The parent company of Facebook and Instagram constantly brags that it does everything that it can in order to reduce violent speech on its platforms. However, it makes exceptions for political hate speech that they happen to agree with. Can you really call them standards if you have exceptions to them?
So Many Exceptions There Are No Community Standards
Ted Rall
Ted Rall is a syndicated political cartoonist for Andrews McMeel Syndication, WhoWhatWhy.org and Counterpoint. He is a frequent contributor to The Wall Street Journal, a graphic novelist and author of many books of art and prose, and an occasional war correspondent. He is, recently, the author of the graphic novel "The Stringer."
5 Comments. Leave new
Although you’re right to call out Facebook for its so vague as to be meaningless purity standards, this is endemic now to the media and the media-adjacent offerings of the internet. I’ve already detailed the childish behavior of the New York Times comment section’s, um, editors. Has anyone actually read the New York Times’ standards? Here’s one paragraph that just leaves me shaking my head:
“To be approved for publication, your comments should be civil and reflect The New York Times’s standards for taste present on NYTimes.com and in The New York Times newspaper. A few things we won’t tolerate: name-calling, personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, and SHOUTING.” (https://help.nytimes.com/hc/en-us/articles/115014792387-Comments)
It’s pretty embarrassing, isn’t it? SHOUTING is not permitted!!!!!!1! Using a (gasp!) profanity (including letters f——d by d—-s) is not permitted!!!!!!!1! Being vulgar! (Try reading the “which housing option did these rich pricks choose” column without finding it vulgar or obscene.)
But it’s like this on Reddit too. DailyKos is even worse. The psychologically damaged take out all their anger at momma and poppa on anyone who simply wants to ask a question. To ask is to troll. To become outraged or to do anything that rises beyond a milquetoast clearing of the throat makes you the one who’s unmutual. Not the lumpen poltroons who accept, celebrate, and advance such a systemic neutering, you.
Now, off to moderation.
After reading the 1,000th article that referenced “Russian oligarchs”, I commented (this time on Marketwatch) that it has been scientifically proved by FAIR that the term “oligarch” is only used in reference to Russians and before the war maybe 20% of the time for Ukrainians, but no one else. Every country has oligarchs, so why is that?
The comment was struck for not meeting community standards.
I am however having luck getting comments about explicitly Nazi forces (Azov, C14, Right Sector, etc..) through if I refer to them by the convenient term “ultra-right-wing-nationalists.”
The N-word gets me bounced every time.
The New York Times has that particular n-word in 6,492 items. The plural appears in 4,820 items (at least according to the search engine).
Whoops! My bad jackalope. I was thinking of another “n” word.