Facebook will label newsworthy posts that break rules as ad boycott widens

[rooster59]

Facebook will label newsworthy posts that break rules as ad boycott widens

By Elizabeth Culliford and Sheila Dang

 

FILE PHOTO: Facebook Chairman and CEO Mark Zuckerberg testifies at a House Financial Services Committee hearing in Washington, U.S., October 23, 2019. REUTERS/Erin Scott/File Photo

 

(Reuters) - Facebook Inc said on Friday it will start labeling newsworthy content that violates the social media company's policies, and label all posts and ads about voting with links to authoritative information, including those from politicians.

 

A Facebook spokeswoman confirmed its new policy would have meant attaching a link on voting information to U.S. President Donald Trump's post last month about mail-in ballots. Rival Twitter had affixed a fact-checking label to that post.

 

Facebook has drawn heat from employees and lawmakers in recent weeks over its decisions not to act on inflammatory posts by the president.

 

"There are no exceptions for politicians in any of the policies I'm announcing here today," Chief Executive Mark Zuckerberg said in a Facebook post.

 

Zuckerberg also said Facebook would ban ads that claim people from groups based on race, religion, sexual orientation or immigration status are a threat to physical safety or health.

 

The policy changes come during a growing ad boycott campaign, called "Stop Hate for Profit," that was started by several U.S. civil rights groups after the death of George Floyd, to pressure the company to act on hate speech and misinformation.

 

Zuckerberg's address fell short, said Rashad Robinson, president of civil rights group Color Of Change, which is one of the groups behind the boycott campaign.

 

"What we've seen in today's address from Mark Zuckerberg is a failure to wrestle with the harms FB has caused on our democracy & civil rights," Robinson tweeted. "If this is the response he's giving to major advertisers withdrawing millions of dollars from the company, we can't trust his leadership."

 

Shares of Facebook closed down more than 8% and Twitter ended 7% lower on Friday after Unilever PLC said it would stop its U.S. ads on Facebook, Instagram and Twitter for the rest of the year, citing "divisiveness and hate speech during this polarized election period in the U.S."

 

More than 90 advertisers including Japanese carmaker Honda Motor Co Ltd's U.S. subsidiary, Unilever's Ben & Jerry's, Verizon Communications Inc and The North Face, a unit of VF Corp, have joined the campaign, according to a list by ad activism group Sleeping Giants.

 

One of Facebook's top spenders, consumer goods giant Procter & Gamble Co, on Wednesday pledged to conduct a review of ad platforms and stop spending where it found hateful content. P&G declined to say if it had reached a decision on Facebook.

 

The campaign specifically asks businesses not to advertise on Facebook's platforms in July, though Twitter has also long been urged to clean up alleged abuses and misinformation on its platform.

 

"We have developed policies and platform capabilities designed to protect and serve the public conversation, and as always, are committed to amplifying voices from under-represented communities and marginalized groups," said Sarah Personette, vice president for Twitter's Global Client Solutions.

 

"We are respectful of our partners' decisions and will continue to work and communicate closely with them during this time."

 

In a statement, a Facebook spokeswoman pointed to its civil rights audit and investments in Artificial Intelligence that allow it to find and take action on hate speech.

 

"We know we have more work to do," she said, noting that Facebook will continue working with civil rights groups, the Global Alliance for Responsible Media, and other experts to develop more tools, technology and policies to "continue this fight."

 

(Reporting by Sheila Dang and Elizabeth Culliford; Additional reporting by Katie Paul, Editing by Dan Grebler, Jonathan Oatis and Richard Chang)

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2020-06-27

 

- Whatever you're going through, the Samaritans are here for you

- Follow Thaivisa on LINE for breaking COVID-19 updates

 

 

[canuckamuck]

Would be fine if Facebook believed in a level playing field and freedom of opinion. But we all know that they are only interested in handicapping the Republican campaign. As is the most of the media and other social media giants.

[Tug]

Good hold posters responsible for lies and hate especially those in power no more lies and eunendos truth and facts would be refreshing 

[lupin]

and what do they deem authoritative sources to correct your wrongthink... CNN?

[Pattaya46]

16 minutes ago, canuckamuck said:

Would be fine if Facebook believed in a level playing field and freedom of opinion. //

Where did they announce something against freedom of opinion ?

 

Freedom of opinion never existed on social media anyway.

[LeamchabangLarry]

shove it, zuckerberg

[OneMoreFarang]

38 minutes ago, canuckamuck said:

Would be fine if Facebook believed in a level playing field and freedom of opinion. But we all know that they are only interested in handicapping the Republican campaign. As is the most of the media and other social media giants.

Did you recently see anything that Trump said? And did you recently see anything from DEM politicians?

Who is using hatred all the time? By now it seems Trump thinks he has to use language like that constantly to stir up his base. 

Maybe the Republicans should look for an at least half decent presidential candidate who at least pretends to unite the country. A hater like Trump is a loser. He should be blocked, not only online.

 

[OneMoreFarang]

Zuckerberg and Facebook wouldn't be in that difficult situation if people in general and especially politicians would not use hate speech more and more. And then there is obviously the king of hate speech. Other people call him POTUS.

 

[MJKT2014]

1 hour ago, canuckamuck said:

But we all know that they are only interested in handicapping the Republican campaign.

Duh? They are in the business of making money off of schmucks from various sides of the equation. Advertising revenue are now getting curtailed when certain schmucks push it too far to their one sided blinkered opinions so that large multinationals advertisers got to pull the plug. It'll balance out again, always does one way or another.

[DoctorG]

1 hour ago, Tug said:

Good hold posters responsible for lies and hate especially those in power no more lies and eunendos truth and facts would be refreshing 

No politician would be able to make any posts based upon your criteria, but I agree, that might be a very good thing.

[welovesundaysatspace]

Labeling it? That’s Ridiculous. Every community forum bans you for spreading lies and hatred, and the same happens when the average joe does it on Facebook. 

[DoctorG]

52 minutes ago, OneMoreFarang said:

Zuckerberg and Facebook wouldn't be in that difficult situation if people in general and especially politicians would not use hate speech more and more. And then there is obviously the king of hate speech. Other people call him POTUS.

 

The problem with the term "hate speech" is that it is too subjective.

[welovesundaysatspace]

1 minute ago, DoctorG said:

The problem with the term "hate speech" is that it is too subjective.

No, it’s not. 

[Hayduke]

 

Gee…I sure hope they get this whole thing straightened out. If Facebook crashes tens of millions of distraught, devastated, and furious Thai people will go berserk and flood the streets in a epic frenzy of violent rebellion. Quick General….do something!

 

 

Edited June 27, 2020 by Hayduke

[DoctorG]

8 minutes ago, welovesundaysatspace said:

No, it’s not. 

Then why do terms such as "White Lives Matter" and "It's OK to be White" evoke such vehement reactions and have posts taken down?

Neither of these terms are against any protected class, yet are labelled as hate speech.

I use these merely as examples.

[welovesundaysatspace]

11 minutes ago, DoctorG said:

Then why do terms such as "White Lives Matter" and "It's OK to be White" evoke such vehement reactions and have posts taken down?

Neither of these terms are against any protected class, yet are labelled as hate speech

Because it is hate speech. 

[Mama Noodle]

Gotta love lefties creating their own definitions for bannable and moderated offenses.

 

It would be like having "The Squad" moderate the largest social media platform on the planet. 

[DoctorG]

2 minutes ago, welovesundaysatspace said:

Because it is hate speech. 

You just proved my point. Subjective. You cannot say why it is hate speech, just that you FEEL it is.

[crobe]

16 minutes ago, DoctorG said:

Then why do terms such as "White Lives Matter" and "It's OK to be White" evoke such vehement reactions and have posts taken down?

Neither of these terms are against any protected class, yet are labelled as hate speech.

I use these merely as examples.

Because Black Lives Matter" is a slogan for anti-racism, if you change it to the opposite "White Lives Matter" you change it from anti-racism to the opposite...which is?

Now do you get it?

[welovesundaysatspace]

1 minute ago, Mama Noodle said:

Gotta love lefties creating their own definitions for bannable and moderated offenses.

 

It would be like having "The Squad" moderate the largest social media platform on the planet. 

I don’t know who those “lefties” are but if you had read the article you would know that it’s Facebook “creating their own definitions for bannable and moderated offenses”. And that’s why big corporates are now pulling their ads, which is good. 

[welovesundaysatspace]

1 minute ago, DoctorG said:

You just proved my point. Subjective. You cannot say why it is hate speech, just that you FEEL it is.

I did not say that I “FEEL it is”. I said that it is hate speech. Please quote me correctly. 

Edited June 27, 2020 by welovesundaysatspace

[DoctorG]

Just now, crobe said:

Because Black Lives Matter" is a slogan for anti-racism, if you change it to the opposite "White Lives Matter" you change it from anti-racism to the opposite...which is?

Now do you get it?

One does not exclude the other. 

[DoctorG]

1 minute ago, welovesundaysatspace said:

I did not say that I “FEEL it is”. I said that it is hate speech. Please quote me correctly. 

"Is" is a statement of fact. Since you cannot prove it as a fact, it is therefore your belief/feelings.

[Mama Noodle]

2 minutes ago, welovesundaysatspace said:

I don’t know who those “lefties” are but if you had read the article you would know that it’s Facebook “creating their own definitions for bannable and moderated offenses”. And that’s why big corporates are now pulling their ads, which is good. 

 

Facebook is run by lefties, same as Twitter & Google. 

[welovesundaysatspace]

4 minutes ago, Mama Noodle said:

 

Facebook is run by lefties, same as Twitter & Google. 

Let me guess: you’re still part of the lefty networks? 

[BobBKK]

Facebook have revealed themselves over the last couple years. They allow 100s SCAM ads daily stating that Thailand loves this device or Thai health minister recommends this supplement.  FULL of scams and they now get involved with politics?  they are a DISGRACE.

[BobBKK]

10 minutes ago, crobe said:

Because Black Lives Matter" is a slogan for anti-racism, if you change it to the opposite "White Lives Matter" you change it from anti-racism to the opposite...which is?

Now do you get it?

What utter NONSENSE.  ALL LIVES MATTER period.

[Mama Noodle]

4 minutes ago, welovesundaysatspace said:

Let me guess: you’re still part of the lefty networks? 

 

I dont have facebook but I do use twitter for news, if you must know. 

[crobe]

1 minute ago, BobBKK said:

What utter NONSENSE.  ALL LIVES MATTER period.

Anyone who really believed that all lives matter would support the BLM movement as it tries to ensure that ALL people are treated fairly in terms of authorities, opportunities etc.

Some people hide behind "All lives matter" slogans when they really mean they do not want to see change and feel threatened by people actually being equal

[crobe]

7 minutes ago, BobBKK said:

Facebook have revealed themselves over the last couple years. They allow 100s SCAM ads daily stating that Thailand loves this device or Thai health minister recommends this supplement.  FULL of scams and they now get involved with politics?  they are a DISGRACE.

If politicians didn't use Facebook for politics than Facebook would not be involved with politics