Violently Raping Your Friend Just for Laughs

[cui bono]

Apparently that's a Facebook Group. Nice, isn't it? There are videos being posted of women being raped. Not sexual role-playing rape. Real rape. Being dragged from the side of the road and gang raped rape. What the fuck is wrong with our society?

Facebook’s hate speech problem

Facebook removes photos of women breastfeeding, but rape videos seem to last for days. These women are sick of it
By Mary Elizabeth Williams

When three Chicago area teens were charged over the weekend with raping a 12-year-old girl — and then posting a video of the assault on their Facebook pages – it was a tale that was as revolting as it was entirely plausible. After all, you don’t have to look far at all on Facebook to find images of women being degraded, or for groups devoted to laughing off violence against women. But a bold open letter to Facebook released on Tuesday is hoping to turn the tide.

<snip>

It (Facebook) regularly treats women who post images of themselves breastfeeding as, in the words of childbirth educator Emma Kwasnica, “pornographers” by removing their photographs. It deletes photos of breast cancer survivors. Only when directly and publicly challenged — or when the moderators simply don’t catch it — do those basic and unpornographic images survive. And yet one easy search will yield you a leering “upskirt” fan page with a cover image of a female who very clearly left her underwear at home. A quick perusal of a few existing groups will find plenty of jokey references to sluts and hoes and what a fist can do to set them straight.

Far more disturbing, however, are the numerous pro-rape and assault images that appear throughout FB — often next to innocuous ads for audio books and airlines. Such as an image of a woman in a heap at the bottom of a flight of stairs with the message “Next time don’t get pregnant” next to an ad for Pringles. That’s why alerting advertisers to the context in which their messages are appearing is so crucial. Maybe Pringles doesn’t want to be the official snack chip of guys who throw pregnant women down stairs. Maybe Duracell doesn’t want to power folks who “kill bitches like you.” A #Fbrape meme on Twitter Tuesday has already inspired a deluge of tweets and some possible hopeful actions. Zipcar, for example, has vowed “We do not condone hate speech against women. We are looking into this immediately.”

<snip>

As Chemaly points out, it’s the selectivity and seeming randomness of Facebook’s enforcement that’s infuriating. “They’ve taken down the John Currin painting of Bea Arthur and they’re leaving up this stuff,” she says. Meanwhile, “They create an environment where rape is funny, where you can be boastful about it.” An environment where, according to court documents, it’s alarmingly easy to post a video of the sexual abuse of a 12-year-old girl.

<snip>

http://www.salon.com/2013/05/21/facebooks_hate_speech_problem/

[geek tragedy]

1. What rape culture? nt

[cui bono]

2. Is that sarcasm? n/t

[geek tragedy]

4. yes

http://www.google.com/search?q=%22what+rape+culture%22+&sitesearch=democraticunderground.com&safe=active#sclient=psy-ab&safe=active&q=%22what+rape+culture%22+%22geek+tragedy%22+site:democraticunderground.com&oq=%22what+rape+culture%22+%22geek+tragedy%22+site:democraticunderground.com&gs_l=serp.3...4324.6257.0.6697.14.14.0.0.0.0.120.1220.11j3.14.0...0.0...1c.1.14.psy-ab.wWJVaTy0ieA&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.&bvm=bv.46751780,d.dmg&fp=5501145c2c04161b&biw=786&bih=410

[cui bono]

8. I figured, just wanted to be certain.

Yeah, the denial of this is incredible. Reading another article now, where the lesson from the judge is be careful how you talk to your friends and recording events. No mention not raping from what it says in the article.

[BainsBane]

5. Yes, he's being sarcastic

about the many people who deny the existence of rape culture.

[Whisp]

3. It must have been her fault.

Maybe she looked 13 instead of 12 so it wasn't the boy's fault. Because rape is not a problem, it is just in our pearl clutcher heads.

[Dash87]

7. They just couldn't help themselves!

You know, boys being boys.

The rape culture does not exist. Not at all...

[Wednesdays]

68. It seems they HAVE helped themselves

And pretty freely, too.

(with apologies to Gilbert & Sullivan.)

[randome]

6. I don't see Facebook as 'creating an environment where rape is funny'.

They do have consistency issues (and the stupid breastfeeding bans) but let's put the blame where it primarily belongs: on the people doing the posting.

FB does have hundreds of millions of daily posts so it may be a little difficult for them to police the entire site every day.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[cui bono]

10. The issue is their diligence on the harmless photos of natural breast feeding

and the pass on violence against women. And by allowing those to stay on it propagates that sort of mentality. Other guys see that and want that notariety and think great, I'm going to go do that too. It numbs kids to it and makes them think it's okay.

[randome]

13. I just wonder how many complaints they receive per day.

I'm not saying the obviously atrocious photos should go and the relatively innocuous ones remain (like breastfeeding), I'm just wondering how difficult it is to manually review all the complaints they likely receive.

Of course maybe it's not that difficult at all and they simply are failing to do basic policing of the network.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[whathehell]

16. +1 n/t

[Chan790]

36. No...and I'm not even talking about the "Rape is funny" posts.

I'm involved in a global group that specifically targets pro-violence against women, pro-rape posts and pages to have them removed. We're also involved in efforts to identify people, pages and content involved in the distribution of child pornography on Facebook. When we find them, we report them to Facebook, we follow up with LE.

We're willing to do the policing. We've been doing the policing. You don't even have to be involved with our efforts to police Facebook yourself..you just have to start doing it...it's not hard to find illegal content on Facebook if you look for it. The problem lies in that Facebook views us, along with other people doing the reporting...and not the people posting pages with names like "Rape Party!" and nude pictures of obviously-exploited teenagers and children...as the problem.

There's a problem and they don't want to fix it because rapists and pedophiles generate page-views too and those pages tend to get a lot of traffic and generate ad revenues. My inbox is filled with auto-generated messages that alerted content has been reviewed by Facebook and deemed to not be a violation.

I have received messages telling me that a photo of the graphic rape of an 8 year old girl...is not a violation.
Nude photos of tween and teen girls: not a violation
Pages promoting actual international sex-trafficking and sex-slavery: not a violation.
Pages functioning as trading-boards for child pornography: no violation.

Facebook has no desire that their site be policed by anybody, including them. Policing Facebook for content that Facebook says is illegal or prohibited would cost Facebook money. There is no matter of difficulty, it benefits them to refuse to police Facebook while saying they are policing Facebook. They simply ban or harass anybody who credibly says they're not policing.

[cui bono]

62. Wow. That is really disturbing.

Can they be prosecuted for child pornography is they have been made aware of those nude teen photos and still left them up?

And thank you for fighting the good fight.

[siligut]

9. Rape is about power and making it a group activity makes it easy and OK

This is disgusting and it is going to take something big to halt it.

[Blue_Tires]

11. No big shock, sadly -- Did people forget Stubenville already??

[arcane1]

12. It always amazes me how quickly FB can remove some items and not others

[Cirque du So-What]

14. I'm ready for a general strike against FB

I can't do any good personally, as I have no presence on that wretched site.

[lark]

20. I'll do it in your honor

I've been more and more disenchanted with FB and only go there about once every few weeks.
Now that I know they're allowing rape videos, that tears it. No more FB in honor of Cirque du So-What.

[Chaco Dundee]

21. rape culture

I left that wretched site almost a year ago.people I had no contact with in over 35 years found me and contacted me on that site.that alone felt like rape.there were reasons I cut them out of my life to begin with,35 years ago.

[Fantastic Anarchist]

23. People contacting you on a social site you joined "felt like rape?"

How horrible for you.

[Chaco Dundee]

52. sarcasm

Hey,you got me laughing.thanks.since You like sarcasm,I wrote a book,"Suicide Guide for Dummies.want a copy?

[Fantastic Anarchist]

55. Not very clever.

And lacking tact, also.

You showed great promise saying you felt like being "raped" just because people contacted you on a social site you joined.

Now the martyr's rejoinder is a very unsuccessful and unsophisticated attempt at insult.

Pity.

[Chaco Dundee]

60. sorry you feel that way

That was not an insult,but sarcasm.you tried it out on me.I thought I met somebody I could get along with.be it as it may,I actually wrote that book.

[Fantastic Anarchist]

66. Well, if you're not kidding ...

I do have an affinity for subversion and dark humor.

[Chaco Dundee]

71. not kidding

I'm not kidding,I am glad we worked that out. I love dark humor and I do lean to sarcasm,there has to be some fun in life and our republican friends have a way to open themselfs up for a broadside no matter what they do.

[Fantastic Anarchist]

72. I reread your post ...

And the sarcasm was over my head. Perhaps, it was lack of sleep.

Glad we worked that out.

[Chaco Dundee]

83. no matter now

To overcome that little misunderstanding reminds me why I liked your posts to begin with.if you ever feel like a good laugh,let me know.

[Ilsa]

58. Me neither. I won't join it again. I was on

Briefly about five years ago, just to read my friend's page. I don't care how many offers I get for discounts at businesses if I'll go approve their FB page, I refuse to sign up again.

[gopiscrap]

15. THis is horrible

but because of the republican's, our society has gotten coarser and much more desensitized to our fellow citizens!

[BillyRibs]

17. I already Quit Supplying that rat bastard MZ with cash and

And permanently Deleted my face book page months ago. (took Me hours to figure out how.) Why this shit is aloud to continue to walk the face of the earth I'll never know.

[Fuddnik]

22. Yeah, they make it a real job to permanently delete an account.

I saw just how invasive they were, and got rid of mine a few years ago.

If you don't do it right, it's just inactive.

[freshwest]

56. Please let me know. I started one years ago and never went back. I don't want it inactive.

I've been told to set it to friends only and defriend everyone. I want more. Please PM me, BR.

[badtoworse]

18. The root cause of this is no different than what is driving the current high level of gun violence

A lack of respect for human life and the rights of others - in essence the lack of a moral compass. I would lay a substantial amount of blame on the what's been in our media for the last 25 years or so.

[Squinch]

19. I'm not a Facebook user and never was, but isn't it time that all the women who use Facebook

loudly inform the owners of Facebook that they will no longer be participating in Facebook? And then get off Facebook?

Seriously, am I missing something? I read all the time about the fact that Facebook refuses to curtail communications about or depicting rape. Is the Facebook experience worth encouraging the degradation of women?

[AtheistCrusader]

25. In all my time on FB, I have never encountered any of the material in the OP.

So exposure to that content is likely related to who you know, and what that person likes.

[Squinch]

27. But the fact that the people who are profiting from your participation repeatedly

refuse to treat rape material as stringently as, say, photos of women breastfeeding, should be sufficient reason to say "see ya." Whether it is something you participate in or not.

[AtheistCrusader]

28. I don't think humans are 'treating' it at all.

Most bannings occur due to the logic of algorithms that respond to total views, probably divided by alerts, etc.

People will always abuse such platforms. People use the internet to spread kiddie porn, abstaining from its use doesn't halt the abuse of humans, at all. FB is just a platform. It has rules, and they are programmatically enforced. How many people FB employs to review bans or reverse bans, or go proactively looking for people to ban, is likely a tightly guarded secret.

There are right-wingers constantly going on about how Facebook targets them for bans. What's actually happening is, they send too many friend requests, and people click 'this is spam' or one of the similar options, and cross a threshold, and bam, they warn or ban. They don't get how it works. Edit: I meant to elaborate. Those right-wingers interpret FB's automatic response to be malicious, or targeting them for persecution. It isn't, just like the existence of some of the misogynistic or worse material on FB isn't 'allowed' over the breastfeeding photos. Its all driven by the behaviors of the people that alert, or not, based on the material.

[Squinch]

29. Well, that's a problem, then, isn't it?

The algorithm needs to be changed so that movies of 12 year olds getting raped are not able to be used for entertainment. They're a smart bunch of people. I'm sure they could manage it. And until that happens, people should not use Facebook.

[AtheistCrusader]

30. OR

we could choose not to surround ourselves with people that panic-alert over the photo of a human female nursing a child. That would improve the signal to noise ratio of the actual offensive/horrifying content alerts.

Facebook is a bit of a cesspool, but that's only because humans hang out there.

[Squinch]

31. The nursing controversy is not really related to this. Videos of child rape are being

used as entertainment, and this is being facilitated by a major US company. The company needs to fix that problem, or people need to abandon that company.

[AtheistCrusader]

33. The OP made the comparison in how quickly the two sets of material are taken down.

(Of course, one shouldn't be taken down at all)

The duration of how long each type of media survives takedown is a function of how many people hit the alert button, is all I am saying. No one is saying Facebook leaves that material up forever to profit off it. It is taken down, apparently, even per the article and author of the thread.

[Squinch]

34. And you're saying that the problem lies with the algorithm, so it's not really anyone's fault.

I'm saying that the company has a responsibility to fix the problem, and the fact that it lies with the algorithm doesn't absolve them from that responsibility. And if they don't take on that responsibility and fix the problem, people should not participate.

[AtheistCrusader]

35. No, I think the problem lies with the humans using FB.

This is a vile reflection of our social mores. Where one thing may be more offensive than the other, or even in the same neighborhood, is sickening.

I don't know there is too much you can do, mathematics-wise to correct for that social issue.

[Squinch]

40. Here's what makes me sad:

Someone says: gang rapes of 12-year-olds are being filmed and put up onFfacebook.

We all know that this happens. In my perfect world, the response would be, "That's jacked up, that's unacceptable. Period. And I won't be part of anything where that happens." And I wish that all reasonable people would have that reaction, because then Facebook would do something about the videos of the 12-year-olds being gang raped.

Instead, the responses are, "well, there's a problem with the algorithm," "well, there are people alerting on breast feeders that are screwing up the system," "well, you can't police the internet," "well they aren't leaving that stuff up forever, they take it down eventually."

And because those are the typical responses of many reasonable people to this type of thing, Facebook will continue to not solve the problem. They have said they can't because of these reasons, and we have given them a pass based on these reasons.

[AtheistCrusader]

48. A poster down thread used the phrase 'the inmates are running the asylum'.

That is, in all senses of the term, 100% true. FB is user-driven content. FB's enforcement mechanisms are 100% user-driven.

If the users are flagging one issue as being offensive at a greater rate than others, they will get banned faster. (I would point out, this CLAIM of breastfeeding photos being taken down faster has not been proven, only asserted.)

The offensive material does get taken down, such as the video. The allegation in the OP is that it is not taken down fast enough, or is taken down slower than the breastfeeding material that shouldn't even be offensive. That is all.

In that light, what exactly is there for FB to fix? The only thing I can think of, is to be more discriminating in the character of people they allow to use the site. Two problems to correct: 1)People posting vile material, and 2)Hyper-sensitive people making up things to be offended about.

[Squinch]

50. What exactly is there for FB to fix? The existence of rape videos on their site.

[AtheistCrusader]

53. They take those videos down.

The OP's allegation is that they don't take them down fast enough. (Unproven)

[Squinch]

54. And a few weeks later they let new ones go up.

[AtheistCrusader]

69. people abuse systems.

This isn't a matter of 'letting' them. Accounts are banned. At some point whole IP's are banned, doesn't matter. People can always create new accounts. Can FB ban them faster? Maybe. That's about all you can do. I haven't seen any independent study showing the average time to ban on various topics on FB. Are there any competitors doing it faster? Unknown.

An activist, and one of the founders of the Electronic Frontier Foundation had a couple relevant comments on this that might be worth considering:

"The internet interprets censorship as damage and routes around it."
"If you're watching everybody, you're watching nobody."

(John Gilmore)

There are always ways to abuse these system. Banned FB users have every tool at their disposal to spoof new accounts, to appear to be coming from different locations, even different countries. Even if FB went to a paid subscription model (suicide for FB as a business) people can get prepaid visa cards from home depot, or pretty much anywhere, allowing them to buy new subscriptions and parade around their filth until they accumulate the alerts to ban them.

I don't think I want a corporation to know enough about me, to be able to ban me from a system forever without flaw, and without any hope of abusing the system to get back in. That is the level of effort this issue would take to be able to pro-actively eliminate all users that might engage in this sort of abuse.

Some of this stuff has happened right here on DU. But the local ban methods work better, given the smaller user base. There are real humans behind much of it. FB's revenue streams probably don't allow for that on the same scale for the number of users they have. (I could be wrong on that, but I doubt it)**

Best policy, it's really for the users: Hit alert, and move on. There exist people on the internet that live to show you offensive things, and get your goat. Alert and move on. Don't let the terrorists win by changing how we live.

**Edit: and the local user population is MUCH more aggressive about mashing that Alert button for these types of content. Again, a reflection of society. Our local population is not a reflection of the general population of the country, let alone the world.

[Squinch]

73. None of which is my problem. Facebook has videos of women and children being raped that are being

offered for entertainment purposes. Women shouldn't use Facebook until they come up with some way to not air videos of women and children being raped that are being used for entertainment purposes.

This isn't complicated.

And the folks at Facebook are very clever, problem-solving type people. We know this because they invented Facebook. If their bottom line were affected, that algorithm would be fixed up in a jiffy.

And PS "Hit alert and move on" is not an appropriate response to advise for a video of a 12 year old being gang raped.

Let's repeat that, and really think about the words: a 12 year old being gang raped. 12. Gang raped.

[AtheistCrusader]

74. You don't even seem to know what you would have facebook do.

Fixed up to WHAT?

FB's policies preclude that sort of content. When it is raised to their attention, it is removed. Even the OP said as much.

Are they doing it fast enough? Are they doing it slower than other social media providers? Are they actually targeting not offensive stuff like breast feeding, while leaving this sort of rape video up, intentionally or even unintentionally? None of that has been established, only alleged without evidence.

The relative vileness of the content does not change the technical proposition of the problem. Until a human that works for Facebook actually reviews the material (What a shitty goddamn job), that video could be a flower in a field swaying in the breeze in the sunlight for all FB can do about it.

Let me put it another way, when you get enough people together in one place at any time, whether virtual or meatspace, you will get criminal activity of all types along with it.

Now, the venue hosting those people does have rules. To some degree they are enforced. What is the current delay/rate of enforcement, and, what is an acceptable level to you? 'Fix it' is meaningless. What does 'fixed' look like to you? FB COULD withhold videos from posting until reviewed by a human. That's technically feasible. Can Facebook actually do it, and would the broad user base actually accept that level of scrutiny? I highly doubt it. 500+ million people can upload a LOT of minutes of a LOT of footage in a short span of time.

We also have in the past discussed Law Enforcement having links to, and special access for reviewing user data on facebook. The video you just described is illegal in multiple dimensions. Is Facebook referring that material and user info to law enforcement? Is law enforcement actively scouring FB for that sort of material? Questions not answered in the OP. Certainly the article yesterday about the kid/rapper arrested for terrorist threats from a Facebook post suggests something is being done at least at some level.

Without independent review evidence in hand, neither of us has any way of knowing FB's actual performance on eliminating this content, and enabling prosecutions.

[Squinch]

75. The acceptable level to me is that there would be no videos of women or children being

raped on Facebook.

And, as I have said over and over again in this conversation, I am VERY clear about what I want Facebook to do. I want them to come up with a way to not have videos of women or children being raped airing on their site. Ever. For any length of time.

And yes, you can keep telling me about their policies and their algorithms and all the problems that Facebook has in trying to solve that problem. I don't really care. There need to be NO videos of women or children being raped on Facebook.

And until there are NO videos of women or children being raped on Facebook, people should not use Facebook.

Yes, I'm sure it's very difficult for them to achieve this. But let's say those words again, and think really hard about them: 12 year old. Gang raped.

[AtheistCrusader]

76. Your bar requires human review of all photo and video content prior to posting.

You could maybe do some programmatic wizardry like my DVR, that uses differences in volume to chop out advertisements, and instead focus on screams/other related sounds. That would last a while, while the dirtbags alter the content to circumvent it. You could do some optical wizardry too, to detect certain acts, sort of like my phone and camera can detect faces, and even MATCH faces to people. Again, this will work for a short period of time till the miscreants get around it. (Who knows, both techniques might already be in play.)

You are, taking a step back, right now using medium that is simultaneously moving illicit and vile material like what was posted on FB. Right now. This second. You are ON the internet. You are sharing space with, and potentially exposed to this material every time you open your browser. Are you to abstain from that as well till every ISP and every access point to the internet be reviewed and blocked by human or mechanical content review for decency standards or criminal activity? Imagine the surveillance mechanism that would require. That's a lot more people than the already-staggering number of users FB has to deal with.

Your bar is impossibly high. The only possible way FB could deal with that 100% every time, prior to posting, would be to stop sharing of video and photos altogether.

[Squinch]

77. No. Right now I am not patronizing a corporation that is profiting from the uploading

of videos of women and children being raped. Facebook is not the internet. Facebook is a company providing a service. They need to provide the service to the specification of it's users, or it will not have users. Users might want to make a stink about the 12 year olds being gang raped. If enough of them do, they will need to find a way to satisfy that specification of its users.

Your noodling around about the problem in a chat on DU does not yield any ready solutions. That's unfortunate. But that doesn't mean there is no solution. Maybe we should demand that they do something to try and find it.

[AtheistCrusader]

79. Your ISP profits from you.

Your ISP is undoubtedly a channel by which this material is at least sometimes moved. Said ISP profits from those users transferring malicious and illegal content as well.

Think of the alert system of FB as a crowdsourcing solution to the problem. The alerts drive it. If the system produces unequal results, and that can be demonstrated, or the system is unreasonably slow to takedown, or fails to notify law enforcement in the case of explicitly illegal material like you pointed out, and all of this can be proven independently, scientifically, then as a user community, we have (in my opinion, of course) a strong case for a boycott like action or similar corrective action.

Till that is established, I don't see corrective action on the part of the user base, excepting that, as a user, I have a desire and I feel responsibility, to educate other users that such material never blurs the line of a joke or art or anything like that, and that users NEED to hit alert to bring it crashing down. That's what I will pledge to do, until I see evidence, SOLID preferably peer reviewed evidence, that FB is in the wrong here. That FB is up to something, or failing to do something. THEN I would terminate my account.

[Squinch]

81. You're just not getting the basic point of this. It is this: what is happening should be

unacceptable to any reasonable person. Period. Full stop. No further discussion. No justification.

Yes, I know what the alert system does. It doesn't solve the problem.

You are talking about "unequal results" and "unreasonably slow takedown." You are saying that, hell, they're doing their best. So a couple of gang rape videos of a 12 year old slip through. They can't help it. Their algorithm lets it happen. It's not a strong enough case for a boycott.

I find that horrifying.

And just so that you don't feel the need to tell me again about the alert system's unequal results absolving Facebook from responsibility for videos of women and children being raped, while Facebook profits from the airing of those videos, I'll say we aren't going to agree.

I'm bowing out of this merry-go-round argument now. Because it is too unutterably depressing.

[AtheistCrusader]

82. I also take away a depressing thought.

Couple, actually.

Primarily, that there is enough takedowns of non-offensive material via alerts, to at least foster the impression that FB is doing something about one non-offensive issue, and nothing about an actually offensive, and illegal issue. That tells me there is something wrong with the users themselves, by extension, something wrong with society. That is super depressing.

[cui bono]

63. According to other articles I'm reading, no, it does not necessarily get taken down.

Even in the article in the OP it says that if they deem something as humor they don't take it down. Also, apparently FB has to allow a new page to be created so they have seen the names when they allow them. One was named what this thread title is named. I have seen similar names in articles I've been reading today.

Here is an excerpt from an article from last September:

The page, which posts photographs of girls and women so that others can comment on their sluttiness, has more than 200,000 likes. Based on the comments, the photos appear to be in use without the consent or even knowledge of the girls and women featured. The owners of the page, 19-year-olds "Dom & James," not sluts themselves according to their profile, are upset because their Tumblr of the same name was deleted and also because Facebook added the following qualification to their page: "[Controversial Humor]." That changes everything. The dynamic duo are so dismayed by the petition, and by people threatening to sue them, that they have started their own petition: "Please sign to tell people who complain about "12 year old slut memes" to shut the f**k up."

The man who started the petition to have the page taken down thinks that it encourages violence against minors and is a violation of Facebook's own guidelines regarding hate speech. Facebook says nothing and, indeed, as Anna North points out in Buzzfeed today, despite the fact that the page seems to fit the description of cyberbullying and endangering minors outlined in Facebook's terms, Facebook will not remove it. The two owners of the page defend it this way: "You put something on Facebook, you no longer own it. Sometimes it pays to read the fine print. In short, shut your f**king mouth and accept you're the one that put up that slutty photo, regret and forget, you f**king moron." They have a point about the small print and, indeed, now that they have put up the "slutty" photos themselves, might want to consider the terms of their own indictment. As with rape joke pages, there is not shortage of support for this page. It's funny. Really. As one woman put it in a common refrain on the page, "Wow nobody these days can take laughs."

This is pretty much Facebook's attitude and why it deals with this page and assorted others by adding [Humor] to titles. As a result, according to Facebook's interpretation and adherence to its own policies, they will not take down Boobs, Breasts and Boys who love them, unless the boys are babies since they do take down photos of breastfeeding mothers. They will not take down [Controversial Humor] rape pages, but they will remove a photograph of a woman crossing the street in New York City because she is topless (legal in New York, but not the sovereign state of Facebook). Obscene being defined by Facebook as a breast not in service to a man. Maybe it's not a breast problem at all, but a nipple issue. Maybe Facebook lawyers are scared or put off by nipples. This isn't offensive. At best it is sloppy and stupid and incoherent and, at worst, overtly sexist and misogynistic.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/soraya-chemaly/12-year-old-slut-meme-and_b_1911056.html

Here's some links to articles that say they banned the woman reporting these misogynist posts rather than what they are reporting on.

http://www.elephantjournal.com/2012/11/does-facebook-hate-all-women-or-just-feminists/

http://www.bust.com/blog/facebook-bans-woman-for-outing-sexism.html


When it comes down to something like this, a company such as FB should not leave it up to the amount of user complaints/views if that is actually what they're doing. (As mentioned above, new FB pages apparently have to be approved, so what's their excuse for those?) There's a reason that certain legislation is not put to a vote by the people, because the majority won't vote for the interests of the minority. Now, women aren't necessarily a minority in terms of numbers, but in terms of being vocal about these things they may be. But I don't really think this comes down to algorithms when I read about how they are dealing with these issues after being made aware of them.

[AtheistCrusader]

70. Not sure I believe the claim that FB approves user pages.

I've created one in the past, took seconds. No human reviewed it prior to it going live, but I cannot know if it was scheduled for review or not sometime that day. The customer to employee of Facebook ratio suggests to me that the claim is mathematically unsound. Perhaps it WAS true at some point in the past (perhaps when FB was a college social media only?)

In 2010, FB claimed to be used by over 500 million active users. Half a billion. How does one pro-actively manage that?

Alerting on everything without the target content getting banned (failed to reach an alert threshold) getting the alerter's account banned, is again, probably an algorithm. More on that later.

You did raise some questionable points though, about their moderation policies, or lack thereof. Certainly they must have a team of real humans to examine edge cases that algorithms cannot properly manage. (Like a page with 200k hits that garners only a few alerts, but contains genuinely offensive material) If I were to speculate, I would guess FB takes a sandbox approach to this sort of edge content that MIGHT be photos used without permission, or used in a degrading way, or material that might appear to an outsider to blur the line between humor and degradation, is to err on the side of allowing the content to stand. That is probably something that users can bring pressure to bear against, to make that policy more aggressive.

An interesting video on how algorithms shape our lives, and the Earth itself:
http://www.ted.com/talks/kevin_slavin_how_algorithms_shape_our_world.html

[Skittles]

41. see, they won't give up their FB

however will they keep in contact with family and friends? IT'S JUST TOO HARD without FB!

[Squinch]

42. I guess. It's kind of tragic. And we thought Phyllis Schaffly was a psycho working against

her own interests. (I'm showing my age, aren't I?)

Ha! She looks like a genius compared to this.

[redqueen]

44. How nice for you that you can see the funny side of hate speech.

And below we see a comment saying that women who use Facebook are psychos who make schafly look like a genius.

Charming.

[Skittles]

46. deleting

NOT worth it

[Marrah_G]

49. Why on earth would you say that to Skittles?

Her post didn't warrant that response.

[Squinch]

51. When we hear that Facebook is allowing videos of 12 year olds being

gang raped, and that Facebook allows rape videos not just once but repeatedly, and we continue to let Facebook profit from our patronage of the site, we ARE crazier than Schlafly in terms of working against our own interests.

[AtheistCrusader]

24. 'Facebook' doesn't remove anything.

An algorithm does it. In response to a certain threshold of alerts/views. Facebook as a company isn't large enough to manage that immense pile of data any other way.

So, the poor reflection here, is what causes droves of people to mash the alert button. Apparently one topic is more offensive to society than the other. And THAT is sick.

[cui bono]

39. From what I've been reading it doesn't sound like algorithms.

I've read that they determine that it's not hate speech if it's considered humor. Well, joking about giving your date a roofie when traditional dating methods don't work is not funny.

Also, how do algorithms work on pics? If it's just by tags then it clearly doesn't do the job.

Here's some further reading:

http://www.policymic.com/articles/33621/why-facebook-needs-to-lean-in-and-fix-its-woman-problem

http://www.policymic.com/articles/43601/feminists-to-facebook-rape-is-no-laughing-matter

http://www.salon.com/2013/05/20/worst_horrifying_new_trend_posting_rapes_to_facebook/

[Dash87]

78. I know YouTube works that way. It's why flagging harassment is so effective on there.

[AtheistCrusader]

80. I think it works really well on DU because the ratio of users to Admins/Volunteers is better.

I would like to see a scientific study between FB's takedown/alert system, and other systems, like Google Plus, or Youtube (also google).

I tend to think this is just an artifact of how it works, and in some cases, an artifact of what our society prioritizes as important (ZOMG BREASTFEEDING MUST MASH ALERT BUTTON), but I won't rule out the possibility that FB sucks in some fashion or another here. It's possible. I just don't know, and don't have the data to determine.

[bluemarkers]

26. look at what Z stands for

keystone - raping the environment can't be too surprised his company looks the other way when it comes to abusing women

[HooptieWagon]

32. I haven't seen that.

Not that I'm disputing your statement.

A lot (or maybe all) of the stuff that pops up on facebook is generated by user's and their friend's likes and interests. I guess neither I nor my fb friends have listed rape as a like or interest...

[alp227]

37. Remember the "wouldn't it be funny if that girl were raped by 5 guys" joke from last summer?

More info at http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022133836

Juxtapose Daniel Tosh's attempt at a joke against real life. Tell me again that is funny, ignorant teenagers and low IQ "adults":

"Wouldn’t it be funny if that girl got raped by like, 5 guys right now? Like right now? What if a bunch of guys just raped her…"

- December 16, 2012: Woman in India is kidnapped, beaten, and raped by five men and dies from her injuries that include mutilation with metal objects and other sickening things I don't feel like rewriting here.

"Wouldn’t it be funny if that girl got raped by like, 5 guys right now? Like right now? What if a bunch of guys just raped her…"
- In January 2013, Anonymous [linK:http://jezebel.com/5972553/anonymous-leaks-horrifying-video-of-steubenville-high-schoolers-joking-about-raping-a-teenager-deader-than-trayvon-martin|leaked video] of a young man who witnessed the Steubenville rape incident and joked about it ON CAMERA including "They raped her quicker than Mike Tyson!"

"Wouldn’t it be funny if that girl got raped by like, 5 guys right now? Like right now? What if a bunch of guys just raped her…"
- Chicago Tribune just reported: "Three teenagers face sex assault charges after they raped a 12-year-old girl at gunpoint and posted a video of the December attacks on Facebook, prosecutors said."

"Wouldn’t it be funny if that girl got raped by like, 5 guys right now? Like right now? What if a bunch of guys just raped her…"
- This year, two teenagers in Torrington, CT were convicted of raping a teenage girl; a third suspect's trial is ongoing, and Torrington has ANOTHER band of rowdy teens who raped ANOTHER girl.

I guess the inmates are running the asylum over at facebook!

[WinkyDink]

43. Thank goodness the Facebook guy is a billionaire, though.

[tclambert]

45. Committing Crimes 101: Do not videotape your crimes. And do not post them on Facebook.

This is one of those times where you made me ask myself, "Are human beings really THIS stupid?"

[redqueen]

47. Discussion re: this dynamic here

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2877196

Also, from the article linked there...

When he sentenced the Steubenville rapists earlier this year, Judge Thomas Lipps warned other teens to “to have discussions about how you talk to your friends, how you record things on the social media so prevalent today.” The lesson in all of it still doesn’t seem to be about rape. Rather, it’s not to get caught bragging about it.

[freshwest]

57. Yes, that seems to be the gist of it. And calling is stupid for posting it isn't the real issue.

I'm glad it's being called what it should be called - hate speech against women. It's about time!!

[tclambert]

65. You're right. I apologize for my insensitive post.

I got to the point of "These guys are really stupid," and then my mind shut down. I couldn't deal with the horror the victim must have felt.

[cui bono]

61. I would have liked it to be one of those times you ask yourself why there is so much open hostility

towards females and why does it seem so accepted?

Not how to get away with rape by not videotaping them and not posting them. Sheesh.

[tclambert]

64. Yeah, you guys are right. I meant to add something about rape itself being the real stupidity,

but I really had trouble dealing with the concept that some of these perpetrators think rape is okay. Do some people truly believe rape is not a crime? Is this bullying taken to an insane extreme? Torturing another human being is not okay.

[AverageJoe90]

59. So tragic.....Copyright fit-throwing gets more consideration than addressing racism & misogyny.....

....indeed so. What a sad state of affairs.

[Chaco Dundee]

84. when will it end?

It is up to nobody,but us males to stand and protect not only our own,but all women