Who made FB the arbiter of truth?

En Garde in the bunker…

So who made FB the arbiter of truth? Currently, as I write this, yours truly is in the throes of a 5th manifestation (this year alone), of what laughingly is referred to as ‘FB Jail’, that nonsensical behavior of your having been deemed in posts, to be spouting off ‘hate speech’ or whatever. Not by voice, but in the content of articles posted to the various and sundry people or groups available on the FB platform.

Now granted, one part of me avers to the response from one of the thread commenters, hashtag ‘starknakedtruth’ who bluntly expresses it ‘Why anyone still remains on FB is beyond me’. Or ‘zorcon’, ‘Do like me – Just don’t use Farcebook anymore. I killed that 6 years ago and miss it not’.

Mark Zuckerberg being grilled on Facebook policies…

Both excellent pointers, and both of which I have seriously considered many times. But honestly, I have so many years invested in the darned thing that pulling the plug would be a definite last resort. In an age when just about anything you disagree with is ‘hate,’ and a huge percentage of the general population accepts that standard, it’s almost impossible to find moderators who won’t knee-jerk ban.

*************************

EXAMPLE ONE (from Feb 13):

This comment goes against our Community Standards on spam: CLOSED ACTIVITY. About your comment. Feb 13 No one else can see your post. We have Community Standards to encourage people to express themselves and connect with each other in a way that’s respectful to everyone.

“… talking about which, Marie … <3 😉 There’s an interesting quote from president Trump when he was just another businessman plowing his way successfully forward in The Art of the Deal: ‘One of the problems when you become successful is that jealousy and envy inevitably follow. There are people – I categorize them as life’s losers – who get their sense of…” [682 more words..] Art of the deal still Trump dividend

*************************

EXAMPLE TWO (from Apr 29):

This post goes against our Community Standards on hate speech: CLOSED ACTIVITY. About your post Apr 29. No one else can see your post. We have Community Standards to encourage people to express themselves and connect with each other in a way that’s respectful to everyone.

” … Mexico drugs shoot-out kills 13. One soldier and at least 12 suspected members of Mexico’s Zeta drugs cartel are killed after marines stumble on a camp at a lake on the US border” … http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-13345393…. How was this experience?

*************************

Look out for this one for instance. Except for very isolated periods of a few days at a time, some people I exchange with have been banned from FB for up to 2 years or more. Not coincidentally, it generally happens every single time they respond to articles about you-know-who and dare USE the word you-know-what in a historically accurate response post.

One could very well posit that FB seems to be a front for CAIR. An organization that is antithetical to everything to do with a Constitutional Republic. So just where is the line of demarcation – FOR the Constitutional Republic, or AGAINST it. Just WHO is running the show here?

Taylor Day, opining on the topic in today’s American Thinker: ‘The Gatekeepers of Facebook’… (‘today’, by the way, being Monday, July 22nd., my 3rd day of current FB Jail)

Discussions about social media censorship have been going on long before Mark Zuckerberg appeared before Congress to testify about Facebook.  Figures like President Trump have brought to the national stage claims that social media giants are disproportionately censoring conservative voices.  What we should all be discussing though, is who exactly are the people that are censoring us?

Last month, employees contracted by Facebook to perform content moderation, broke their non-disclosure agreements (NDAs) to speak with Casey Newton, who then published a 7000-word, pseudo-expose on The Verge.

While Newton’s purpose of his article was to portray Facebook as running a de facto labor camp through contractors like Cognizant, using language like “sweatshop” and that moderators “fear for their lives,” he missed the most important aspect. Facebook moderators have the biggest impact on each user’s Facebook experience, arguably more than designers, developers, and IT security. But they are hired, trained and paid as though their job function were inconsequential.[-]

…[+] … Though Newton tried to paint a picture of a sweatshop and employee abuse, he seemed to dance around the biggest point of them all: Cognizant employees are not qualified or prepared to have this much control over our collective social media experience — and Facebook knows it.

When Facebook gave Cognizant a two-year, $200,000,000 contract and asked them to assist in North American content moderation, a goal of a 95% accuracy score was implemented.  Simply put, when a moderator takes an action on a post, whether censoring it, banning the user, or leaving it on Facebook, every 1 in 10 of their decisions are audited by another employee. The accuracy score is the percentage of times the auditor matches the decision of the moderator.  Cognizant has consistently failed to meet this goal, as their largest site’s genuine accuracy scores are in the eighty-percent range.

Continue to conclusion in link down below…

Then there’s EXAMPLE THREE – which is the current one under review, albeit it they’ve imposed a full week on this one, up to next Saturday, the 27th. The last one was May 27, three days in ‘FB Jail’.

This comment goes against our Community Standards on hate speech. IN REVIEW. ACTIVITY. About your comment. Jul 20. Only you can see this comment. If you request a review, we’ll have someone take another look at the comment.
“… That’s how ‘muzzies’ work … breed like rabbits with multiple “wives” and once they reach 10% of any population it’s lights out … that’s why Japan for one, don’t officially allow muzzies into their society… they especially don’t allow citizenship…” 
We’re reviewing your comment. Jul 20. Someone will be taking another look at this post.


********************

Now I’m no internet troll. Since around 2008 / 09, I’ve been using Facebook for personal reasons, to share my articles and the occasional meme. However, since February of this year, I find myself constantly being banned and for very ridiculous reasons.

We DO have, don’t we, existing laws concerning speech and a court system for civil grievances?

Allowing social media to control speech is much like a school monitor being able to control conversations among kids on the playground.  Social media isn’t running a controlled discussion, but a media where people communicate.

If  people don’t like what they hear from peers they can just unfriend them.  Blatant trolls should be the ones social media should ban but only with competent consensus.

When ordinary people are getting up to 30-day bans or their accounts deleted altogether, and often for posts that aren’t actually violating Facebook’s Community Standards, they are missing the connections from events that we primarily use Facebook for. Under a ban, users cannot comment, react, write personal messages or use any other of the application’s features, and that can really interfere with lives as we become more dependent on social media for news, personal relationships, networking and events.

And on that sobering note, time for today’s MAGA Pill – Warrior-president Donald J. Trump – MAGA!

*************************

See full Taylor Day piece in American Thinker: ‘The Gatekeepers of Facebook

One thought on “Who made FB the arbiter of truth?

  1. Pingback: A day at a time in a week of patience - DeeGeesLifeBlog – DeeGeesLifeBlog

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.