cake and eat it too. At times, Facebook has argued that it's a platform, but at other times like in court, that it's a publisher,
in public facing venues. Facebook prefers to itself as a platform or just a tech company. They reference several times that Facebook has referred to itself as a platform and how wired magazine and add age have said it's a platform on a publisher. They say in court. Facebooks own attorneys have argued. The
was it in court proceedings stemming from a lawsuit filed by an app developer in twenty eighteen. A facebook attorney argued that because phase, but was a publisher, it could work like a newspaper and thus have the ability to determine what to publish and what not to the publisher. Discretion is a free speech right, irrespective of what technological means is used. A newspaper has a publisher function, whether they are doing it.
On their website in a printed copy or through the news alerts. Basically, what allows Facebook, twitter and other sites to censor and remove content is a free speech argument that they should not be compelled to speak. That would make them a publisher if there are platform they're not
compelled to speak simply because I own a stage doesn't mean I'm speaking because you stood on it. You would see the person standing on the stage, not the guy who made the stage, but a facebook wants to build.
Well sure they are now liable for the content on their site. Making this whole thing really really complicated, well, vocs
does go on to criticise. Politics have lots and I feel, like their argument, is actually rather weak.
They mention how politics of Watson wants some people to be banned, but not him when in reality it sounds like Paul
The argument is that they're calling him extreme or dangerous, but leaving on actual extreme and dangerous,
content, not so much you saying they should be banned, but that is a clear double standard figuring out what
we're going to do about censorship is going to take a little bit of time. It there's a lot of resources and lot of legal expertise. Some people have argued that getting rid of or amending section, two thirty won't do anything
All that would do is give you the right to sue Facebook. If someone lies about you and what actually get
anyone has a right to the platform, but there is a case happening right now in Poland, which may make some changes, at least in Poland, but it still interesting. A story from Bloomberg says banned from Facebook. A polish court may help a polish group is suing Facebook for price
censorship and potentially landmark case story, essentially talks about a group called sin for short, which was producing completely legal content in an attempt to get people off of drugs. They say it may be controversially soft on drug users, but the approach has been backed by the United Nations and influential private donors and is by no means illegal. So why were they banned while the group does it know so? Their suing lawsuits like this could set a precedent, meaning facebook?
have to behave in a certain way in the future, but it may only have to do with Poland one. The most alarming things, if you were to ask me, is that Facebook saying you can still
most about info wars, but only if you post negatively, that is Facebook, is telling you what opinion you're allowed to express one
to me, that sounds like their literally a publisher. You can post on our platform. If you do acts and the initial report about the banning of
you novelists, Watson and others. They say in full. Wars is subject to the strictest ban
Facebook and Instagram will remove any content containing info wars, videos, radio segments or articles unless the post is explicitly condemning the content. Why should Facebook have the right to tell us what our
Indians are? How can they tell us sure you can talk about it as long as you don't like it? That's freaky that should be freaky to everybody, but we do have a really big problem when it comes to censorship debate Facebook
as they ban extremists dangerous conduct. While we know they dont from the original story, but the issue that is, if people have a right to social media acts
Where is the line drawn? Would terrorist propaganda be allowed on the platform so long as isn't a direct call to violence? Where'd, you draw the line. Many people on the left view conservatives as far right and they want them banned their concern about hate, speech or speech that is offensive or denigrating to certain protected classes. Conservatives disagree,
but who gets to draw the line? Because if we say that platform access is a civil right, then you're gonna see the worst of the worst on the platform. Maybe that's the way it should be, because that's how
exists in the real world? A lot of these people,
I've don't seem to understand. Harassment is already illegal. If some
miss harassing in you. You follow police report and the courts will determine if what they're doing is
criminal. However, someone saying mean words: that's not harassment, but again it's a line and that's what courts are four in the real world. People can go outside and say the craziest things possible. Why should it be any different on social media? It does provide a challenge and that these networks allow bubbles to form and allows people to fight
the community and rapidly escalate their rhetoric, in fact than a story from the outlet in twenty seventeen they talk about. This called MIKE's drop, how MIKE Dotcom, exploited, social justice for clicks and an abandoned,
Daphne I believed in it. The story talks about how might actually used to be fairly balanced, but then discovered a formula for generating clicks and true
and slowly change to become about identity politics, even launching an identity section. This created the sphere
where certain individuals could meet and then radicalized other
social media as a whole. Does this? So how do we addressed the problem? These people like to claim that you tube is radicalizing people. That's actually not really true, because Youtube Algorithmic resorts content and can push you away from works, dream content, but Facebook has
luckily has done. This story is from a year and a half ago. We know it's on many of these sites were built. They were generally
rage bait. To get you angry to get you to click and it worked, and it's not like you to worse, don't do this. Of course it can happen on Youtube and many people find a formula, make content and then get money from it, but that's not the same because
Youtube, you don't click share and then a Youtube user sees that video on Facebook. If I see
you can click share and that everyone sees it making viral content much more easy to share on Youtube. You can take the video
and send it somewhere out. So it's much harder to actually push people towards specific content. Buzzfeed vocs vice might all. Is companies discovered this and they utilised it. If we guarantee platform access as a civil right, how do we stop bad actors and
worst of the worst, I'm talking about Al Qaeda ISIS from
using these and exploiting it to generate followers and expand their reach. These are questions that need to be answered,
others have talked about. Our political censorship is bad on these platforms, but we're
we draw the line and how do we figured it out, you can go
below, and let me know if you think will keep the conversation going. You can follow me on minds at TIM
stay down: new videos, everyday four, P M
I have more videos for you on my second channel Youtube outcomes. Lashed him guess new start here
Six pm eastern banks rang it up and I'll see you around
Transcript generated on 2020-05-04.