According to a Washington Post article from November 21st, the majority of “hate speech” on Facebook is anti-white and anti-male.
Facebook workers demanded attacks on whites and men be excluded from hate-speech policy https://t.co/xyeRjoPxqg
— Thomas Paine (@Thomas1774Paine) November 24, 2021
Unsurprisingly, the three writers from the Post article — Elizabeth Dwoskin, Nitasha Tiku, and Craig Timberg — find this to be a problem because apparently they think anti-white and anti-male sentiments on the platform should be ignored.
After a long discussion about how there are posts and/or comments on Facebook that were racist or expressed bigotry toward minorities and those hosting non-heterosexual biases, the Post article noted that there was an issue because most of the hate speech caught by Facebook’s algorithms caught anti-white or anti-male hate speech.
The article stated:
“Yet racist posts against minorities weren’t what Facebook’s own hate speech detection algorithms were most commonly finding.
The software, which the company introduced in 2015, was supposed to detect and automatically delete hate speech before users saw it. Publicly, the company said in 2019 that its algorithms proactively caught more than 80 percent of hate speech.”
The article added:
“But this statistic hid a serious problem that was obvious to researchers: The algorithm was aggressively detecting comments denigrating white people more than attacks on every other group, according to several of the documents.”
“One April 2020 document said roughly 90 percent of ‘hate speech’ subject to content takedowns were statements of contempt, inferiority and disgust directed at white people and men, though the time frame is unclear. And it consistently failed to remove the most derogatory, racist content.”
— Sam Koritz (@KoritzSam) November 24, 2021
It seems that these Post writers find it a “serious problem” that Facebook was finding that comments or posts that expressed “contempt, inferiority and disgust directed at white people and men” consisted of “roughly 90 percent” of detected “hate speech” and were having action taken against the posts or comments.
According to reports, in 2020, Facebook researchers assembled a study of the “worst of the worst” hate speech content on the company’s platform and made recommendation for how to curtail it.
However, Facebook officials decided against implementing those recommendations, afraid that the “new system would tilt the scales by protecting some vulnerable groups over others” and they were concerned about the “potential for backlash from ‘conservative’ partners.”
In 2019, the researchers asked thousands of Facebook users to rank a series of abusive posts and respondents, even white conservatives, consistently found those aimed at minority groups to be the most harmful.
Examples of the “worst of the worst” posting included obscene sexist and racist comments aimed at the progressive Democratic representatives known as “the Squad.”
After the report found that the detection algorithm tended to “aggressively” detect comments denigrating white people more than attacks on every other group, the researchers recommended retuning the system to flag and delete hate speech that targeted black, Jewish, LGTBQ, Muslim and mixed-race people, since the survey found those posts to be “the worst of the worst.”
Facebook researchers wanted to fix its algorithm so the worst hate speech would be removed, but execs reportedly dismissed their plan to avoid angering the company's "conservative partners." https://t.co/HVcuVZLQHX
— Yahoo Canada News (@YahooCanadaNews) November 24, 2021
However, Facebook leadership reportedly rejected the plan and stuck to the company’s “political neutral” stance. In a statement to the Post, Facebook spokesman Any Stone said that the company had implemented parts of the report’s recommendations, but after a rigorous internal discussion about these difficult questions, they did not implement all parts as doing so “would have actually meant fewer automated removals of hate speech.” He added:
“The worst of the worst project helped show us what kinds of hate speech our technology was and was not effectively detecting and understand what forms of it people believe to be the most insidious.”
Editor note: In 2020, we saw a nationwide push to “defund the police”. While we all stood here shaking our heads wondering if these people were serious… they cut billions of dollars in funding for police officers.
And as a result, crime has skyrocketed – all while the same politicians who said “you don’t need guns, the government will protect you” continued their attacks on both our police officers and our Second Amendment rights.
And that’s exactly why we’re launching this national crowdfunding campaign as part of our efforts to help “re-fund the police”.
Do you want to join our private family of first responders and supporters? Get unprecedented access to some of the most powerful stories that the media refuses to show you. Proceeds get reinvested into having active, retired and wounded officers, their families and supporters tell more of these stories. Click to check it out.
CNN restricts Australians from accessing Facebook pages, effectively censoring an entire continent
September 30th, 2021
In light of a recent court ruling coming from Australia that allows news organizations to be sued for what people comment online on their articles – CNN decided to simply pull all accessibility to every one of their Facebook pages in the continent of Australia.
While the news of CNN being inaccessible in through Facebook in Australia may serve as joke fodder for those who dislike the new organization – the premise that was established in Australia’s high court is concerning: comments left by Facebook users on posts are being treated by Australia’s courts as though they’re content published by the news organization itself.
CNN has decided Australians “will no longer have access” to its Facebook pages, after the recent court ruling which found publishers have defamation liability for Facebook comments
Rather than moderating all the comments, CNN is just cutting off Australia https://t.co/NqAMamzP4I
— Josh Butler (@JoshButler) September 28, 2021
It’s a matter where it’s somewhat tough to assign blame to CNN for their decision to simply pull access to all their Facebook pages in Australia, considering how the continent’s high court determined that news organizations can be held liable for the comments left on their articles by random Facebook users.
Anyone who spends any amount of time on Facebook and comes across an article covering a popular or contentious topic is no stranger to some pretty absurd comments left behind by users of the platform – and Australia’s High Court’s ruling in early September decided that news organizations, not individuals, should be liable for those very comments.
The case where this decision was reached stemmed from outlets like Fairfax Media, Nationwide News and Sky News covering news of Dylan Voller, an Aboriginal-Australian man who was thrust into the news cycle after an episode of ABC’s Four Corners aired in 2016 that explored his mistreatment as a juvenile at a Northern Territory detention center.
Following the 2016 Four Corners episode, the aforementioned news outlets started sharing reports of his story and the subsequent announcement from the prime minister announcing the intention to investigate Voller’s treatment as a juvenile while in custody of the detention center.
TL;DR: Facebook does not give publishers the ability to turn off comments for particular countries or delete comments en masse.
At the same time, Australia has decided publishers are liable for what random commenters say.
Outlets have to protect themselves. It’s understandable
— Belinda Barnet (@manjusrii) September 30, 2021
In all the reporting from the news outlets managed by Fairfax, Nationwide and Sky News, a video was posted to Facebook that depicted Voller in what was described as a “compromising state” while being held at a detention center in his youth.
The video of course resulted in comments pouring in – some expressing sympathy for what Voller endured and aligning with his efforts to reform juvenile corrections, while other commenters began to allege that Voller committed a vast array of violent crimes and was perhaps deserving of such treatment.
Thus, in 2019, Voller brought a lawsuit against Fairfax, Nationwide and Sky News, alleging that the news publishers were responsible for all defamatory statements made by Facebook users on their posts – claiming that since they manage the Facebook page, those comments were effectively published by the news outlets.
Apparently, the Australian courts agreed with Voller, which brings us back to CNN’s recent decision to pull all access to their Facebook content in Australia. Following the decision, CNN allegedly asked Facebook whether it could assist news organizations in Australia in disabling comments on all of their pages.
CNN is the first major news organisation to pull its Australian Facebook presence since the country's high court ruled that publishers were legally responsible for comments posted below stories – even if the stories themselves were not defamatory. https://t.co/3aH1CzGRYI
— John FitzGerald (@TheTweetOfJohn) September 29, 2021
In short, Facebook told CNN that they would not disable all comments in Australia for their Facebook pages, instead telling CNN that they would need to disable comments on each and every one of their posts – a process that can only be done one at a time.
Considering the arduous nature of that effort (both retroactively and moving forward), CNN opted to instead just restrict access to its pages in Australia. A spokesman for the news organization delivered the following statement regarding the matter:
“We are disappointed that Facebook, once again, has failed to ensure its platform is a place for credible journalism and productive dialogue around current events among its users.”
To date, CNN is the first large media organization to do this regarding Australia – but it’s certainly possible they won’t be the only one to do so considering the far reaching legal ruling in the country.
Peter Lewis, director of the Centre for Responsible Technology, commented on that very aspect and suspects more news organizations will follow suit – and rulings like this will only become more frequent:
“There will be more of this. We’ve had this major disruption in the way that we share communication and make sense of the world. And Facebook is the big beneficiary in terms of the money they’ve made out of that shift.”
Coming to America? Australia reportedly now confiscating alcohol in locked down areas
(Originally published September 12th, 2021)
AUSTRALIA– Throughout the pandemic, overreaching politicians have imposed regulations and mandates that suppressed the rights of the people across the world out of “safety”.
During the holidays, Law Enforcement Today reported on many excessive mandates, such as how many people can gather at your home for dinner. Pennsylvania even went so far as to shut down alcohol sales on Thanksgiving eve in an attempt to control the narrative.
At a time when the people are fed up with the scare tactics and mandates handed down by hypocritical politicians, shocking reports are being released that show how far the governments are being allowed to go.
According to reports, Australia has now begun monitoring alcohol consumption, and in some cases confiscating alcoholic beverages in areas that are under strict lockdown.
Australia has now resorted to monitoring alcohol consumption and in some cases confiscating elicit drinks in areas under strict lockdown. https://t.co/ajxK5dBGNO
— Breitbart News (@BreitbartNews) September 9, 2021
According to news.com.au, health authorities in New South Wales (NSW), Australia’s most populous state, have limited the number of alcoholic beverages people can drink each day in “NSW Health controlled buildings” as part of an effort to “ensure the safety of health staff and residents.”
“Residents in apartment blocks locked-down by NSW Health are having their alcohol deliveries policed as part of a policy to limit the number of drinks being consumed each day.
“Mission Australia’s Common Ground building in Camperdown is the latest building where occupants are subjected to the harsh rules.
“Residents are allowed to receive a ration of one of the following: six beers or pre-mixed drinks, one bottle of wine, or one 375ml bottle of spirits.
“Excess alcohol is being confiscated until lockdown rules are lifted.
“Residents can consult with a clinician if they think they need more than the allowed limit.”
It is being reported that authorities are even searching “care packages sent by friends and relatives” in order to monitor the goods and ensure there are no items that will violate the order, and residents in Sydney are furious.
Australia should be a warning🚨
People who are locked down in NSW apartment building are now getting limits on what they can consume.
Gifts and care bags get searched before being handed to those in lockdown.
If too much alcohol is found it gets seized by police.
— PeterSweden (@PeterSweden7) September 8, 2021
One resident of the building, Robin Elhaj said:
“They are searching all bags and things coming into the building … They confiscated a series of gifts. So things like bottles of spirits, we weren’t allowed to have those and we still (aren’t),”
Breitbart reported that a spokeswoman for the Sydney Local Health District confirmed the alcohol limits are in place “where Covid-positive patients and close contacts are sent for isolation.”
Likewise, a spokeswoman for the Sydney Local Health District confirmed apartment buildings under the control of the NSW fell subject to alcohol restrictions.
Many are questioning whether the mandate limiting alcohol consumption during quarantine is even legal given the fact that the consumption of the beverages is occurring in an individual’s private residence.
A NSW Police spokeswoman denied reports that officers are confiscating alcohol from residents.
AUSTRALIA – Limit on alcohol purchased to consume in their own homes because, COVID.
— Bernie's Tweets (@BernieSpofforth) September 8, 2021
The spokeswoman said:
“In all residential lockdown locations, NSW Police are there to ensure compliance with the Public Health Orders and assist NSW Health if required,”
Australia’s strict lockdown policy, which forbids citizens from leaving the country, has come under intense scrutiny in recent weeks.
Writing in The Atlantic, Conor Friedersdorf argued “Australia traded away too much liberty.”
“Australia is undoubtedly a democracy, with multiple political parties, regular elections, and the peaceful transfer of power.
But if a country indefinitely forbids its own citizens from leaving its borders, strands tens of thousands of its citizens abroad, puts strict rules on intrastate travel, prohibits citizens from leaving home without an excuse from an official government list, mandates masks even when people are outdoors and socially distanced, deploys the military to enforce those rules, bans protest, and arrests and fines dissenters, is that country still a liberal democracy?”
As Breitbart pointed out, Australia’s neighbor New Zealand has already vowed to close its borders for the remainder of the year, continuing the country’s embrace of a total isolationist strategy in its fight against the coronavirus.
In August, New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern said the country’s borders “will never be the same after” the pandemic, likening the situation to the 9/11 attacks.
“Just like after 9/11, the border will never be the same after Covid … things can change, but that doesn’t mean we can’t adapt to them in a way that eventually feels normal again,”
Want to make sure you never miss a story from Law Enforcement Today? With so much “stuff” happening in the world on social media, it’s easy for things to get lost.
Make sure you click “following” and then click “see first” so you don’t miss a thing! (See image below.) Thanks for being a part of the LET family!