[♫]
This is T. Raja Singh,
a BJP MLA from Telangana
[ R: Distribute the work....Distribute the work ]
[ R: The Trishul/Trident (three-pronged spear)
you were given today, is not meant for keeping at home ]
[R: It is for ******* them]
[ Crowd cheering hate speech ]
[ R: As long as you don't use the strength of
Trishul/Trident, till then you won't hear such *****]
What would be your reaction
after seeing this video ?
Such videos should not be on a
social media platform like Facebook
But in fact, many such videos
could be found on Facebook
in spite of these videos being against the
very own guidelines [instructions] of Facebook.
It is not the case of
"Facebook doesn't know about these videos"
But in fact, Facebook does not want
to remove such videos.
According to a report by Wall Street Journal
Facebook - India's public policy team
which is led by Ankhi Das
intentionally [knowingly] did not delete such posts
so that Facebook's relationship
with the Indian govt. is not damaged
There could be dangerous consequences
[effects] of such hate speech videos
which we have seen, several times.
[ The Sri Lankan govt. banned
Facebook & other social media sites ]
[ following the violence that rocked
the country's central province ]
In India, a recent incident from
Bangalore (Bengaluru) is also an example
[ In Karantaka's Bengaluru [Bangalore],
an objectionable [offensive] social media post ]
[ which sparked violence,
resulted in the death of 3 persons in police firing ]
To understand the relationship
between Facebook & hate speech
we need to understand
two things.
Firstly, "What actually is Facebook?"
[ ♫ ]
F
Fa
Fac
Face
Faceb
Facebo
Faceboo
Facebook
Facebook
Facebook
Facebook
Facebook
Facebook a
Facebook an
Facebook and
Facebook and H
Facebook and HA
Facebook and HAT
Facebook and HATE
Facebook and HATE
Facebook and HATE S
Facebook and HATE Sp
Facebook and HATE Spe
Facebook and HATE Spee
Facebook and HATE Speec
Facebook and HATE Speech
Facebook and HATE Speech
Facebook and HATE Speech
Facebook and HATE Speech
Facebook was started in 2004
as a University website to connect people.
Since 2007, Facebook started adding
thousands of active users, everyday.
At present, Facebook has 2.7 billion users
[ ~ 2,70,00,00,000 users ]
who upload billions of photos & videos
in their posts, everyday.
Since Facebook was started to connect people,
"Content Moderation" [review] was not their priority
During Facebook's early days,
a team of 12 college graduates
were involved in the "Site Integrity team"
which used to moderate the contents on FB.
But, this changed in 2008.
[ This morning, a face-off on Facebook,
the social networking website is under fire ]
[ for its policy on photos of women
breastfeeding their children ]
[ The place where millions go online
to see and be seen ]
[ But, Facebook says
pictures like these go too far ]
Women asked what was
obscene [indecent] or vulgar with breastfeeding ?
If they wanted to show these photos
to their friends & family
Facebook should not be deleting
these photos.
They started a campaign
[movement] in which
on a day, almost 10, 000 women converted their
profile picture to a breast feeding picture.
Then, Facebook changed its policy
on photos of breastfeeding.
But, this led to more complications.
Facebook said as long as the nipple area was
not visible in the photos, they'll not be deleted.
But, some women said that many times
during the process of breastfeeding
the baby might not actually be breastfed,
but just lying on their shoulder.
Why were such photos
being removed ?
Facebook responded that as long as the nipple
was visible, such photos would be removed.
Weirdly [unusually], some strange photos
were posted on Facebook.
Few porn websites tried to
game [take advantage of] this system of Facebook.
Apparently, there was a genre [type] of porn
called breastfeeding porn.
Many porn-stars published photos on Facebook,
in which they acted like [imitated] breastfeeding.
Facebook had to change
its policy again.
In such photos, the one to be breastfed
should only be a baby, under the age of 2.
Explaining this story
had 2 objectives [goals].
1. To explain when Facebook
started content moderation seriously
2. To explain content moderation
is actually, not very easy.
Facebook has to change its policies, regularly
based on customer [user] feedback.
This was just one issue,
in one country.
There are several such issues,
in several countries.
So, the initial team of 12 members
has greatly increased in number.
Now, Facebook has almost
15, 000 content moderators.
Largely, Facebook has outsourced this role
to countries like Philippines & India.
The point of
content moderation is important
as it defines to an extent,
what Facebook actually is.
Is Facebook a news publisher
or a technology company ?
This question got very serious
in 2013.
[ Explosion caught on camera ]
[The attack appears
timed for maximum impact]
[ Explosion footage replays ]
[ Just before 2:50 PM ET, this is the viewpoint... ]
when 2 pressure cooker bombs [IEDs]
exploded in Boston [USA], during a marathon.
During the rescue operations,
a photo went viral
in which a victim's blood-soaked,
fractured leg was clearly visible.
This photo did not agree [comply] with
Facebook's guidelines.
But, most of the major news websites like
CNN, Fox News used this photo in their coverage.
Facebook decided
to publish this photo, too.
When Facebook made this decision,
they might not have realized that FB had almost
become a news publisher, not just a tech company.
The actual problem is
Mark Zuckerberg & FB have NOT yet accepted that
FB should be actually treated like a new publisher.
[ S:  ...world's largest publisher because I think
that goes through a really important question ]
[ S: on what form of regulation
or govt. action, if any, we would take? ]
[ Mark Z: Senator, this is a really big question. ]
[ Mark Z: I view us, as a tech company ]
[ Mark Z: because the primary thing that we do
is build technology & products ]
[ S: You said you are responsible for your content...
 Mark Z: Exactly ]
[ S: ...which makes you,
kind of a publisher, right ? ]
[ Mark Z: Well, I agree that we are responsible
for the content. But, we don't produce the content]
So, Facebook gets all advantages which
a news publisher's website usually gets
but Facebook does not want to be
responsible or be regulated about it.
As a result, their policies
apply very irregularly [unevenly].
This is Wirathu, a Buddhist monk
from Myanmar (Burma)
who has been giving anti-Muslim speeches
for several years.
Facebook considers Wirathu,
a hate-figure [leader]
but the FB pages linked to Wirathu's organization
are not banned by Facebook.
The question is -
Why doesn't Facebook remove such posts ?
The simple answer is
Facebook doesn't remove posts
which are linked to the ruling govt. or ruling party
PM Modi is an example
of a political leader
who had used social media, successfully
and is dependent on it, to a large extent.
PM Modi's personal page has the most followers,
among other world leaders.
In fact, PM Modi had asked all BJP MPs to get
at least 3 lakh 'genuine' likes on their FB pages.
When FB becomes so important to the Indian govt.,
it also means that FB gets revenue, through the govt.
In the last 18 months, BJP affiliated [related] pages
spent the highest on Facebook ads.
Facebook is also involved in several collaborations
[working together] with the Indian govt.
like the Indian Home Ministry,
Ministry of Tribal Affairs & CBSE.
Regulating their very own customer is
almost impossible for any company, in any industry.
It is the same relationship
between the govt. & Facebook
This is the first reason -
FB gets revenue [money] from the govt.
The other reason is -
FB is a private company, operating in India
& Indian rules apply on Facebook.
The Indian rules are controlled
by the Indian govt.
India is the world's
second-most populous country.
Since Facebook is banned in China,
the largest market for FB, is India.
FB's public policy team is responsible for
developing a healthy relationship with the Indian govt.
& they consistently lobby [try to influence]
so that the Indian govt. rules favour Facebook.
This public policy team of FB
is led by Ankhi Das
who was mentioned in the article
by Wall Street Journal.
We could also say that
Ankhi Das has been doing her job, very well.
since her relation with the Modi govt.
is very strong.
In an article by The Guardian,
a Facebook executive had mentioned that
"Ankhi Das was able to solve
so many issues for Facebook ->"
" and so, there was a joke in their company
that Ankhi Das was like PM Modi's granddaughter. "
Due to these reasons, Facebook
cannot easily ban any BJP-affiliated page.
This is not just the case in India
but also in several other countries.
In the case of USA, president Trump had posted
during the protests, for killing of George Floyd
" When the looting starts,
the shooting starts "
Immediately, Twitter took action against this post.
But, Facebook did not take any action.
Then, what are the solutions
to this problem ?
Facebook could do
several things.
Firstly, they could create a division in their
public policy team which lobbies the govt.
and the team involved in
content moderation.
So that, there is no communication
between both these teams
and, content moderation
is not influenced by the govt. policies.
Another way to do this, could be using
Artificial Intelligence [AI] & other technology
But, these technologies
are not foolproof [not 100% accurate].
These algorithms are written [coded]
by a developer - a human.
The bias [partiality] which the developer
might have, would be reflected in these algorithms.
Few researchers analyzed models of Artificial
Intelligence, which processed hate speeches.
They observed that
these algorithms were actually biased [unfair],
against African Americans.
In order to force Facebook to take such steps,
we should exert pressure on FB.
Facebook's major source of revenue, is
advertisements which is viewed by us - the users.
Advertisers could also exert pressure
on FB which is happening, now.
Few months earlier, when FB did not take
any action against Trump's post
many leading companies, decided to
temporarily ban advertising their products on FB.
Due to this pressure, Mark Zuckerberg announced
several policy changes through media.
[ Mark Zuckerberg is saying that
the company (FB) is changing its policies ]
[ to prohibit (ban) hate speech
in its advertisements. ]
This pressure can not only be exerted
by big companies but also by users, like us.
Recently, Hindustani Bhau aka Vikas Phatak
posted a video
in which he propagated [spread] violence.
Facebook did not delete
his official page, immediately.
Only after, many people protested against it
Facebook deleted his page.
which makes us realize that
"Our opinions have a value, too".
So, whenever you view a hate speech
on platforms like Facebook, please do report it.
Our voices matter a lot, too.
[Support us on Patreon - Link in description]
[ Other videos from Soch ]
