PDA

View Full Version : Instagram Announces Policing Of Private Direct Messages, Law Enforcement Team-Up In Latest ‘Hate Speech’ Crackdown



Teh One Who Knocks
02-16-2021, 12:39 PM
By Amanda Prestigiacomo - The Daily Wire


https://i.imgur.com/X32zrxNl.jpg

Instagram announced last week that they will begin policing private messages in their latest crackdown on so-called “hate speech.”

Citing “targeted footballers in the UK,” the platform announced Wednesday that they will be taking “more steps” “to help prevent” abuse and hate speech in direct messages:

“So today we’re announcing some new measures, including removing the accounts of people who send abusive messages, and developing new controls to help reduce the abuse people see in their DMs.”

The platform’s “stance on hate speech” includes a zero tolerance policy for “attacks on people based on their protected characteristics, including race or religion.”

“We strengthened these rules last year, banning more implicit forms of hate speech, like content depicting Blackface and common antisemitic tropes,” Instagram said. The company bragged that they “took action on 6.5 million pieces of hate speech on Instagram, including in DMs, 95% of which we found before anyone reported it” between July and September of last year.

The penalties for “abusive messages” are now even stricter:


Today, we’re announcing that we’ll take tougher action when we become aware of people breaking our rules in DMs. Currently, when someone sends DMs that break our rules, we prohibit that person from sending any more messages for a set period of time. Now, if someone continues to send violating messages, we’ll disable their account. We’ll also disable new accounts created to get around our messaging restrictions, and will continue to disable accounts we find that are created purely to send abusive messages.

Instagram noted that they’ve teamed up with law enforcement: “We’re also committed to cooperation with UK law enforcement authorities on hate speech and will respond to valid legal requests for information in these cases,” the platform boasted. “As we do with all requests from law enforcement, we’ll push back if they’re too broad, inconsistent with human rights, or not legally valid.”

In January, the head of Instagram Adam Mosseri said Facebook, which owns Instagram, has a bias, replying to a tweet about the massive platform, “We’re not neutral.”

“We’re not neutral,” Mosseri admitted. “No platform is neutral, we all have values and those values influence the decisions we make.”

“We try and be apolitical,” he added, “but that’s increasingly difficult, particularly in the US where people are more and more polarized.”

Mosseri’s comments came on the heels of the apparently coordinated censorship of President Donald Trump from Twitter, Facebook, and then YouTube. Apple, Google, and Amazon, too, teamed up in nuking Parler, an alternative to Twitter, for allegedly insufficiently censoring “violent content.”

Parler returned, on new servers, on Monday.

Twitter, in January, banned then-President Donald Trump from their platform permanently, alleging the account was a “risk of further incitement of violence.”

“After close review of recent Tweets from the @realDonaldTrump account and the context around them — specifically how they are being received and interpreted on and off Twitter — we have permanently suspended the account due to the risk of further incitement of violence,” Twitter said in a statement. “In the context of horrific events this week, we made it clear on Wednesday that additional violations of the Twitter Rules would potentially result in this very course of action. Our public interest framework exists to enable the public to hear from elected officials and world leaders directly. It is built on a principle that the people have a right to hold power to account in the open.”

PorkChopSandwiches
02-16-2021, 04:10 PM
Amazing

FBD
02-16-2021, 04:13 PM
As if people will not simply invent new euphemisms :lol:

Teh One Who Knocks
02-16-2021, 04:18 PM
So will they haver to change the name from private messages now, you know, since they are no longer private?

PorkChopSandwiches
02-16-2021, 04:36 PM
So will they haver to change the name from private messages now, you know, since they are no longer private?

They are called Direct Messages, so they clearly never intended them to be private

Pony
02-16-2021, 04:54 PM
They are called Direct Messages, so they clearly never intended them to be private

Direct to who?

PorkChopSandwiches
02-16-2021, 05:11 PM
Direct to the person you send them to, and IG :lol:

Teh One Who Knocks
02-16-2021, 07:45 PM
Direct to who?

https://i.imgur.com/4iadzXn.jpg

perrhaps
02-17-2021, 09:25 AM
I confess that neither my wife or I have Twitter; Facebook, Instagram or any other social media accounts. We still prefer "old-school" ways to waste time.

Acknowledging that we're prehistoric, I don't understand the fuss over this , Twitter banning anyone, or any other action taken by a privately-owned company that doesn't violate discrimination laws. Would anybody argue that the NY Post, WaPo, WSJ, or any other newspaper has no authority to ban using the word "fuck" in their "Letters to the Editor" section? Can anyone clearly tell me what "right" I have to use any social media platform to advocate the extermination of hair-lipped Nepalese?

If you don't agree with a privately-owned business' policies, don't support or frequent it. Quit whining about it.

DemonGeminiX
02-17-2021, 10:10 AM
I confess that neither my wife or I have Twitter; Facebook, Instagram or any other social media accounts. We still prefer "old-school" ways to waste time.

Acknowledging that we're prehistoric, I don't understand the fuss over this , Twitter banning anyone, or any other action taken by a privately-owned company that doesn't violate discrimination laws. Would anybody argue that the NY Post, WaPo, WSJ, or any other newspaper has no authority to ban using the word "fuck" in their "Letters to the Editor" section? Can anyone clearly tell me what "right" I have to use any social media platform to advocate the extermination of hair-lipped Nepalese?

If you don't agree with a privately-owned business' policies, don't support or frequent it. Quit whining about it.

What if that privately owned business is fed taxpayer dollars by the federal government?

lost in melb.
02-17-2021, 10:43 AM
What if that privately owned business is fed taxpayer dollars by the federal government?

Well, so is the Opera - and they impale peeps on swords :nono:

FBD
02-17-2021, 12:34 PM
I confess that neither my wife or I have Twitter; Facebook, Instagram or any other social media accounts. We still prefer "old-school" ways to waste time.

Acknowledging that we're prehistoric, I don't understand the fuss over this , Twitter banning anyone, or any other action taken by a privately-owned company that doesn't violate discrimination laws. Would anybody argue that the NY Post, WaPo, WSJ, or any other newspaper has no authority to ban using the word "fuck" in their "Letters to the Editor" section? Can anyone clearly tell me what "right" I have to use any social media platform to advocate the extermination of hair-lipped Nepalese?

If you don't agree with a privately-owned business' policies, don't support or frequent it. Quit whining about it.

This is getting back to the Publisher vs Platform discussion. These companies take advantage of being what's called a Platform enjoying attendant benefits and not having to be as stringent in their method as a Publisher, who is responsible for their editorial content. A Platform may simply host and not fuck with their users. A Publisher has editorial responsibility for the content that's posted.

These Platforms are acting like Publishers and trying to say they arent doing those things. Editing and censoring content is in the purview of a Publisher. Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, et al, are not Publishers, they are Platforms, and when they act like Publishers they should be treated like Publishers. They should have to pay taxes like Publishers, they should be responsible for what they do as Publishers.

perrhaps
02-19-2021, 10:50 AM
What if that privately owned business is fed taxpayer dollars by the federal government?

Under what conditions and/or prohibitions set by the Government was this business funded? If the business/platform is violating those conditions and/or prohibitions, what are the penalties set in the funding agreement?

Is the beef with the business's practices ,or the funding agreement?