I'm so glad I was removed from Facebook and have a home here on Steem! Have you seen their new terms of service?
“By continuing to use Facebook, you hereby agree to serve as a loyal foot soldier in any wars, domestic or overseas, that must be fought to defend Mark Zuckerberg and his company from hostile forces,”
“Once this agreement has been ratified, Facebook reserves the right to summon users for medical inspection, at which point eligible users will be trained and ultimately deployed to take down any government that threatens our social network’s sovereignty, including the United States of America. In addition, once signed, all users will be required to renounce their country of birth and automatically become a citizen of Facebook.”
This is, of course, satire from The Onion.... but only just. Read the whole post here.
On a more serious note, The Verge has been publishing extracts from a 2 hour Q&A with Zuckerberg. Overnight in their email they highlighted something new about Hate Speech, they haven't directly posted this to their site yet so I'm quoting it here because it really is fascinating. My emphasis and comments added.
All Hands on Deck: Hate speech
Here’s a question from the July Q&As that I found notable for two reasons. One, it gets at internal tensions around Facebook’s hate speech policies. Two, Zuckerberg’s answer — which is basically that too much content is hosted on Facebook for the company to apply any level of nuance to individual comments — speaks to how the challenge of content moderation has overwhelmed the company despite a massive investment in contracted moderators.
Question: According to your policies “men are trash” is considered tier-one hate speech. So what that means is that our classifiers are able to automatically delete most of the posts or comments that have this phrase in it. [Why?]
Mark Zuckerberg: The hate speech policies are the most fraught. So I’ll walk you through the reasoning of how we got to this policy. And so there are a few things that are going on that I think you want to think about. So one is, gender is a protected category. So substitute in your mind while you’re thinking through this, what if this were “Muslims are trash,” right? You would not want that on the service.
Interesting that his go to example of a group to be attacked is Muslims. There are over a billion Muslims, around 57 countries are run according to Islamic rules and at least one of those has nuclear weapons, but they're the oppressed (by words) group he thinks of.
So as a generalization, that kind of framework and protocol that you’ve handed to 30,000 people around the world who are doing the enforcements, the protocols need to be very specific in order to get any kind of consistent enforcement. So then you get to this question on the flip side, which is, “Alright, well maybe you want to have a different policy for groups that have been historically disadvantaged or oppressed.” Maybe you want to be able to say okay, well maybe people shouldn’t say “women are trash,” but maybe “men are trash” is okay.
By my reading Zuckerberg is almost entirely signed up to the entire intersectionality system himself. He really needs to read two books quickly, Douglas Murray's The Madness of Crowds and Woke by Titania McGrath (I'm on my way through both of them right now!).
We’ve made the policy decision that we don’t think that we should be in the business of assessing which group has been disadvantaged or oppressed, if for no other reason than that it can vary very differently from country to country. So we’re talking about nuances in the US, but there are different ethnic groups or different religions that are in the majority or the minority in different countries, and just being able to track all that and make assessments with any kind of precision, and then deal to hand those rules to, again, 30,000 people who need to make consistent judgments, is just not going to happen. Or, we don’t have the technology yet to do that.
So what we’ve basically made the decision on is, we’re going to look at these protected categories, whether it’s things around gender or race or religion, and we’re going to say that that we’re going to enforce against them equally. And now that leads to the discussion that we had in the last question, which is that, is this perfect? No. It’s really challenging to get to something — I mean, you’re not gonna get any answer that everyone is going to agree with.
Some of these things people think we take down too much, some things people think we take down too little. But we’re trying to navigate this in a way where we have a principled approach for having a global framework that is actually enforceable around the world, because to some degree whenever you read about big mistakes that come up in our content enforcement, most of them are actually not because people disagree with the policy.
The question you’re raising, this might be a case where you disagree with the policy, but most of the issues are because one of the 30,000 people who’s made a call didn’t apply the rules consistently. And then that kind of gets put on our motives, and people say “oh well no, you just did this because you’re trying to censor some group of people” or “you just did this because you don’t care about protecting this group of people.” It’s really not that. We try very hard to get this right, as I think you probably all had exposure to here. It’s just that there’s one thing to try to have policies that are principled. It’s another to execute this consistently with a low error rate, when you have 100 hundred billion pieces of content through our systems every day, and tens of thousands of people around the world executing this in more than 150 different languages, and a lot of different countries that have different traditions. So this is challenging stuff, but that’s how we got to where we are.
He really doesn't want 30,000 doing this job, he wants a giant AI but every attempt to make one falls flat on its face and fails.
Facebook is too big to exist. It needs to be brought down.
To join the class action as a member just send an encrypted memo to 
You can also join up direct on this form from JPBLiberty.
You can help fund the law suit direct via Fundition (paying with Steem or other crypto is a great option). You will receive SUFB Tokens on Steem-Engine. For large donations please contact @JPBLiberty direct.
More details in this post