In the wake of Pittsburgh massacre, Facebook allegedly sorry for showing "White Supremacist" ADs

[AlTech]

Facebook is allegedly sorry after showing "White Supremacist" ADs.

 

The BBC reports a news sites "The Intercept" launched a promotion aimed at 168,000 Facebook users interested in "White Genocide".

 

In the wake of the Pittsburgh massacre, many are upset that Facebook hasn't learned their lesson.

 

Quote

Facebook has apologised after it approved an ad campaign targeted at people interested in a conspiracy theory favoured by white nationalists.

News site The Intercept was able to launch a promotion aimed at 168,000 users interested in "white genocide."

Prosecutors believe the conspiracy theory, which claims "outside forces" want to exterminate the white race, may have motivated the man who attacked a Pittsburgh synagogue last week.

A senior UK MP has criticised Facebook.

In a tweet, Damian Collins, the chair of the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee, called Facebook's approval of the ad campaign "appalling and irresponsible".

 

Quote

The Intercept's findings come more than a year after Facebook pledged to prevent advertisers on its platform from targeting anti-Semitic users, in the aftermath of a similar revelation by US media outlet ProPublica.

That report found that ads could be bought to specifically target users who described themselves as “Jew haters”, as well as other hateful terms.

In response, Facebook said it would add more human reviewers to its advertising system, and said it was "building new guardrails" to prevent such occurrences in the future.

But just a few days after 11 Jewish worshippers were killed at a Pittsburgh synagogue, The Intercept says it was able to start an ad campaign entitled "White Supremacy - Test" targeted at users who "expressed an interest or like pages related to 'White genocide conspiracy theory'".

The news site claims its request to start the campaign was manually approved by a member of Facebook's advertising department.

 

Definitely disappointing to say the least and this reminds me of a moment in the original Spiderman movie where Uncle Ben says something along the lines of "With great power comes great responsibility".

 

Source: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-46083026

[Cyberspirit]

Facebook's been on the news a lot lately. Glad I never jumped on that platform.

[Sauron]

"Allegedly sorry" rofl

[orbitalbuzzsaw]

The Zuckerbot strikes again

[leadeater]

1 minute ago, OrbitalBuzzsaw said:

The Zuckerbot strikes again

I am not a robot

*Fuel levels low*

*Refueling completed*

[RejZoR]

Funny how everyone demanded Gab to cease existing and they literally got f**ked over by the hosting service even though they had absolutely nothing to do with the killer other than him being on Gab (just like he was on other major social platforms), meanwhile Facebook is "sorry" for literally taking money from someone and hosting their white supremacist ads (so they say) and caravan just continues. Makes me vomit...

[Emanbaird]

IDK why but i feel this to be intentional 

[matrix07012]

Why aren't Facebook or Twitter taken down like Gab, when they all host "evil huwhite supremacists" on their platform?

[ScratchCat]

Facebook -> English translation:

Sorry -> We'll get a bigger carpet to stuff our failings under.

[Misanthrope]

Isn't this the second time they've been caught catering to white supremacists? So shouldn't they move from the 'Sorry' to the 'Really, really sorry' phase (Note that this is an equally vacuum statement devoid of meaning or meaningful corrective actions but it at least sounds far more apologetic in it's PRness)

[dizmo]

It took a massacre for them to realize showing those kinds of ads are wrong?

Way to go, idiots.

[Commodus]

1 hour ago, RejZoR said:

Funny how everyone demanded Gab to cease existing and they literally got f**ked over by the hosting service even though they had absolutely nothing to do with the killer other than him being on Gab (just like he was on other major social platforms), meanwhile Facebook is "sorry" for literally taking money from someone and hosting their white supremacist ads (so they say) and caravan just continues. Makes me vomit...

You do know that Gab was fully aware it was hosting neo-Nazis long before the mass shooting, right?  That it was well-known as a haven for extremists, and this was just the first time one of the extremists in its community went so far as to kill people?  Gab isn't a champion of free speech; it courts the people whose hate, harassment and threats get them kicked off of better social networks.

[Sauron]

1 hour ago, Misanthrope said:

Isn't this the second time they've been caught catering to white supremacists? So shouldn't they move from the 'Sorry' to the 'Really, really sorry' phase (Note that this is an equally vacuum statement devoid of meaning or meaningful corrective actions but it at least sounds far more apologetic in it's PRness)

When can we get to the "we're shutting down and liquidating our assets to avoid a prison sentence" phase?

 

1 hour ago, Commodus said:

You do know that Gab was fully aware it was hosting neo-Nazis long before the mass shooting, right?  That it was well-known as a haven for extremists, and this was just the first time one of the extremists in its community went so far as to kill people?  Gab isn't a champion of free speech; it courts the people whose hate, harassment and threats get them kicked off of better social networks.

I agree, though I have a hard time classifying facebook as "better" than almost anything else.

[Commodus]

Just now, Sauron said:

I agree, though I have a hard time classifying facebook as "better" than almost anything else.

Relatively speaking.  Admittedly, "don't intentionally support neo-Nazis" isn't a terribly high bar to clear.

[ARikozuM]

Seriously, guys? If Facebook is going to be a media company (which it is), it needs to vet all of their articles for truthfulness and correctness since it is publishing those articles as advertisements. 

[Taf the Ghost]

25 minutes ago, dizmo said:

It took a massacre for them to realize showing those kinds of ads are wrong?

Way to go, idiots.

Normally I'd agree with you, but The Intercept isn't being straight with this. 

 

Quote

But there are some clues as to who exactly is counted among the 168,000. After selecting “white genocide conspiracy theory” as an ad target, Facebook provided “suggestions” of other, similar criteria, including interest in the far-right-wing news outlets RedState and the Daily Caller — the latter of which, co-founded by right-wing commentator Tucker Carlson, has repeatedly been criticized for cozy connections to white nationalists and those sympathetic to them. 

This is the actual point of the piece. It's a smear campaign to rope in everyone they can into a massacre by a Jew-hating, Trump-hating maniac. Only an idiot or a journalist, but I repeat myself, can reasonably call the Daily Caller "far-right-wing". By that definition, The Guardian is centrist publication. Noticed they've moved from "White Supremacists" to "White Nationalists" to Tucker Carlson & Ben Shapiro. This is a decently well constructed smear job, but also a good reason people now loathe the media.

 

Quote

About 157,000 of the accounts with the interest are outside of the U.S., concentrated in Africa and Asia, although it’s not clear how many of these might be bots.

So there is as many outside the USA as inside the USA that may be interested in "White Genocide" as a topic. Being the way Facebook does purges, it's entirely possible that everyone that was targeted was actually a bot. What it looks as likely as a NPC found some bots and bought ads they couldn't read.

 

This is actually a lot more common than most realize. Most centralized locations on the Internet as so infested with Bot Accounts that it's actually bots trying to influence bots.

[RejZoR]

19 minutes ago, Commodus said:

You do know that Gab was fully aware it was hosting neo-Nazis long before the mass shooting, right?  That it was well-known as a haven for extremists, and this was just the first time one of the extremists in its community went so far as to kill people?  Gab isn't a champion of free speech; it courts the people whose hate, harassment and threats get them kicked off of better social networks.

Should I be shocked or surprised? That's literally a definition of free speech. There is still bunch of ISIS and other terrorist pages on Facebook and Twitter and no one gives a damn about them because brown muslim people I guess, But for Gab, "muh nazis" all the frigging time. Give me a break. Free speech means you allow even undesired opinions to be expressed. Not everything you disagree with is a hate speech you know. But silicon valley desperately tries to make you think that way. And judging by your reply, it's working. Beeeeeeeee.

 

Gab IS a champion of free speech, it's just that everyone is too busy screaming "muh nazis" at them to realize it. Platform doesn't and shouldn't be responsible for type of people hanging on it or what kind of things they post. So what if someone is screeching about wanting white ethno state? Do you think silencing that person will make things better? That's literally a definition of sticking your head in the sand, pretending things don't exist. They'll still be around, you just won't see them. But that's how current weak and pathetic society operates and it's really sad.

[Sauron]

9 minutes ago, Taf the Ghost said:

So there is as many outside the USA as inside the USA that may be interested in "White Genocide" as a topic.

Yes, it turns out racists exist outside the US, too. I don't see how this makes facebook's position better.

12 minutes ago, Taf the Ghost said:

Being the way Facebook does purges, it's entirely possible that everyone that was targeted was actually a bot.

Irrelevant - the suspicion that someone might be a bot doesn't warrant serving them fascist propaganda.

14 minutes ago, Taf the Ghost said:

This is the actual point of the piece. It's a smear campaign to rope in everyone they can into a massacre by a Jew-hating, Trump-hating maniac.

Hardly. The Intercept (and others) were able to

Quote

direct their pitches to the news feeds of almost 2,300 people who expressed interest in the topics of ‘Jew hater,’ ‘How to burn jews,’ or, ‘History of “why jews ruin the world.”’

which is a pretty big red flag, regardless of what content was actually pushed to these people. Sure, the conclusions 'The Intercept' came to might be biased, but that doesn't change the heart of the issue - Facebook was allowing people to directly reach neonazis.

 

Still, I will concede it wasn't the best of articles.

[Guest]

12 minutes ago, RejZoR said:

Should I be shocked or surprised? That's literally a definition of free speech. There is still bunch of ISIS and other terrorist pages on Facebook and Twitter and no one gives a damn about them because brown muslim people I guess, But for Gab, "muh nazis" all the frigging time. Give me a break. Free speech means you allow even undesired opinions to be expressed. Not everything you disagree with is a hate speech you know. But silicon valley desperately tries to make you think that way. And judging by your reply, it's working. Beeeeeeeee.

 

Gab IS a champion of free speech, it's just that everyone is too busy screaming "muh nazis" at them to realize it. Platform doesn't and shouldn't be responsible for type of people hanging on it or what kind of things they post. So what if someone is screeching about wanting white ethno state? Do you think silencing that person will make things better? That's literally a definition of sticking your head in the sand, pretending things don't exist. They'll still be around, you just won't see them. But that's how current weak and pathetic society operates and it's really sad.

Being a neo-nazi is literally hate speech. It’s disgusting and here’s nothing positive about it.

[Sauron]

8 minutes ago, RejZoR said:

Should I be shocked or surprised? That's literally a definition of free speech.

Free speech is fine as long as it's speech. When members of the group move from speech to action, as they did in this exact case, they become criminals and accomplices of criminals. It's also wrong to think that ANYTHING you say counts as free speech - slander and verbal abuse, for example, are NOT protected by free speech, and include most racial slurs. I'm sick of people defending nazis by misusing the shield of free speech; there are forms of violence and abuse that don't involve physical contact, and they are not acceptable.

15 minutes ago, RejZoR said:

There is still bunch of ISIS and other terrorist pages on Facebook and Twitter and no one gives a damn about them because brown muslim people I guess

Bullshit.

17 minutes ago, RejZoR said:

Platform doesn't and shouldn't be responsible for type of people hanging on it or what kind of things they post. So what if someone is screeching about wanting white ethno state? Do you think silencing that person will make things better?

Yes, shutting down propaganda outlets is exactly how you fight nazi (and extremist in general) recruitment. Read up on fascist propaganda in Italy, Japan, Spain and Germany and soviet propaganda in the USSR leading up to WW2 if you think media has no role in the establishment of a regime.

 

[RejZoR]

So, what even is "hate speech"? From what I see it, "this offends me, erase it so my weak boo boo can't be hurt". Pathetic. It's why people are such dumb sheep. I've watched Richard Spencer speech few times out of curiosity to see why people are so outraged. Being pro free speech means you listen to people with different opinions, even if they aren't right or you think/believe otherwise. But masses just want to shut off everything they disagree with proactively.

[Unixsystem]

9 minutes ago, RorzNZ said:

Being a neo-nazi is literally hate speech. It’s disgusting and here’s nothing positive about it.

It's hard for something to be literal hate speech when isn't a thing that exists. 

 

Being a neo-Nazi is reprehensible, just like being an avowed communist is. How about instead of drawing arbitrary lines between what is and isn't acceptable speech we just agree that everyone can speak (barring obvious legal limits like incitement) and let the bad ideas be filtered out via discourse. Banning and censoring them only leads to them all grouping together and gives them a legitimate victimhood complex. 

[RejZoR]

@Sauron

Shutting down just one type of propaganda you mean... Which these days means everything just a centimeter from the hard left. But the hard authoritarian left, butterflies and rainbows. Lol, people are so brainwashed...

 

And no, shutting down people with controversial opinions doesn't make it go away. It just generates more interest. You should know that by now. I'd never watch Richard Spencer otherwise, but I did, because I was curious. I guess all that censorship worked really well. Right?

[D13H4RD]

4 minutes ago, RejZoR said:

And no, shutting down people with controversial opinions doesn't make it go away. It just generates more interest. You should know that by now. I'd never watch Richard Spencer otherwise, but I did, because I was curious. I guess all that censorship worked really well. Right?

Isn't that the equivalent of plugging one's ears in the hopes that the loud empty vessels will just go away?

[Coaxialgamer]

9 minutes ago, RejZoR said:

So, what even is "hate speech"? From what I see it, "this offends me, erase it so my weak boo boo can't be hurt". Pathetic. It's why people are such dumb sheep. I've watched Richard Spencer speech few times out of curiosity to see why people are so outraged. Being pro free speech means you listen to people with different opinions, even if they aren't right or you think/believe otherwise. But masses just want to shut off everything they disagree with proactively.

I don't see how Nazi/ISIS/White genocide BS should be protected. There's no ambiguity about the intentions of those who post such material. It's not a politically divided issue like left vs right or dem vs rep.

Those who advocate for such ideologies don't have any interest in making the world better for others.

There's no ambiguity here , it's not SJW mis-gendering we're talking about , and it takes a serious leap of logic ( not to mention paranoia)  to think condemning the above discourse would result in a totalitarian state where ideology is controlled.