and? isn't FB doing the same everywhere, especially recently in the US? pretty sure they block whatever even smells like a pro Trump militia in the US.
FB has been doing political censorship for over a decade. First they started with torrent links, then anarchist propaganda. Since they introduced shadow-banning i haven't really followed the latest developments, but they definitely have been collaborating with other entities on what to censor.
I think the EFF is being generous here. Facebook blocks posts to certain types of political material even if it is posted by an American citizen. They would round out and wax and wane about 'terrorist material' - content such as the ISIL newsletter (which overall is not 'gross', especially compared to some American cinema). But blocked content is broader than that.
Facebook is also part of a network of other American Social Media companies that have automated systems to block content posted that match certain patterns and known propaganda efforts by other nations.
Recently an anti-TPP website was blocked simultaneously across several communication providers (https://www.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/38pmg8/hey_redd...). This was a mistake as the website name closely matched the name of a Russian Anti-TPP propaganda campaign.
The mere existence of the ability to coordinate content blocking across service providers means that a censorship network exists - the question becomes whether it is 'abused'.
It's difficult to ascertain abuse, of course, given the Obama Administrations policy with regard to censorship and propaganda and its weakening of the Smith-Mundt Anti-Propaganda Act. The Administration believes that the US government is not responsible for having its influence operations online spill over to affect American people - it is merely prohibited from actively and specifically targeting Americans. That is, the new policy is that it's okay - even expected - for Americans to be 'collateral damage' in censorship and propaganda campaigns.
Thinkers like Cass Sunstein are traded high up in the US Government - Sunstein wrote a book on the 'Problem of Free Speech'. Broadly this influential Washington Legal Scholar believes that speech that is actively harmful or misinformed can and should be 'addressed' by the state - and he recommends ways in which that can happen.
The Snowden documents reveal that (so far as we know non-specific American targeting) the mass surveillance networks are intrinsically tied to influence operation capabilities - outside those capabilities at the GCHQ (which legally are not prevented from targeting Americans) - and who engage quite heavily in psychological influence campaigns.
I have personally, repeatedly witnessed Facebook selectively block posts of mine linking Wikileaks material, the Snowden documents (when they were first being published), and leaked drafts of the Trans Pacific Partnership and watched as others complained about having their posts trying to organize protests on May Day blocked similarly.
It's true also that Facebook has been associated with at least two studies on societal manipulation programs with researchers that are funded by the Department of Defense in the same area. Many people remember the "Emotion Manipulation Study" - fewer the vote influence study. These sorts of programs have been called for in the past 10 years of Defense Document planning and DARPA today, under their SMISC program, study similarly how to shape and track ideas in social media networks like Twitter.
I'm honestly glad that the EFF is finally giving this issue some attention.
In terms of groups and pages, The Intercept reported on this. And I've seen this directed at groups that were not explicitly antifa but were more socialist in nature. Some of the groups were targeted with a large number of user reports. I live in a red state. Some of the local groups & pages I followed were hit with many complaints from local conservatives. Which led to some of those groups disappearing.
In terms of conservative popularity on Facebook, it looks to be partially organic. A mix of an older userbase and many conservative groups heavily targeting the platform. But the skew in the algorithms and the laxity regarding the rules also has a role to play.
Interestingly enough this also would seem to play against the common narrative that right wing views are being immediately shut down on FB. It seems pretty clear they're trying to shut down extreme conservative discussion but it also seems like they're failing pretty hard.
Facebook purged a lot of libertarian and militia pages throughout November and December as a part of a concentrated 'anti extremism' campaign. They're overeager, but they also deliberately target groups in waves.
Leftist pages with any tact have been somewhat insulated from the purges, but the liberals no longer need them, and the conservatives never liked them. They're getting the same treatment as the right now.
However they have only gotten worse over time. It's just now that they're willing to block some far right/far left groups trying to fraudulently dump info in the form of ads and memes on Facebook.
Have you seen political facebook? It's a trainwreck of content meant to incite violence, and is perfectly allowed so long as it only targets some people (ex: minorities, certain foreigners) and not others. The idea that Facebook is playing it safe with their content moderation is nonsense. They are a political actor the same as any large company, and they make decisions accordingly.
To me, it feels more like Facebook selectively facilitates the crimes of some and polices the crimes of others.
There's names of people in the public Congressional record that you cannot put in any post in any context.
The 2020 riots were coordinated on FB.
According to the White House press secretary, the WH sends lists of people to Facebook to censor who did not commit crimes.
If you are successfully opposed to the regime, for example popular voices against US criminal actions regarding Ukraine, you get nerfed.
Azov Batallion was previously banned from FB because they are literally Nazis, but ever since the government started giving weapons to these Nazis you can praise them without concern you will get banned.
Operation Mockingbird. COINTELPRO. Edward Bernays.
Historically, the United States has always had actors within traditional media. It is literally impossible to block out domestically state-controlled outlets.
The article seems to focus on foreign state actors, but shouldn't their policies block all political ads at all? I feel like Facebook should just get out of that space entirely if the want to appear entirely safe/neutral (or as much is possible).
You're saying Trump's DOJ and FBI threatened FB with _______ unless they blocked the spread of the Hunter Biden laptop story?
FB didn't even ban the story though? Even if FB is suppressing information at the request of the FBI, there are hundreds of other news sources out there that people can use. I don't use Facebook, especially not for news consumption.
Here's a more concrete example:
Trump's DOJ threatened FB with removal of section 230 protection, or complete shutdown in Twitter's case, unless they stop censoring news stories that these companies believe to be false or misleading.
Private companies should be free to allow or disallow whatever they want at their discretion on their private platforms, left or right. If I owned a social media platform, I would also probably block stories that I think are false, because I don't think that being known as a platform for the spread of misinformation would be good for my brand. I don't complain about Facebook or Twitter's censorship, and I don't complain about Truth Social or Parler, all are private companies that can do what they want as far as I'm concerned. I don't get my news from any of those sources, no one should.
Facebook is only doing this because of the upcoming potential re-election of Trump. Left-leaning extremists can spew their hate with impunity.
Louis Farrakhan was banned in the latest crop of content crackdowns, yet his live speeches continue to be broadcast all over the place..and they don't get taken down.
Right-leaning activists that interviewed Gavin Mcinnnes (who was banned awhile back)..and get get censored/banned for guilt by association. The problem is that the content rules aren't enforced without bias..which has most definitely turned into censorship.
reply