Old Forum - webDiplomacy

Start a new discussion in the public forum

Post a new thread

If your post relates to a particular game please include the URL or ID# of the game.
We get a lot of feature requests. If your feature request isn't already on our issue tracker, then the best place to ask is the forum. This will help us gauge support for your ideas, before we add it to the todo list.
If you are posting a question please check the FAQ before posting.
If your message is long you may need to write a summary message, and add the full message as a reply.

Jamiet99uk (808

)
16 Nov 14 UTC

Facebook's "community standards"

I'm interested in my fellow webDippers' views regarding a complaint I recently made to Facebook.

Jamiet99uk (808 )
16 Nov 14 UTC

++ WARNING: Graphic images of animals being abused ++

Dog fighting is an awful blood'sport' and causes unnecessary suffering for the animals forced to participate in it. It is rightly banned in most civilised countries.

I recently stumbled upon a horrible and disgusting page on Facebook, promoting and advocating dog fighting, and featuring graphic images of dogfights taking place, and of dogs with post-fight injuries.

Here is the page (please be warned it features some unpleasantly graphic content):

https://www.facebook.com/pages/Dog-Fighting/284056811763481

I made a formal complaint to Facebook regarding this page, suggesting it should be removed.

Facebook replied today. They rejected my complaint, and informed me "this page does not violate our community standards".

What do my fellow webDippers think about this?

Invictus (240 )
16 Nov 14 UTC

I'm quite surprised that the gore of the first few pictures doesn't violate that standard.

Although, looking through the timeline, it appears that the creators of the page are from India. Perhaps Facebook's "community standards" vary by country, and if dog fighting doesn't violate the Indian standard then the page can stay up?

Jamiet99uk (808 )
16 Nov 14 UTC

Dog fighting is illegal in India too.

Invictus (240 )
16 Nov 14 UTC

Well pot is illegal most places, but those pages aren't taken down. I don't think illegality is the determinative thing here.

Apart from the pictures, the page is really just advocating a position that dog fighting is good. I imagine Facebook is pretty libertarian on censuring unpopular, even quite horrible views. As long as the pictures don't cross some line which Facebook must have, then I guess this is permissible.

Looking again at the timeline, it's clear people are expressing their opposition to the ideas behind the page. Good for them.

Jamiet99uk (808 )
16 Nov 14 UTC

The thing is, I also reported the four most graphic photos. Facebook's "report" functions has a specific category for "violence against people or animals" and yet in all four cases, I got a message back, an hour or two later, to say "the photo does not violate Facebook's community standards".

I think this shows Facebook doesn't have any fucking standards. Quite shameful really.

Invictus (240 )
16 Nov 14 UTC

I don't know about "shameful." It may just be that the software cannot yet tell the difference between a picture of two dogs being forced to fight and, say, two lions or seals fighting in the wild. I doubt there's actually some human reviewing complaints. Perhaps when a sufficent number of complaints come in a real person looks at it, and then the page may be taken down.

But all that will do is get rid of the Facebook page. There's a website attached. PErhaps it's better that the page exists and people can express their displeasure directly at these shitty people.

Jamiet99uk (808 )
16 Nov 14 UTC

How would such software work?

obiwanobiwan (248 )
16 Nov 14 UTC

It looks like just about every comment on the page is negative, Jamiet...

Granted it's a wee bit hypocritical of ME to ask "is this worth the outrage" but...

Is this worth the outrage?

Not dogfighting--that is--but the page...it looks like it's being savaged, whether it's allowed by FB or not.

Invictus (240 )
16 Nov 14 UTC

No idea. I don't know how any software works.

mendax (321 )
16 Nov 14 UTC

Invictus - software like that simply doesn't exist. It is almost certainly a human making the decision.

Mapu (362 )
16 Nov 14 UTC

I'm not sure how dog fighting is any more horrible than murdering other kinds of animals for your disgusting food.

Jamiet99uk (808 )
16 Nov 14 UTC

@ obiwanobiwan: I think it's a matter of principle. I think for Facebook to decide that graphic images, showing animals being abused for human entertainment, are something their "community standards" endorse... well, what does that say about Facebook's "community standards" ?

Invictus (240 )
17 Nov 14 UTC

Software exists which can recognize people's faces but not recognize wounds? I find that hard to believe.

ghug (5068 )
17 Nov 14 UTC

Faces are much more distinct and regular than wounds are. There's no technology that can evaluate gore with any reliably. Facebook definitely does it by hand.

Jamiet99uk (808 )
17 Nov 14 UTC

I'd say the fact that it takes a couple of hours to get a response to a complaint would also suggest a human is doing it. If it was automated then presumably you'd get an almost instant result.

oscarjd74 (100 )
17 Nov 14 UTC

I think dog fighting is disgusting, but I also think censorship is disgusting. As long as FB allows people to criticize it I think the page should be allowed. Personally I'll choose not to visit it though.

That being said, if they indeed have rules against images of violence against animals then it seems rather hypocritical that they aren't willing to enforce them. If you wish to change that then you should launch a campaign to get many thousands of people to report those images and to generate negative media attention for FB over them. Short of that I doubt that FB is likely to respond. They just don't care about a couple of individual complaints.

As for FB's "community standards"... their standard is their bottom line, nothing else.

2ndWhiteLine (2606 )
17 Nov 14 UTC
(+1)

Facebook has moderators as well whose job it is to comb through these user complaints and algorithm flagged photos to determine whether or not they fall under the community standards.

http://www.wired.com/2014/10/content-moderation/

As for your story in particular, I think its a load of shit that they weren't taken down. Why are nipples against this policy but dog fighting is OK?

Invictus (240 )
17 Nov 14 UTC

I guess I was wrong. What a horrible job that must be.

Maniac (184 )
17 Nov 14 UTC

@2WL - so you complain about Facebook moderators allowing pictures of dogs which have been involved in fights, but allow Jamie to link this forum to those pictures and then complain Facebook doesn't allow nipple pics, which this site wouldn't allow either.

I saw a dead animal covered in gravy on my wall this morning and a woman scanitily clad who was obviously been objectified. I also saw a woman in a burka who was obviously been oppressed by her religion and not allowed to express herself. Which of these images should I be complaining about?

Yellowjacket (835 )
17 Nov 14 UTC

Can I post pictures of my (male) nipples? Is it sexist that I can't show pictures of a woman's nipples? I say nipples should be banned entirely, or allowed in all cases.

oscarjd74 (100 )
17 Nov 14 UTC

You can post you male nipples, but only if you don't have manboobs.

krellin (80 )
18 Nov 14 UTC

YJ - yes, I would greatly appreciate if you posted your male nipples. I'm curious if you are one of those dudes with a few scraggly hairs around your nips, which reside on either side of an other-wise sunken chest?

bo_sox48 (5202 )
18 Nov 14 UTC
(+1)

Do you guys understand anything we have been talking about for the last day or are you completely stupid?

krellin (80 )
18 Nov 14 UTC
(+3)

NO. I don't frankly care about what you have been talking about for the last day, as I didn't want to read any of Jamie's whining typical drivel, and therefore didn't.

BUT....when I saw "YJ" and a reference to said nipples....I just got a flustered and hot...

Yellowjacket (835 )
18 Nov 14 UTC

@krellin you nailed it bro, minus the sunken chest. I'm all burly and shit.

krellin (80 )
18 Nov 14 UTC

Mmmm...let me rephrase that, big boy. burly and shit....strike that....soft and snuggly....

<wink>

26 replies

JamesYanik (548

)
18 Nov 14 UTC
(+1)

Dastardly Deeds Indeed!!!

My two beautiful National Cat Day games, World and Classic, have been defiled, neigh, RAPED by metagamers. I implore the people of webdiplomacy: stahp

2 replies