The idle musings of a former military man, former computer geek, medically retired pastor and now full-time writer. Contents guaranteed to offend the politically correct and anal-retentive from time to time. My approach to life is that it should be taken with a large helping of laughter, and sufficient firepower to keep it tamed!
Monday, July 28, 2014
Time for Facebook to reconsider its "community standards"?
If your enterprise's "community standards" are such that they don't find that page unacceptable, perhaps you need a better set of community standards? Yesterday, if not sooner?
A couple of weeks ago when everyone was hating on that Texas Tech cheerleader who posted hunting pictures, some fine Facebook denizens started "Kill Kendall Jones" pages. Obviously advocating killing a young woman over her completely innocent hobby.
Facebook said it didn't violate their standards. A day later, they reversed course and took down the pages, but one changed it's name to "Screw" from Kill and that was fine by them.
And yet, when an EMS Facebook page posts a graphic injury photo for educational purposes, even laden with mutliple disclaimers, Facebook will yank them offline at the very first complaint.
I'm pretty sure that the large majority of actual flagging of profiles or posts on Facebook is actually handled by a bot, which sends out a "does not violate..." notice, and that a human only actually looks at them after a minimum number of flags go through the system.
I have, on multiple occasions, flagged accounts and posts for fairly blatant violations only to get that message. And then a month or so later get a 2nd message saying that Facebook has re-evaluated my report and taken down the profile/post.
It isn't racist when it's about das juden.
ReplyDeleteI thought you knew that.
Speaking of which - when you get census papers, do you tick the box marked "African American"?
If not, why?
Coconut's got a point there.
ReplyDeleteWell?
Facebook has taken it down now. I'm wondering if the initial reaction was an automatic software response of some sort.
ReplyDeleteEither way, it was wrong, and I'm glad they've woken up ... at least a little bit.
Baby steps, I guess.
A couple of weeks ago when everyone was hating on that Texas Tech cheerleader who posted hunting pictures, some fine Facebook denizens started "Kill Kendall Jones" pages. Obviously advocating killing a young woman over her completely innocent hobby.
ReplyDeleteFacebook said it didn't violate their standards. A day later, they reversed course and took down the pages, but one changed it's name to "Screw" from Kill and that was fine by them.
SiGraybeard at work
And yet, when an EMS Facebook page posts a graphic injury photo for educational purposes, even laden with mutliple disclaimers, Facebook will yank them offline at the very first complaint.
ReplyDeleteSlightly older post, but...
ReplyDeleteI'm pretty sure that the large majority of actual flagging of profiles or posts on Facebook is actually handled by a bot, which sends out a "does not violate..." notice, and that a human only actually looks at them after a minimum number of flags go through the system.
I have, on multiple occasions, flagged accounts and posts for fairly blatant violations only to get that message. And then a month or so later get a 2nd message saying that Facebook has re-evaluated my report and taken down the profile/post.