While it stopped short of changing its stance with respect to Holocaust-denial groups on its Web site, Facebook has confirmed that it has disabled a group I brought attention to on Saturday, called "I Hate Muslims in Oz."
"We disabled the 'I Hate Muslims in Oz' group a day or so ago because it contained an explicit statement of hate. Where Holocaust-denial groups have done this and been reported, we've taken the same action," Facebook's Barry Schnitt said in an e-mail Wednesday.
Given President Obama's clear statement that Holocaust denial is "hateful," I asked Schnitt whether the company might be changing its stance on such groups. Previously, Facebook had said that Holocaust denial is not hateful per se and does not therefore contravene the company's terms of service.
"We're always discussing and evaluating our policies on reported content, but have no plans to change this policy at this time. In addition to discussing it internally, we continue to engage with third-party experts on the issue," he said.
Schnitt continued by outlining the parameters of Facebook's third-party content on the site: "Over the next couple of weeks, our chief privacy officer, Chris Kelly, will be engaging with experts at an event on cyberhate at the Museum of Tolerance in Los Angeles and at the UN Cyber Hate Seminar in New York.
Because the topic of Holocaust denial is such an emotive one, I also asked Schnitt a question that had initially been raised by Brian Cuban, and attorney and brother of Broadcast.com founder and billionaire Mark, on his blog the Cuban Revolution. I asked him: "Would involvement in a Holocaust-denial group affect a candidate's chances of getting a job, or, indeed, keeping a job, at Facebook?"
Schnitt replied: "There are a whole host of ignorant ideas that Facebook, as a communication platform, allows, even though they might hurt a candidate's chances of getting a job here or at any number of other companies."
He then went on to characterize the Facebook product as neutral: "Deciding what type of discussion should be allowed through a neutral tool for sharing, and what type of person would make an ideal employee at a company, are very different things, and we don't think our standards for the two should be the same."
Neutrality is a very, very difficult act to pull off. Currently, it balances on Facebook's own running definition of what is hateful and what isn't. It is a definition that clearly doesn't satisfy everyone. Indeed, it will be interesting to see what discussions Chris Kelly has with cyberhate experts in the coming weeks.
I wonder how management at Facebook might have reacted should they have come across some of President Obama's words Friday.
The president was speaking at the Buchenwald concentration camp, one of whose sub-camps, Ohrdruf, was liberated by his own great uncle. And he made sure to express his own feelings very clearly on a subject that Facebook believes should freely be discussed, Holocaust denial.
"To this day, there are those who insist that the Holocaust never happened--a denial of fact and truth that is baseless and ignorant and hateful," he said. "This place is the ultimate rebuke to such thoughts, a reminder of our duty to confront those who would tell lies about our history."
Facebook's defense for allowing Holocaust denial groups on its site centers around the notion that Holocaust denial is not, in itself, hateful. The company insists that, although it finds Holocaust denial "repulsive and ignorant," Holocaust denial groups do not contravene its terms of service.
Facebook's terms are very clearly written: "You will not post content that is hateful, threatening, pornographic, or that contains nudity or graphic or gratuitous violence."
So the president says Holocaust denial is, by its very definition, hateful, while Facebook insists it is not.
However, just the briefest visit to one Facebook group, Holohoax, produces wall posts such as this: "Jews are pretty good liars most of the time, but they tell so many lies they are bound to trip themselves up sometimes. Their exaggerations, half-truths, and outright inventions about the so-called "Holocaust," easily the most lied-about topic ever, are a good example."
Such groups are generally small. Holohoax has 40 members, whereas a newer counter-group, United Against Holocaust Denial on Facebook, has more than 40,000.
However, in light of the president's comments, might Facebook decide to apply its own terms of service against many groups, not just Holocaust denial groups, that seem to have only a hateful purpose?
Here's just one example: "I Hate Muslims in Oz."
Surely this group, by its very name, just might have fallen foul of Facebook's hateful content rule.
Should Facebook decide to make a stand for its own terms of service, it would not be an affront to free speech. It would be a statement about what kind of brand Facebook chooses to be.
eBay and Yahoo made a clear and simple stand against the sale of Nazi memorabilia on their sites. And this was in 2001. Both companies decided they simply didn't want to be associated with that kind of thing.
Of course, Facebook could also decide to change its terms of service and remove the stricture against hateful posts. That would also make things clear.
"Her majesty is far more down with technology than other ones might think."
(Credit: CC TF Duesing/Flickr)Imagine the Queen of England hitching up her tartan skirt and twirling around one of the large, but I'm guessing cold, drawing rooms at Buckingham Palace with U2's "In the Name of Love" transmitted down her earholes via characteristic white earphones.
Yes, President Obama has just gifted the queen an iPod.
Now we can all delight in the mere thought that the Her Majesty, or Liz, as some in her native land call her, will be perched over a MacBook and downloading a little Celine Dion or some early Snoop.
Four years ago, when she was conferring an honorary knighthood upon the burdened shoulders of Bill Gates, the queen admitted she had never used a computer. But these days she is no tech-illiterate. She has her own BlackBerry, just like the president's.
And I have very bad news for the president. The queen already has an iPod. At least two, it seems.
... Read more- prev
- 1
- next
