Subscribe to Bitch—an award-winning, 80 page feminist magazine. Image Map

Facebook Versus The Activists

facebook dislike button

Clearly, Facebook has some kinks to work out.

In the spring, it looked like things were looking up in terms of being able to have relevant conversations on Facebook when the social media site committed to taking rape and violent threats more seriously. But in the months since, it has become overwhelmingly clear that Facebook has no idea how to monitor content, be it misogynistic, violent, racist, or a combination of the above. 

Son of Baldwin logoEarlier this month Robert Jones, the sometimes controversial man behind the popular "literary, socio-political, sexual, pop culture" blog Son of Baldwin, informed his nearly 14,000 Facebook followers that he may have to find another place to hold crucial conversations about homophobia, racism, misogyny, trans issues, sexism, and ableism. Since 2010, Jones has been cultivating a safe place on Facebook for queer people of color, but according to the social media giant, Son of Baldwin was continuously violating their terms and conditions.

Facebook had warned Jones that they would shut down his page in the past for using the n-word, which Jones posted in a quote from James Baldwin that he was discussing academically.

Of the most recent shutdown threat, Jones wrote, "Apparently, one of the Marvel groupies reported the page because they don't like that I'm criticizing Marvel Comics from a racial lens. Facebook, which will leave up rape pages and pages where Trayvon Martin is called a baboon—and more than leave them up, will say that there is nothing problematic about those pages—wants to remove Son of Baldwin for having critical and intellectual conversations about bigotry."

Sadly, what happens to the Son of Baldwin page regularly is just one example of how Facebook is failing its members, especially those who are people of color, queer-identified folks, and women.

Last spring, a coalition of groups led by Women, Action, and Media (WAM) pushed the world's most popular website to restructure its moderation system that had let rapey and violent memes spread like wildfire for years.  A few months later, Twitter followed suit. Facebook also invited WAM!, the Everyday Sexism Project, and members of its coalition to work closely with Facebook on the issue of how Community Standards around hate speech should be evaluated.

Today, the site is still using a method of moderation that seems to evaluate and shut down content in a hodgepodge way that takes actions against some pages where people use sexual language or epithets in an academic or positive way and refuses to remove posts that are genuinely threatening or outright racist.

In addition to the Son of Baldwin example, WAM executive director Jaclyn Friedman has been getting feedback from people that the site has removed BDSM pages that promote kinky consensual sex.  This upsets the sexual liberation activist.

"I'd like to go on record saying that we didn't ask Facebook to do that," Friedman says. "We're getting blamed for it, but we fully support content featuring consensual sexual activity between adults."

Even though it's not WAM's mess to clean up, the organization is actively pressuring Facebook to restore consensual BDSM pages.

"The biggest problem for Facebook is that they have terms of service, but there is no adequate system in place to monitor content being posted," Friedman says. "Oftentimes its moderators are making snap judgments regarding images, with much of the work being outsourced to countries that aren't exactly beacons for women's rights. So if there is no system in place, who gets to decide what's appropriate – like an image of a woman being beaten – and what's not, like an image of a woman breastfeeding? I don't believe this is a big conspiracy or that Facebook hates women. I think there is a gap between the people making the policies and the people implementing the policies and that's what we're trying to fix."

That case-by-case oversight means that Facebook's one billion users might be subjected to memes like "Slap a Bitch Day," while sex-positive and innocuous naked art could get flagged as offensive.

For years, Facebook was unwilling to address these concerns, contending that the content endorsing violence against women were expressions of free speech or fell under the "humor" portion of their guidelines. In one specific example WAM documented, numerous people reported a widely shared image of a scantily clad woman lying on the cement with her head bashed in. The text surrounding the image said, "I like her for her brains." After the image was reported for containing graphic violence, Facebook issued its standard statement when a reported image passes its moderation: "Thank you for your report. We reviewed the photo you reported, but we found it doesn't violate Facebook's Community Standard on graphic violence, which includes depicting harm to someone or something, threats to the public's safety, or theft and vandalism."

But even after WAM's campaign and Facebook's promise to change, the site's guidelines remain murky and ambiguous at best, and it's  difficult to understand the thought process behind what gets removed from the site and what doesn't.

New Jersey-based activist Lorena Ambrosio, a frequent guest on the Joy of Resistance radio program, learned that the hard way when she was temporarily blocked from logging in to her Facebook last month after she posted a voicemail from a well-known Occupy Wall Street activist and supposed ally to women. In the voicemail to Ambrosio's friend, the activist refers to her as a "bitch." It was important to Ambrosio that fellow activists understood how he speaks about women and the tactics he uses to intimidate women who speak out against him.

Almost immediately, the voicemail was reported as abuse, deleted by Facebook, and Ambrosio was blocked from accessing her account. Yet, two images reported by Ambrosio for depicting rape and violence against women (one of which featured a drugged woman being carried by a man) remained on Facebook. One, she was told, fell under the humor guidelines. The other was still waiting to be reviewed one month after she reported it, meaning the harmful, triggering image stays online until a decision is made. 

When lamenting the difficult position Facebook put Jones in—deciding whether to continue having his page taken down with the threat of one day having it removed permanently, or taking his community elsewhere before the decision was made for him—the blogger wrote, "Facebook is the master's tool." It was a reference to Audre Lorde's groundbreaking 1984 essay "The Master's Tools Will Never Dismantle the Master's House." And it's true. If Facebook is a place where racism, misogyny, and homophobia are not only deeply ingrained, but willfully perpetuated, how can the site be used as a tool to combat racism, misogyny, and homophobia? Short answer: it can't. Unless Facebook addresses these issues in a serious way that results in actual, noticeable, trackable change, the site will continue to be the bigot's playground where the only people losing are those most subjected to the hate and violence depicted in the images and pages Facebook continues to protect. So in other words, it's business as usual.

 


Want the best of Bitch in your inbox? Sign up for our free weekly reader!

Read and buy Bitch magazine's current print issue!

Enjoy reading this article? Good news! Our quarterly magazine, Bitch: Feminist Response to Pop Culture, is packed with 80+ pages of feminist analysis, reviews, illustrations, and more. Subscribe today!

Subscribe to Bitch

Comments

5 comments have been made. Post a comment.

Have you seen this:

Have you seen this: http://www.xojane.com/issues/my-picture-was-stolen-and-turned-into-a-fat... In light of some of the issues you are discussing, I think this relates well.

here's an idea

Okay, here's what you fucking do. If you just can't handle people you barely know saying things you don't like on the internet, you delete your fucking account. But nooo, we can't do that, can we? We have to censor everything that might conflict with your opinion because sites like Facebook couldn't have possibly been made with the idea of open discussion. Just impossible.

missed the point

The article was more about the inconsistencies with Facebook's censoring rather than the principle of having a place for open discussion.

Facebook warned Son of Baldwin about his content and took down Ambrosio's voicemail yet allow images alluding to rape under humor guidelines. If the voicemail had to do with privacy, then Kelly's feminist picture should be taken down under the same guidelines as well as any member pictures used for memes without permission.

opting out is not a solution

The constant retort of opting-out is illogical (not to mention old and tiring). Simply telling someone to leave or close their account, etc., when they don't like something does not make sense in a culture that enforces the idea of identity through products and corporations. Facebook is our society in its current iteration, and to quote something I've read recently, 'If you don't have a presence online, you might as well not exist'. This is increasingly the case. Facebook, Twitter, blogs, Instagram, iPads, etc., are all about participating in a cultural identity and becoming the person these products and services promises you'll be. Capitalism is supposed to create competition and diverse environments to appeal to everyone, instead it's just more of the same no-censoring-for-the-same-of-some-technological-utopian-ideal which activtely hurts and oppresses people. Sure, if there was some OTHER entity besides Facebook that would provide the same benefits, but without the nasty business of rape and violence then telling someone to close their account could be argued as a proper response. However, given that no entity exists, and one is not even sure that its possible to create such a site (Re: This article on a non-racists reddit) then you're basically just telling people to stop existing if they don't like what's happening.

The one thing I'll say about

The one thing I'll say about "Son of Baldwin" is that while he's right about a lot of things, he's also somewhat of a self-righteous dick. He has this very certain viewpoint of everything and if you disagree with him in the slightest, it's just because you're a 'slave mastuh' who just wants to see 'the black man' saying 'yessuh, yessuh."

Like many self-appointed geniuses it's, "Either agree with every single thing I say and never ask a single question, or I'm going to call you a bunch of names."

I'd say skip his BS and read some Baldwin who, while also sometimes a self-righteous dick, is at least a much better writer and has more interesting things to say.