Facebook’s confusing community standards
Facebook is banning people – women mostly – for causing the word “dyke” to appear, while words like “cunt” and “whore” are of course sacrosanct. Perhaps you think Facebook is doing that only when “dyke” is being used as a pejorative? Ha no.
Lesbians are getting banned from Facebook in droves for posts that include the word “dyke.”
On Friday, in the days leading up to the annual Pride marches that take place in many North American cities, reports that lesbians were being banned from Facebook began to surface.
See the post for screenshots.
So, while the rash of bans over the weekend appeared to be targeted and connected to Pride, it’s not a new phenomenon. At Slate, Trish Bendix reported that Facebook removed a popular New York-based group called “Dyke Bar Takeover,” claiming the use of dyke in their name constituted “hate speech.” Even the term “lesbian” itself is not permitted on Facebook, as part of a username. Lisa A. Mallett and Liz Waterhouse report that posts arguing that lesbians are female have been removed by Facebook, as well.
Not allowed, huh? When the fact that lesbians are female is basic to the definition? Does Facebook disallow saying apples are fruit, spiders are arachnids, daffodils are flowers, cars are machines, cats are felines? I’m assuming a big no, here. So why would they remove a post saying lesbians are female?
The great irony in all of this is that Facebook refuses to take action against groups and individuals who post and share pornography or who engage in hate speech against feminists. I have personally reported dozens upon dozens of threats and hate speech directed at myself, other women, and posted on the Feminist Current Facebook page. The posts reported have included words like “cunt,” “whore,” and “bitch.” Many have paired the anti-feminist slur, “TERF,” with death threats. Not a single one of these incidents has ever qualified for any form of action, according to Facebook. Not once has Facebook removed the post in question or banned the user.
Meghan posts a few examples:
There are more. Facebook wrote back and said that’s very sad for you but we don’t care.
I am not alone in this. Many women report having experienced abuse or threats that Facebook has ignored, and having reported content including revenge porn, child exploitation, and other forms of sexual violence that did not go against the company’s “community standards.”
When asked about this lack of action on misogyny and male violence on their platform, Facebook will often claim dealing with the amount of flagged content is too challenging to get it right — employees must make decisions so quickly that errors are common. The company has also told users that reporting posts is the only way to deal with abusive content, that “every single report of abuse is read and acted upon by a human being,” and that Facebook does not scan for and remove content. Yet they managed to ban dozens of female users within a matter of days — most of whom are not public figures, do not necessarily have enormous followings, who clearly aren’t being reported through nefarious means, but are in fact being sought out by the company itself.
It’s beyond infuriating.
Reason 50,000,001 not to use Facebook.
Does anyone have insight into what *Facebook* thinks it’s doing here? I’ve always assumed that the “whatever” attitude to anti-woman hate speech was that it increased clicks. Excuse me, “engagement.” But then why get bent out of shape about dykes? (Or, for that matter, breastfeeding.)
It’s almost like it’s not just about clicks. Like their ambition is to be a porn channel, and no inkling of women outside that frame is to appear. ??
And another reason to add when people berate me because I’m on Facebook. “How can you be a writer without being on Facebook?” is the usual. “It’s the key to marketing”. Well, as for being a writer, it’s quite easy to write without being on Facebook, and in fact, I tend to be more prolific than people who spend their time updating their profiles. Being a published author? Facebook may help you get sales, but in my view, it’s just not worth it. I would rather no one buys my books than be on that horror show of a site.
Should my boss ever require us to use Facebook, YouTube, Reddit, Twitter, or texting as part of our classroom work (and they’re making noises in that direction!), I will decide it’s time to retire, though I am still 10 years away from eligibility. (I do use YouTube a bit, especially for my online students who have to do a presentation, but other than that, I feel most of this technology is the antithesis of a college education, since it reduces thought down to “who’s looking at me now?” and 140 characters. Richard Dawkins is a good example of why this sort of technology is the wrong tool for teaching science, even if, as they are fond of saying, “it’s where the students are”. When I was in school, we used to laugh at the silly profs who showed up at the malt shops, the malls, or wherever the current student hangout was, and try to pretend to be just one of the kids. Now it’s becoming the “proper” way to teach.
Twice I reported pages promoting the anti-Semitic blood libel only to be told it didn’t breach community standards. There seem to be a lot of confused people working for FB.
iknklast @ 3 – Well the 140 characters thing is Twitter, not Facebook. Facebook is much more in the “it’s as good as you make it” category. I’m not urging you to use it, much less berating you for not using it, but just in the interests of clarification I’m saying it’s not comparable to Twitter. It’s possible to have complicated intelligent discussions there, including with prominent academics, political figures, journalists, etc.