What does Section 230 actually say?

 One recurring theme of the past few years has been conservative allegations of unfairness on social media. Often these allegations have been paired with calls to reform or repeal Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which governs internet companies such as Facebook and Twitter. Twitter’s removal of the Hunter Biden email story is only the most recent example.

Many of the people who are talking about Section 230 have probably never read it. As a result, there is a lot of bad information about what the law says and does. In the words of Inigo Montoya, “I do not think it means what you think it means.”

To begin with, it’s important to understand why Section 230 became law in the first place. Last January, David French explained in Time how the law had its origins in a pair of federal court rulings from the 1990s. One ruling held that Compuserve could not be held liable for user-posted content because it did not moderate the discussion boards while the second did hold Prodigy liable because it moderated and removed comments that violated user guidelines.

Essentially, the two rulings created an all-or-nothing situation in which companies took on massive liability if they enforced any standards on users. The situation created an incentive for companies to take a hands-off approach from user forums, which would quickly allow the internet to deteriorate into a cesspool of filth.

Congress saw the problem and uncharacteristically took action. In 1996, Section 230 became law with strong bipartisan support in an attempt to find a middle ground between the two extremes. You can read the full text of Section 230 here, but the meat of the law is section (c):

(c) Protection for “Good Samaritan” blocking and screening of offensive material

(1) Treatment of publisher or speaker No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.

(2) Civil liability No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of—

(A) any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected; or

(B)any action taken to enable or make available to information content providers or others the technical means to restrict access to material described in paragraph (1).

One of the misconceptions about Section 230 is that social media companies are not considered publishers, but note that the law exempts them from being considered a publisher only in the case of posts “by another information content provider.” In other words, Twitter is not a a publisher of content posted by its users, but it is a publisher when it posts its own content.

As an example, when a news website posts an article, it is the publisher of that article and liable for its content. It is not, however, the publisher of the comments section and has no liability for what individuals post in response. This is as it should be.

Note also that Section 230 does not require viewpoint neutrality or objectivity. The law gives social media companies broad latitude to set their own standards and to enforce them. Content can be “constitutionally protected” and still be banned by the social media platform.

This is also as it should be. Social media companies are private platforms and the right to set their own standards is covered by the First Amendment right to free expression. Social media users have a First Amendment right to expression as well, but that right does not include a right to access on a platform that belongs to someone else.

Because social media companies are private, not government entities, the First Amendment does not apply in cases of posts being throttled or removed. Ironically, the right-wing calls for more regulation of social media are literally requests to restrict the First Amendment to combat perceived censorship. The idea is absurd on its face.

It’s also ironic that much of the battle against social media censorship is being carried out on… wait for it… social media. The fact that social media platforms are, for the most part, open marketplaces of ideas is evident by the fact that Donald Trump and a myriad of others can attack Twitter for censorship on Twitter itself undercuts the argument that social media censorship is a serious problem.

This isn’t to say that social media standards and enforcement don’t have problems. There definitely seems to be a bias against conservatives and Republicans. The social media giants should be evenhanded in the enforcement of their standards, but this is more of a customer service issue than one of censorship.

And some of the problem is self-induced by right-wing posters. I know many people who push the bounds of decency and then brag about being banned. In some circles, victim status from having spent time in “Facebook jail” or “Twitmo” gives the user street cred.

More than encouraging fairness, the effect of repealing Section 230 would likely be to end social media as we know it. Companies would have the choice of either no regulation, a world in which threats and obscene material could not be removed, or strict liability for everything posted by every user. Many discussion forums would probably be taken down. If not, decent people would flee as social media became even more vile.

Rather than an expansion of government and encroachment on the First Amendment, a better solution would be for disaffected Twitter and Facebook users to vote with their feet and find an alternative. Parler was the rage among Republicans a few months ago and other competitors will arise to fill any niche created by tech company bias. The social media giants can change or risk losing traffic and revenue. The solution is in free markets, not growing government.

This is especially true on the eve of an election in which Republicans are preparing for a bloodbath. Allowing government to determine what is “fair” strikes me as a bad idea at any time but especially when Democrats are about to take control of both the White House and Congress.

Originally published on The First TV

Why Trump’s Social Media Executive Order Is Both Illegal And Unwise

Today Donald Trump signed an Executive Order punishing social media companies for the way they moderate online content. The order was specifically aimed at Twitter, which has embarrassed the president this week by add fact-checks to several Trump tweets.

The meat of the Executive Order attacks Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996, saying, “When an interactive computer service provider removes or restricts access to content and its actions do not meet the criteria of subparagraph (c)(2)(A), it is engaged in editorial conduct. It is the policy of the United States that such a provider should properly lose the limited liability shield of subparagraph (c)(2)(A) and be exposed to liability like any traditional editor and publisher that is not an online provider.”

Here is what subparagraph (c)(2)(A) says:

No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of—(A) any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected

Communications Decency Act, subparagraph (c)(2)(A)

The law gives social media companies, “interactive computer services,” wide latitude to moderate a wide variety of objectionable content. The law specifically says that even constitutionally protected material can be restricted if the action is taken in good faith.

Another relevant portion of the law is subparagraph (c)(1) which is literally one sentence before the paragraph cited by the president’s Executive Order. That line says:

No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.

In other words, the law specifically says that social media companies cannot be treated as publishers of information that they do not produce. Despite the plain language of the law, the president’s Executive Order calls on social media companies to be treated like “any traditional editor and publisher that is not an online provider.” Since laws passed by Congress have more weight than an Executive Order, President Trump’s decree is illegal on its face.

Beyond the illegality of the order, its premise is also wrong. In contrast to many Republicans who claim that Section 230 gives special protections to social media companies, the law actually offers protection based on activity rather than status. When Twitter moderates or removes tweets published by its users, it is protected from liability under the law but, when it produces its own content, it is legally a publisher.

“In plain English, this means that my comments on Twitter or Google or Yelp or the comments section of my favorite website are my comments, and my comments only,” David French explained in Time back in January, adding that Section 230 “allows websites to take down racial slurs – all without suddenly also becoming liable for all the rest of their users’ speech.”

This is exactly what Congress intended when it passed the law. In response to several court cases in the 1990s, Congress designed Section 230 to encourage internet providers to moderate and remove offensive content from their platforms rather than allowing the internet to continue to be a cesspool of insults, pornography, and fake news. Well, even more of one anyway.

As Jeff Kosseff, author of The 26 Words That Created The Internet, explained, “For Congress, the motivator for Section 230 was that it did not want platforms to be these neutral conduits, whatever that means. It wanted the platforms to moderate content.”

The rub is that if the government leaves it up to the internet providers to moderate content then there will be as many different versions of what is offensive as there are internet providers. However, the alternative is that the government become the arbiter of what is fair and what is offensive for all companies.

That is where President Trump wants to go. Trump’s Executive Order calls on the Secretary of Commerce, the Attorney General, the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), and the FCC to issue regulations determining when internet providers are not acting in good faith, act inconsistently with terms of service, and without a meaningful explanation or allowing users to be heard.

While censorship on social media platforms is not currently a First Amendment issue since the Bill of Rights restricts the government and not private companies, Trump’s plan could make it more difficult to moderate offensive content on the internet by inserting the government into the equation. Twitter has the right to remove content as a private company but if the government directs Twitter to remove or moderate content then it could constitute a First Amendment violation.

Allowing the government to make subjective decisions about the management of content on the internet is never a good idea, but the summer of 2020 is a particularly bad time for Republicans to make such a move. Aside from the strategic fact that Trump’s proposal is an expansion of government into policing free speech on the internet, there are tactical considerations as well.

As we head into the 2020 elections, it looks increasingly likely that Republicans will lose both the presidency and the Senate. If Trump and company act now to set up an infrastructure for micromanaging speech on the internet, it is very possible that a Joe Biden Administration will put that policy fully into place. That fact alone should have been enough to slam the brakes on the Executive Order.

Regardless of the outcome of this year’s election, whatever bureaucratic restrictions the Trump Administration puts on free speech will one day be administered by Democrats. When that happens, it is very likely that the Democrats will use those rules against conservatives. When Republicans give the government a new weapon to brandish, they should remember that sooner or later it will be turned against them.

Originally published on The Resurgent

Facebook Is Still Up To Its Old Tricks

Less than two weeks ago, Facebook announced its intention to reform itself to address conservative concerns of bias. Facebook’s changes were in response to an audit led by former Republican Senator Jon Kyl and included an appeals process and more transparency in why content is removed by the social media platform. Now it seems that Facebook is already up to its old tricks.

On Friday, Live Action tweeted that Facebook had flagged a post stating that “abortion is never medically necessary” as “false news.” Facebook’s notification to Live Action notes that “Facebook reduces the distribution of misleading content while showing additional reporting on the same topic” and warns that “pages and websites that repeatedly publish or share misleading content will see their overall distribution reduced, their ability to monetize and advertise removed, and their ability to register as a news Page removed.”

https://twitter.com/LiveAction/status/1167547494307418112?s=20

Science Feedback, the organization that fact-checked the Live Action posts, rates the claim that “abortion is never medically necessary” as “inaccurate.” The group, which claims to be nonpartisan, argues that some medical conditions “such as pre-eclampsia, HELLP syndrome and placenta previa, in which abortion could become medically necessary in order to save the life of the mother.” The group also points out that “In order for early delivery to save both the life of mother and child, the fetus first needs to have developed sufficiently that it stands a chance of surviving outside of the womb.”

In an interview with Fox News, Live Action President Lila Rose responded, “We have doctors, OBGYNs, [who are] board-certified, who are also featured in our videos, who are saying the exact same thing. In fact, thousands of doctors agree with Live Action, with me, that abortion is not a medical treatment.”

Earlier this year, American medical leaders representing more than 30,000 doctors signed a letter at The Public Discourse which stated, “It is never necessary to intentionally kill a fetal human being to save a woman’s life.” In 1981, Surgeon General C. Everett Koop said, “The fact of the matter is that abortion as a necessity to save the life of the mother is so rare as to be nonexistent.” Even Dr. Alan Guttmacher, a former president of Planned Parenthood, said as far back as 1967, “Today it is possible for almost any patient to be brought through pregnancy alive, unless she suffers from a fatal illness such as cancer or leukemia, and, if so, abortion would be unlikely to prolong, much less save, life.”

Rose also told Fox News that Live Action had contacted Facebook and was told to contact the fact-checkers with its concerns. It seems that, with a difference in opinion between medical professionals on both sides, that Live Action’s case would be a likely candidate for Facebook’s new oversight board. Labeling Live Action as “false news” seems to be an overreaction since the controversy seems to boil down to a quibble between the word’s “never” and “hardly ever.”

Live Action is not the only conservative facing sanction from Facebook, however. I have had recent reports from members of conservative Facebook groups who say that they are still being sent to “Facebook jail” for posts that do not violate Facebook’s community standards. In one example, a meme depicting Charles Manson morphing into Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez led to two of my Facebook acquaintances receiving a 24-hour ban. The picture was what those of us in the South would refer to as “tacky,” but it didn’t seem to violate Facebook’s written standards.

One of the Facebook users shared the meme with me along with several screenshots. In violation of Facebook’s promise to be transparent, the notification only says that the post violated community standards and did not give a specific reason. The notification offered the user to “see options” in order to “learn more about this post and see what you can do.” When this option was selected, it led to a blank screen with an exclamation point icon. There was no explanation as to what community standard was violated or how to appeal to the oversight board.

As a private company, Facebook has the right to set its own rules and pick what sort of content to allow on its platform. However, if the social media giants want to be public forums for political discussion, they must do a better job of not discriminating against conservative viewpoints. Otherwise, Facebook will find many of its users migrating to competing platforms that don’t discriminate against conservative content+9. No company, no matter how big, is infallible.

Earlier this month, Facebook made a commitment to enforce its community standards with more fairness. Maybe the company is truly trying to improve how it polices conservative content, but it has a long way to go.

Originally published on The Resurgent

Facebook Makes Changes To Win Conservative Trust

The long-awaited results of Facebook’s year-long audit have been released. Unsurprisingly, the report shows that conservatives don’t trust the social media platform for a variety of reasons.

Per Axios’ exclusive report of the audit results, conservative complaints about Facebook fell into six broad categories. These include concerns that Facebook algorithms make it more difficult to spread conservative content, that community standards that label some long-held traditional beliefs as hate speech, that enforcement was biased against conservatives, that Facebook labeling an ad as “political” would jeopardize tax-exempt status, about long approval times for time-sensitive ads, and that Facebook employees writing rules and community standards were biased against conservatives.

The audit was conducted by Jon Kyl, the former Republican senator from Arizona at Facebook’s request. Kyl describes the process in the Wall Street Journal today. The audit consisted of 133 interviews with “individuals, groups, and lawmakers who either use, study or could potentially regulate Facebook,” beginning in August 2018.

In response to the audit’s findings, Facebook has already committed to a series of reforms that are specifically intended to benefit conservatives. The first reforms include:

·        Oversight board – A board will be formed to hear appeals for difficult content-removal cases.

·        Explanations of news-feed rankings – Facebook is launching “transparency tools” that will explain why the content that users see in their feed is there.

·        Page transparency – Page owners can now see when content has been removed for violating community standards and when distribution is reduced due to “false” ratings from fact-checkers.

·        Staffing – Facebook has hired four new employees to work with small groups and answer questions and complaints about content removal.

·        Ad labeling requirements -  Rather than labeling ads as “political,” ads will now be classified as “about social issues, elections or politics.”

·        Ad policies – Facebook has changed a policy that prohibited ads that showed medical tubes in patients. The change will make it easier to get pro-life ads approved.

“We believe these and other measures described in our interim report are steps in the right direction,” Kyl writes. “Yet these are complicated issues, some of which involve conflicting opinions even among conservatives. For that reason, restoring trust fully may remain an elusive goal. Conservatives no doubt will, and should, continue to press Facebook to address the concerns that arose in our survey.”

In a statement, Facebook VP of Global Affairs and Communications Nick Clegg, wrote, “Regardless of one’s own political views, this is about whether we apply our own policies fairly to all sides, and whether those policies begin with an understanding of how core groups of users express their beliefs.”

“While we err on the side of free speech, there are critical exceptions,” Clegg added. “We don’t allow content that might encourage offline harm or is intended to intimidate, exclude or silence people. And we work to slow and reduce the spread of content like debunked hoaxes and clickbait by downranking it in News Feed. We know we need to listen more as we work to strike the right balance with these policies.”

“Even if we could craft them in a way that pleased all sides, when dealing with such nuanced issues, involving policies that apply to billions of posts, we will inevitably make some bad calls, some of which may appear to strike harder at conservatives,” Clegg acknowledged.

The new reforms are merely the first step in Facebook’s attempts to fairly enforce its rules. The process is ongoing and Kyl’s team will issue another report in a few months.

Many conservatives on Facebook have spent time in “Facebook jail” for seemingly innuous posts or had content removed will understandably be skeptical of the social media giant’s commitment to fairness, but today’s announcements mark a significant victory for both conservative users of social media and free markets in general. As a private platform, the company does have the right to enforce its own rules and restrict objectionable content, but it has responded to consumer pressure to enforce its rules more fairly. This is not only good news for conservatives on Facebook but also for advocates of small government who were skeptical of conservative calls to regulate the social media platforms in the name of “fairness.”

Originally published on The Resurgent

You Can See “Unplanned” In Theaters, But You Won’t See Its Ads On Most TV Channels

The new pro-life movie, “Unplanned,” scored big points at the box office on its opening weekend. The story of Planned Parenthood executive-turned-pro-life activist, Abby Johnson, earned more than $6.1 million on its opening weekend, enough to rank fourth in gross revenues. The strong performance was despite many networks refusing to run ads for the socially conservative film.

The creators of “Unplanned” told The Hollywood Reporter that they tried to buy advertising from a number of cable networks, but few channels other than Fox News and the Christian Broadcast Network would accept the ads. Among the networks that refused to air commercials for the move were Lifetime, the Travel Channel, Cooking Channel, HGTV, Food Network, the Hallmark Channel and USA Network.

“We were looking to spend money, but they didn't want to get involved,” John Sullivan, one of the film’s producers, said.

“Most of the networks didn't go into detail beyond citing the subject matter of the film and that they didn't want to get into politics. But we don't believe we're in the political category,” Joe Knopp, another producer added, despite the fact that the film was screened at CPAC.

Several networks, including Lifetime, cited the “sensitive nature of the film” in refusing the ads. Up TV, a family-friendly network, and some Christian radio stations cited the film’s R-rating in denying the ads. The Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) gave the film an R-rating in February due to “some disturbing/bloody images” in a scene that uses a computer-generated image of a sonogram to simulate an abortion, noted CNS News. The film’s marketers pointed out that Lifetime, which is owned by A&E, a joint venture of Hearst Communications and Disney, previously promoted an interview with Scarlet Johansson in which the actress promoted Planned Parenthood.

Despite being handicapped by the lack of television advertising, “Unplanned” did extremely well in its opening weekend. The movie finished the weekend in fourth place after “Dumbo,” “Us,” and “Captain Marvel,” per Box Office Mojo. When the fact that “Unplanned” was shown on only 1,059 screens is taken into account, its revenue per screen outperformed “Captain Marvel,” which was released on March 8.

“We are thrilled, gratified and humbled,” co-directors Cary Solomon and Chuck Konzelma said in a statement. “We are so pleased that the American people have responded with such an enormous outpouring of support at the box office. It humbles us and we look forward to seeing what happens in the weeks ahead.”

The financial success of “Unplanned” is largely due to Glenn Beck, who actively promoted the movie, and MyPillow founder, Mike Lindell, who was both an investor and promoter. The CPAC screening sparked word-of-mouth and social media recommendations by conservative activists.

The movie also may have benefitted from a controversy over the weekend in which Twitter suspended the account for “Unplanned.” Twitter told the Daily Caller that the account was “mistakenly caught in our automated systems for ban evasion.” The account was ultimately reinstated, but the spat may have inspired some conservatives to get out and go see the movie.

Pure Flix, the production company for “Unplanned,” has also produced such films as “God’s Not Dead,” “Mom’s Night Out,” and “The Case For Christ” as well as a number of movies about Biblical characters. The company also operates an on-demand video streaming service and offers a free home school curriculum.

Originally published on The Resurgent

Trump Order On College Censorship Is A Nothingburger (But That’s A Good Thing)

President Trump recently promised an Executive Order targeting the suppression of free speech on college campuses and yesterday he delivered. The president followed up on his pledge to conservatives at CPAC, but whether the new Executive Order will actually change the situation is doubtful.

Compared with the president’s strong promise that “If a college or university does not allow you to speak, we will not give them money. It's that simple,” the text of the Executive Order is much less strident. In fact, Inside Higher Education calls the actual content of the Order “modest.”

In preparing for this article, I read through the seven-page order, which was reportedly in the works before Mr. Trump’s CPAC speech, and found very little about restricting funds from colleges that abridge the speech of their students. It does say that “it is the policy of the federal government to… promote open, intellectually engaging, and diverse debate,” but the Order then veers into counseling students about choosing a beneficial degree and avoiding default on federal student loans.

With respect to free speech, the president orders the Office of Management and Budget to “take appropriate steps, in a manner consistent with applicable law, including the First Amendment, to ensure institutions that receive Federal research or education grants promote free inquiry, including through compliance with all applicable Federal laws, regulations, and policies.” The Order then establishes new reporting requirements, but these deal more with student loan debt and whether students complete their degrees in a “timely and affordable” fashion.

In other words, the president is telling the OMB to enforce current law. In other words, the Executive Order is a nothingburger.

With President Trump, that’s a good thing. The likely alternative would be that the president would declare a national free speech emergency and use it to seize funds from colleges that are accused of restricting free speech. As an added bonus, the president might even try to divert those funds to the construction of the wall.

The reality is that when Congress appropriated grants to colleges, it placed certain restrictions on the use of those funds. The Executive Order does nothing to place new restrictions on the money that has already been designated by Congress. To do so would most likely be unconstitutional.

Free speech – or the lack of it – is definitely an issue on many college campuses, but the solution is not unilateral action by the president. Presidential action that violates existing law would be a particularly bad idea, but the general idea of getting the federal government involved as the arbiter of free speech is not a small government solution. Having the federal government play the referee is only a good idea as long as the head of the federal government is a free speech proponent. Few conservatives would be comfortable with the idea of Bernie Sanders or Kamala Harris as the defender of their First Amendment rights and with good reason. However, that might be what they get if they seek a larger federal role in policing campus speech.

There is already a remedy for college students whose free speech rights are abridged. Students have successfully sued to force public colleges to uphold their First Amendment rights on a number of occasions. Last December, a student of the Los Angeles Community College District won the right to pass out copies of the US Constitution on campus. As part of the settlement, the school dismantled its designated “free speech zones.” The same month, UC Berkeley settled another lawsuit filed by   Berkeley College Republicans and the Young America’s Foundation. The conservative groups alleged that Ann Coulter and David Horowitz were forced to cancel events because Berkeley restricted when and where they could speak. The plaintiffs also said that Berkeley placed different restrictions on conservative speakers and groups than it did for liberals. The settlement included $70,000 to pay attorney fees for the plaintiffs and prohibits the school from charging security fees based on concerns that the “viewpoints, opinions, or anticipated expression” of the speakers or their sponsors “might provoke disturbances.”

Viewpoint censorship on college campuses is a serious issue and President Trump’s heart seems to be in the right place, but proclaiming the new Executive Order is a solution to the problem is dishonest. There is very little new ground broken in the Order, but that isn’t a bad thing since the president lacks the authority to do much more. At best, the Executive Order shines a light on the problem.

Originally published on The Resurgent

Jesse Kelly Speaks Out About His Lifetime Ban From Twitter

Jesse Kelly, the conservative pundit and Iraq War veteran who received a lifetime ban from Twitter over the weekend, talked about his ban with Tucker Carlson on Fox News yesterday. Kelly said that he still doesn’t know exactly why Twitter banned him.

“Nobody knows” exactly what prompted the Twitter ban, Kelly told Carlson. “Twitter kicked me off the platform because I was a mainstream voice on the right that spoke the truth.”

“They’ve given me no explanation as they told Congress they would give explanations,” he added. “All they sent was an email that said, ‘You are permanently banned and you can’t appeal it for repeated rule violations,’ only I don’t violate their rules. I don’t cuss at people on there, I don’t harass people on there. I don’t do any of those ugly things that some people do.”

“My account vanished like a Hillary Clinton email,” Kelly joked ruefully.

When asked if he had contacted Twitter, Kelly said that there was no phone number to call and that his account was totally disabled so that he could not even email Twitter’s customer support team. He said that he had emailed some people who worked at Twitter but did not expect a response.

“They did exactly what I said they would do,” Kelly told Carlson. “They came for Alex Jones first because he’s a nut job and they wanted to see how the right would react. They got him and I knew they were coming for me. They’ll come for you too.”

“It’s not a big deal that I got kicked off Twitter,” Kelly said. “It hurts Twitter worse than it hurt me because they finally kicked off somebody that woke everybody on the right up. People are now starting to realize what Twitter has become.”

Kelly said that Twitter is “a blank piece of paper” that “somehow woke up and decided… that they were in control of what gets put on that piece of paper.”

“That’s not where their power lies,” he added.

“If they continue along this path, it’s going to be nothing but two feminists screaming at each other because one of them accidentally found a boyfriend,” Kelly joked.

The social media giants “have the best of both worlds,” Kelly said. “They are treated like media platforms… where people can post what they want as long as it’s not inciting violence, only they are acting like Think Progress, they are acting like the New York Times, because these radical voices on the left never get censored.”

“Even [Louis] Farrakhan, that complete scumbag that has a tweet still up comparing Jews to termites, he still has an account, but I post things about Velveeta and mine gets banished,” Kelly complained.

  Originally published on The Resurgent

Now Facebook Will Tell You Why You're In 'Facebook Jail'

If you’ve engaged in political discussions on Facebook, the chances are good that you have had posts deleted and even spent some time in “Facebook jail,” the euphemism for temporary bans that put users in “timeout” when they get caught posting something inappropriate. A big problem is that Facebook’s community standards were vague and unevenly applied. Many users didn’t know what standard they were accused of violating and had no way to appeal Facebook’s decision. Now that has changed.

Today Facebook released its full community standards playbook, an 8,000-word guide that is used by the company’s 7,500 moderators. The guide is split into six sections that are based on specific types of posts that can be removed. These include violence and criminal behavior, safety, objectionable content, integrity and authenticity, intellectual property and content-related requests. The company says that the standards will continue to be updated frequently.

Many of the problematic posts are straightforward, but there are many exceptions. For example, Facebook says, “we default to removing sexual imagery,” but “make allowances for the content” that fits certain criteria such as when it is “a form of protest, to raise awareness about a cause, or for educational or medical reasons.”

“We remove content that glorifies violence or celebrates the suffering or humiliation of others,” Facebook says, but “we allow graphic content (with some limitations) to help people raise awareness about issues.”

Regarding the sticky issue of hate speech, Facebook lists a number of protected categories that include “race, ethnicity, national origin, religious affiliation, sexual orientation, sex, gender, gender identity, and serious disability or disease” as well as “some protections for immigration status.” Facebook does not allow attacks, defined as “violent or dehumanizing speech, statements of inferiority, or calls for exclusion or segregation,” on these groups.

Hate speech is divided into three tiers. Tier 1 attacks are violent speech. Tier 2 attacks are “statements of inferiority.” Tier 3 attacks are calls to exclude protected groups.

There have been reports of Facebook users reposting threats that they have received and then being banned. Facebook says that if hate speech is reposted for the purpose of raising awareness, “we expect people to clearly indicate their intent, which helps us better understand why they shared it.” Otherwise the content may be removed.

When it comes to “fake news,” Facebook allows it. Noting that there is “a fine line between false news and satire or opinion,” the company says, “we don't remove false news from Facebook but instead, significantly reduce its distribution by showing it lower in the News Feed.”

Engadget points out that Facebook addressed accusations of viewpoint bias that results in uneven application of the rules in a recent blog post. “Our reviewers are not working in an empty room; there are quality control mechanisms in place, and management on site, that reviewers can look to for guidance,” the company said.

When the company makes a mistake, new policies will allow users to appeal the removal of content, Monika Bickert, Facebook’s vice president of product policy and counter-terrorism, told Reuters. In the past, only the removal of accounts, groups and pages could be appealed. Bickert also said that Facebook would begin to provide specific reasons for why the content was removed.

It’s important to remember that the First Amendment does not apply to Facebook and social media. The constitutional guarantee of free speech applies only to government restrictions. Private companies like Facebook have the right to police their communities as they see fit, but unless the companies respect freedom of speech they will ultimately chase users away to more open platforms. There has already been much talk online  from conservatives about leaving Facebook and Twitter in the wake of the news that the companies favor liberal viewpoints.  

Facebook’s new openness about community standards seems to be an attempt to fix the problem of vague standards for users. As Bickert said, “You should, when you come to Facebook, understand where we draw these lines and what’s OK and what’s not OK.”

Now if Facebook would just apply those standards evenly across the political spectrum. 

Originally published on The Resurgent

Facebook Deletes Admins On Popular Trump Page

The idea behind net neutrality was that internet users would be protected from punishment or from being restricted from internet access for their political beliefs. Unfortunately, political persecution of social media users already seems to be happening, not at the hands of the government, but by the tech companies themselves. Facebook, recently in the news for sharing data on its users with Cambridge Analytica, has a long history of stifling conservative speech. Now the administrators of a large pro-Trump Facebook page say that the company removed them from control of their page for no reason.

Thomas Pappert and Adam Rogers (a pseudonym), the administrators of the Facebook page “God Emperor Trump,” say that Facebook deleted them from their positions on the page, but did not remove the page itself or any of the posts on the page. At the time of writing, the page was still available for viewing on Facebook, but the pair say that they won't be able to post new content, other than posts that had already been scheduled when they were removed.

The page with its 335,000 followers represents three years of work for Pappert and Rogers. A press release on the Department of Memes says that the page administrators received an email from Facebook at 2:30 pm on March 29. Screen shots provided to Resurgent show a message from Facebook security that says, “You're getting this email to confirm that you're no longer an admin on God Emperor Trump.” The email instructed the admins to have another admin add them back or to contact Facebook.

“In the email we received from Facebook informing us of their decision to remove us from the page, there is a link we could click if we felt it was done improperly. When we click the link, it then leads us to another link, where we can fill out a report,” said Rogers. “When we go to this final page, the 'report' function is broken. It says Facebook had an error and to try again later.”

“It's done this for all of our admins, on different browsers, and across several different states,” he added.

The men say that their page was unpublished twice before and restored by Facebook. Rogers says that publicity from conservative media outlets helped get the page restored in those cases. “They were able to get the attention of actual humans at Facebook, who blamed the decision on an 'algorithmic failure' both times,” he says.

Whether a problematic algorithm or a rogue employee like the one who deleted President Trump's Twitter account last year, biased enforcement of social media rules is a growing problem. The lack of recourse for social media bans and the inability to contact customer service at the tech giants makes getting banned very frustrating for users.

In the wake of “fake news” and Russian bot scandals from 2016, Facebook and Twitter seem to be responding by cracking down on many conservative accounts and pages. A Project Veritas video in January revealed Twitter executives admitting to using “shadow bans” to censor conservative viewpoints. Twitter seems to easily verify liberal accounts while those on the right (including the author) have difficulty getting the accreditation. Conservative pages on Facebook have seen their circulation drop in the wake of new algorithms that prioritize “news that is trustworthy, informative, and local” in Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg's words.

Because the social media companies are not the government, the First Amendment does not apply. Private companies can allow or ban posts and users as they see fit. Some, including Zuckerberg, are calling for regulation of the companies to force them to do the right thing with regard to privacy and free speech, but, as the IRS scandal from the Obama Administration shows, even the government can't be trusted to be impartial.

If social media companies want to censor conservative speech, the only other option might be for conservatives to leave the platforms and go to sites that are specifically created for conservatives. This approach has been taken by members of the alt-right who have created alternative sites where their views are accepted.

Social media sites have every right to run their businesses as they see fit, but forcing conservatives to flee to other platforms would be bad for the country as we divide ourselves further into opposing camps that interact with each other less and less. We already have separate news channels and websites. Facebook and Twitter are among the few places where Americans hear opposing viewpoints.

It would also be bad for stockholders if censorship drives users and ad revenue away. Facebook, a company less than 20 years old, has a near monopoly on social media now, but monopolies don't last forever and forcing users to develop competing platforms may accelerate the process of turning Facebook into the next Standard Oil.

FCC Chairman Attacks Twitter For Viewpoint Discrimination

Fresh from his announcement of a plan to repeal net neutrality rules, FCC Chairman Ajit Pai is going on the offensive against tech companies that limit the online speech of conservatives. Pai singled out Twitter for blocking an ad campaign by a Republican senatorial candidate.

While net neutrality rules focus internet service providers, Pai argues that it is the “edge providers,” companies like Google, Facebook, and Twitter that provide content directly to users, that “are a much bigger actual threat to an open Internet than broadband providers, especially when it comes to discrimination on the basis of viewpoint” per CNN.

“When it comes to a free and open internet, Twitter is part of the problem,” Pai said.

In October, Twitter blocked an ad campaign by Marsha Blackburn, a Republican campaigning for the seat of the retiring Bob Corker (R-Tenn.). Twitter said that a video containing the line, “I fought Planned Parenthood and we stopped the sale of baby body parts,” violated its advertising standards. Politico reports that Twitter did not remove the video, but did not allow the Blackburn campaign to pay to promote it.

“Anyone voluntarily following her account could see it, as is their choice as a consumer when they choose to follow her,” a Twitter spokesman told CNN. “Because advertisements are served to users who do not necessarily follow an account, we therefore have higher standards for their content.”

Earlier this month, Twitter also announced that it would remove the verification badges from accounts that violate company guidelines. The company revoked verification from some alt-right and white supremacist accounts such as Richard Spencer and Jason Kessler. Tim Gionet, another alt-right tweeter who used the handle “Baked Alaska,” was banned permanently.

Pai also criticized celebrities Cher, George Takei, Mark Ruffalo, and Alyssa Milano by name for what he called “absurd” statements about the repeal of net neutrality. Pai read a tweet by Ruffalo that claimed, “Taking away #NetNeutrality is the Authoritarian dream.”

“These comments are absurd,” Pai said. “Getting rid of government authority over the Internet is the exact opposite of authoritarianism.”

Several companies have been fined for violating net neutrality since the FCC adopted the standard in 2005. These cases stem from companies blocking access to competing products rather than censoring opposing viewpoints. Earlier this year, AT&T was accused of restricting access to Facetime, an Apple video calling app, for users who had not purchased AT&T shared data plans.

The FCC board members will vote on the repeal of net neutrality at their meeting on Dec. 14.

Originally published on The Resurgent

Facebook bans conservative meme

Screenshot of Facebook notification (David W. Thornton)

It looks like Facebook is at it again. The social media giant has a history of bias against conservatives and was the subject of criticism in May after whistleblowers revealed that Facebook employees suppressed conservative news on the site. In recent weeks, owners of conservative sites say that Facebook banned a meme that called transgenders “mental disorders.”

The meme in question, shown nearby, shows 32 gender symbols. The list starts with the traditional Mars and Venus symbols for male and female, but then includes new symbols ranging from various transgender symbols to “androgyne” to “demiagender (with third gender).” The two traditional genders were circled in green and labeled “genders.” The other 30 symbols were circled in red and labeled “mental disorders.”

In at least two cases, Facebook has unilaterally removed the meme from conservative Facebook pages while offering no recourse or appeal for the page owners.

Devin Pelkey, owner of the Conservative Soapbox page on Facebook, said, “My account was logged out on my phone, the Pages Manager [app] and Messenger [app]. I was asked to voluntarily suspend my page to remove other content that violated the Facebook terms of service.” Pelkey said that he was not the creator of the meme.

The notification that Facebook sent includes a link to Facebook’s community standards. There was no indication which standard was violated, but presumably it fell under the “encouraging respectful behavior” heading. The preface to the section reads:

People use Facebook to share their experiences and to raise awareness about issues that are important to them. This means that you may encounter opinions that are different from yours, which we believe can lead to important conversations about difficult topics. To help balance the needs, safety, and interests of a diverse community, however, we may remove certain kinds of sensitive content or limit the audience that sees it.

In the same section, under “hate speech,” the standards state:

Facebook removes hate speech, which includes content that directly attacks people based on their:

·         Race,

·         Ethnicity,

·         National origin,

·         Religious affiliation,

·         Sexual orientation,

·         Sex, gender, or gender identity, or

·         Serious disabilities or diseases.

But did the meme constitute hate speech? Was it an attack on people for their gender identity?

According to Psychology Today, gender dysphoria is a real mental disorder:

Gender dysphoria (formerly Gender Identity Disorder) is defined by strong, persistent feelings of identification with the opposite gender and discomfort with one's own assigned sex that results in significant distress or impairment. People with gender dysphoria desire to live as members of the opposite sex and often dress and use mannerisms associated with the other gender. For instance, a person identified as a boy may feel and act like a girl.

The American Psychological Association website says “a psychological state is considered a mental disorder only if it causes significant distress or disability.” It then goes on to say, “According to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5), people who experience intense, persistent gender incongruence can be given the diagnosis of ‘gender dysphoria.’ Some contend that the diagnosis inappropriately pathologizes gender noncongruence and should be eliminated. Others argue that it is essential to retain the diagnosis to ensure access to care.”

In other words, the APA recognizes gender dysphoria but doesn’t consider it a mental disorder unless it is upsetting to the individual. This is in spite of the fact that the APA acknowledges that gender dysphoria is listed as mental disorder in psychological manuals.

Last year, former Johns-Hopkins psychiatrist-in-chief Dr. Paul McHugh wrote in the Wall St. Journal that gender confusion “constitutes a mental disorder in two respects. The first is that the idea of sex misalignment is simply mistaken—it does not correspond with physical reality. The second is that it can lead to grim psychological outcomes.”

Facebook seems to be allowing liberal bias to outweigh scientific reality in the case of speech critical of transgenders. At the very least, there is a robust debate about whether transgender is a mental disorder. Facebook’s own community standards purport to support such an “important conversation.”

Jeff Thomas, an administrator for The Common Sense Conservative page, said that his page had the same experience as Pelkey’s Conservative Soapbox. The post had been up for about a week and was generating a lot of attention and discussion, which Facebook says it encourages. Then, with no warning, the post was suddenly removed.

When Facebook removes a post, the person who posted it is notified. They have to click “continue” on the notification to get back to their account. There is no appeal if the decision is wrong or unfair. In fact, it is very difficult to contact Facebook about anything. Facebook’s help tab contains a link to “contact your grievance officer” that only works in India, but there is also a “give us feedback” link that allows users to send a message to Facebook.

Thomas says that the administrators for the page sent a feedback message to Facebook explaining about gender dysphoria. So far, they have not received a reply other than a form email that says that “we can’t respond to your emails individually, but we are paying attention to them.”

Thomas and Pelkey are both unhappy with the outcome in which an anonymous Facebook user used Facebook’s bureaucracy to quash a lively debate over an interesting and unsettled scientific and cultural topic with real-world implications.

“It’s some bullshit is what it is,” noted Pelkey.

Disclosure: The author is owner of the Common Sense Conservative page.

Read it on Conservative Firing Line 

Parental Advisory: Xbox Kinect game contains bestiality

There have been numerous debates about sex and violence in such popular video games as “Grand Theft Auto,” but many parents would probably be surprised to learn that a popular game being sold in a bundle with a sensor for Microsoft’s Xbox Kinect video game system contains scenes of graphic bestiality.

On a recent visit to an Atlanta-area Best Buy electronics store, the game was playing on the in-store Kinect demonstrator. The game, “The Gunstringer,” featured a skeletal cowboy who fights a surly lumberjack in a flashback. In the course of the fight, the lumberjack falls from a high platform and lands atop a large alligator. In a long scene, the lumberjack writhes atop the alligator in an unmistakably sexual manner.

The scene cuts away from the two to a movie audience, most of who look appalled with eyes wide and mouths agape. In one instance, a man watches laughing and the woman next to him angrily hits him. As the scene shifts to the next level of the game, the narrator speaks about the “terrible union” and the cowboy, now back in present day, must fight the offspring of the lumberjack and alligator.

“The Gunstringer” is made by Twisted Pixel Games and is rated “T for Teen.” According to the company’s website, the game is about a “skeleton cowboy marionette” out to get revenge on members of his former posse who left him for dead. The website says that the Gunstringer witnessed the conception of the “gatorjack,” who is now one of the hero’s archenemies.

The manager of the Best Buy said that he was unaware of the content of the video game demo and stated that he would look into the situation. He agreed that the content was not appropriate for an open store floor where children of all ages could see and play the game.

Best Buy’s central customer service had a similar response in an email. A company spokesman wrote, “I wouldn’t want to pick up a demo to play and see that” (emphasis in the original) and promised to forward the information to “corporate offices and store upper management so this doesn’t happen in any store.” The email ended with an apology. On a subsequent visit to the same store, the Kinect demo was not playing at all.

A representative from Microsoft’s Xbox support team pointed out that the Xbox Kinect allows users to limit the type of content viewed on the game system based on the rating level of the game. This includes online and offline content such as video games, movies, and television shows. He apologized for the inappropriate content of the game and said that the Xbox Development Team would investigate “the Gunstringer” to determine whether the “T for Teen” rating is appropriate for the game.

Video games are rated by the Entertainment Software Rating Board (ESRB). This is not a government agency, but a self-regulating trade group. According to the group’s description of the ratings on its website, “T for Teen” games may include “violence, suggestive themes, crude humor, minimal blood, simulated gambling, and/or infrequent use of strong language.” “Suggestive themes” are defined as “mild provocative references or materials.” “Crude humor” is “depictions or dialogue involving vulgar antics, including ‘bathroom’ humor.” ESRB content ratings for “the Gunstringer” also note that it contains “sexual themes.”

The response from Twisted Pixel Games was lukewarm and brief. Company spokesman Jay Stuckwisch said in an email, “Thanks for your concern and sorry you were offended by the game. We appreciate your feedback and understand why you would not be interested in purchasing the game.”

The problems with “the Gunstringer” illustrate the difficulties facing parents in protecting their children from inappropriate and offensive material. Dr. Phil recommends that, in addition to reviewing ratings for video games, movies and television shows, parents check company websites and talk to other parents to find out the details about what their children are being exposed to.

 

Read this article on Examiner.com:

 

http://www.examiner.com/conservative-in-atlanta/parental-advisory-popular-xbox-game-contains-bestiality