Facebook: Hate speech

From iGeek
Jump to: navigation, search

I got FB-slapped. Imagine my surprise when I go to check FB and am forced to re-log in, and get a, "This post goes against our Community Standards on hate speech" welcome dialog. Hate speech? Me? What are they talking about? It turns out the accession is a crime in FB land: so I was warned by automated systems. I appealed, and won. But the fact that guilt by algorithm or accusation is still not a good thing.

It turns out a little douche-nozzle-troll didn't like something I said in a group, had scanned my page, and called me a racist Trump-loving Fox-News watcher, and reported something as "hate speech" because it had a few trigger words, and logic that went beyond his pea-brains ability to comprehend.

FB's automatic theology checkers probably saw a few keywords, and punished me by blocking my post, and a somewhat condescending note about reading their guidelines.

But it had an appeal option. I appealed, and the human checker was much more able to get the nuance, and my post was restored. So it wasn't the worst experience possible. However, a much better one would have been to have a human checker validate BEFORE blocking and calling me a hater.

The offending post

A co-worker was confused about the 57 flavors of "Gender", and so I ranted about the difference between Gender, and Sexual Preference. But I'm a liberal (Libertarian) guy, that has a few trans-friends, a bunch of gay family members and friends, and am pretty tolerant and un-judgy. I want people to leave each other alone, but that includes the preachy left not micromanaging the right, as well as the other way around. So here's the accused hate speech:

What is it about far-left 'sensitivity" that makes them so insensitive and lose their minds?

A co-worker was talking about another form to fill out that had things she didn't understand, "what's nonbinary?", and then you have to explain all flavors of sexual preference and how idiots can't tell the difference between that and your gender.

First, I don't give a shit what people are into, which is why it shouldn't be on forms:

  • "into BBW and pegging, while occasionally delving into light bondage fetishism and watersports"
  • "I have yellow fever, and am into Bukake porn"
  • Gay, asex, trisexual (they'll try anything), genderfluid, and so on

That's not your gender, that's your kink. I don't care. None of my f'in business, and certainly not the employer or governments business. Is your equipement inny or outty... do you have a Y chromosome or not. That's gender. If you're a Y that wants to be a double-X, that's a psychological malady that sucks -- but I don't care. Are you living as a XX or XY, without getting into specifics of how far through transition you are, or how many people, and of what kind, you bring into your bedroom. M or F? It's not hard. (No pun intended). The rest might be gender identity, or sexual orientation, or malady or design -- but why should an employer or coworkers care whether you've worked a glory hole, or you're a furry on weekends or after hours? M or F?

While companies get credit on some dumb government bigot-quota for whether you pee sitting down or not, or you associate as some sexual minority or not, at worse, those two things should be on the form (not what flavor you are).

Separately, I think that reflects poorly on our government which tries to regulate sexuality. Which is it? Does the left want the government in our junk or not -- because if you want them out, then asking about it and regulating based on it, is going the wrong way. If I had my druthers, I think we should pass a law that says no government forms or quotas can consider race, gender, or sexual preference in any law/regulation/quota, in any way. Give everyone a number, and leave people to be who they are.

If someone persecutes someone, or harasses them or fires them because of what they are, that's the crime -- harassing, firing without cause or persecution of another human. Period. Their intersectional virtue quota is irrelevant, shouldn't be tracked or managed, and incentivizes the wrong things. Just treat people the same, and give them equal protection under the law. And to do that, you start by taking those identifying sub-attributes off everything that matters.

In the world of the perpetually offended, that was hate speech. But the only thing I was hating on, is over-reactionary intersectional Marxism and trying to micromanage fairness, instead of just living it. Treat people the same, regardless of what they do in the dark, or light. As long as they aren't hurting kids, or forcing people against their will, it really isn't my business. And if more people acted like that, instead of reporting truths that hurt their feelings on Facebook, we could be a better society.

It happened again

In March 2019, I wrote about the Christchurch Shooting in the following factual post: 2019.03.14 Christchurch Shooting, and a friend got blocked for posting it, claiming it didn't follow their community standard.

So he reposted it, and it got pulled... again.

Not only did they fail to explain what it violated, they didn't give him the option of disputing it. It just simply said it was taken down and then the only link was to their Community standards.

Well, it clearly it wasn't porn, and there was no swearing, advocacy for violence in it. So it didn't seem to violate any of their rules... other than being a truth they wanted to hide. And there's the whole failure to communicate thing -- if you're going to pull something, have the f'in decency to explain why.

Tools of the intolerant

There's the possibility, that Facebook is doing it because places like the U.K., Germany and New Zealand don't really have free speech. There's no First Amendment, there's just privileges, granted to the people, to more or less speak their mind, unless the Kings or Parliament takes them away. Like they do for what they classify as hate speech: which really means anything the far far left finds offense. The Christchurch Shooter narrative is that if you do anything to sensationalize the shooting or shooter, then that's hate speech, and they can punish people criminally or civilly. And of course the standards are defined by whatever the snowflakes mood is. Thus Facebook, might be caving to tyrants and bullies. Since they don't want to fight their governments over it, and they don't want to have to censor by geo, they just censor globally. But if that's the case, it's even worse. Because (a) that means free speech is a lowest common denominator thing, and just an illusion (b) if they don't like it, they have a responsibility to say so, and explain why they're pulling something (c) if they care about liberty, then they SHOULD only do it by geo, and put a nastygram in NZ saying, "this post is censored to appease your government". That they do none of those things, points clearly that Facebook agrees with the far left re-writing of history, and censoring any truths that censor that narrative.

I wear being censored by fascist assholes as a badge of honor. Sort of a lightweight version of a Fritz Gerlich award, without any of the risk of capital punishment that the real Fritz suffered for trying to warn the world about where bullying tyranny of the left might end. Sadly for him, he was right.

Facebook is 3 things: bad interface, bad management, and biased policies. I want a social network that gives me control of what I see and share -- both to my friends and to advertisers. I realize they need to make a buck, and my information is their product, but the point is you can still give users the illusions of control. But Zuckerberg seems to have falling into the egocentric pit that many young billionaires do, they think because they timed things well, and worked hard, and got lucky that they're smarter than everyone else. This makes them arrogant, less mature, and slower to grow than the average human: Dunning-Kruger, inflated by being surrounded by yes-men.