A look into Facebook's judicial system

Facebook Chief Executive Mark Zuckerberg really likes to compare his social network to an actual country. So, why not govern like the one it's based in?

Facebook has more active users than the U.S. population. (Last week, Zuckerberg announced the site had more than 350 million users.) But the site's rules are significantly stricter than free-speech laws in the United States.

A look around Facebook's new campus in Palo Alto. Credit: Mark Milian / Los Angeles Times

Zuckerberg announced last week that the company would soon roll out its new set of simplified privacy features that allows users to post certain information to everyone, similar to Twitter's broadcast model.

Soon, we'll be able to potentially reach a massively larger audience than our respective groups of friends. But what isn't OK to say in the land of Facebook?

Despite Facebook's sincere attempt to sensibly present its terms of use agreement, much is left up to interpretation.

Point No. 7 in the 12 "safety" stipulations every Facebook user agreed to at sign-up reads, "You will not post content that is hateful, threatening, pornographic, or that contains nudity or graphic or gratuitous violence."

What's nudity? The policy enforcers at Facebook, a team of more than 100 spread out in offices around the world, including Northern California, London and Dublin, struggled with that question earlier this year. A legion of angry mothers revolted in response to the company removing photos of women breastfeeding.

The nudity policy, although not explicitly outlined, is pretty simple: no exposed nipples or nether regions. In a few cases, snap judgment during the so-called breastfeeding purge caused some fairly innocent pictures to get zapped.

But Barry Schnitt, Facebook's director of policy communications, asserts that the company's breastfeeding policy was largely misunderstood. The majority of the photos removed were of completely nude women (posing in mirrors or bathtubs) who happened to involve a baby eating lunch, Schnitt said.

Another misnomer is that the company was employing people to blindly click through pictures in search of breasts to flag for removal.

"We only act on things that are reported to us," Schnitt said during an interview at Facebook's campus in Palo Alto. The vast majority of those reports come in the form of buttons throughout the site that users can click to highlight offensive content. So, if your au naturel pose gets zapped, blame a friend.

Facebook actually takes action on less than half of all reports. "They're actually stricter than we are," Schnitt said about Facebook's sort of neighborhood watchdogs.

Occasionally, reports come from federal investigators. Yes, some people have tried to use Facebook to sell drugs.

Facebook takes active stances against certain menaces. Today, the company announced the formation of an advisory board to protect against online predators.

Drug dealers and sex offenders are one thing. But understanding the nuances of Facebook's limited free-speech law can be baffling at times.

"I hate the Raiders: OK," Schnitt said. (He's a 49ers fan.) "I hate Mark: not OK." But if two friends are joking around, it's OK -- because it probably won't get reported.

"But at the same time, I hate Jews: also not OK," Schnitt said. "Hatred of individuals or hatred of protected groups is not something we want on Facebook."

The policy team's "protected groups" list is a mystery. It's sometimes compiled ad hoc, and for loudmouths and comedians, it can be a fine line to walk.

A member of the Facebook group How To Get Banned From Facebook said his account was temporarily shut down after joining a group that called Zuckerberg, the chief executive, a naughty word. Countless others get smacked with suspensions with no indication as to why.

"While we are sort of led by 1st Amendment ideals, and we want to promote open conversations even if it's controversial, we draw the line at hate or threats of violence or bullying against an individual," Schnitt said.

Facebook is a place where a significant sect of the global population spends minutes or hours a day. There's no public trials, juries of peers or leniency for playground bullies. Governing in the land of Facebook is on the shoulders of Chief Zuckerberg, Secretary Schnitt and a team of one-click enforcers.

Of course, "there's a difference between kicking somebody off Facebook and throwing them in jail," Schnitt said.

Try telling that to this Facebook addict from the New York Observer. Yikes, talk about a guilty pleasure.

-- Mark Milian
twitter.com/markmilian

Comments

[David]

"Drug dealers and sex offenders are one thing"

Seriously, no. Sex offenders (by which I presume we mean those who prey on those deemed to young to give informed consent, and those who actively force themselves on others against their will) directly and deliberately violate the rights of their victims. Drug dealers (at least on a minimal definition) simply sell a commodity to others who wish to buy it, be it beer, cigarettes, cannabis or LSD - a consensual, non-victimising affair.
Put simply, everyone can agree that we have a right not to be raped, but it is much harder to defend the idea that we have a right to be prevented from choosing to buy something that we enjoy but that may be harmful to us.

Of course, in practice, many drug dealers are thoroughly unpleasant people - but that is only because as a society we have made a deliberate policy choice to gift the market in (some) drugs to those who are willing to operate outside the law, and resort to violence to settle their disputes.

Why is this relevant? Because, while dealing in (some) drugs is illegal, saying that our policy of prohibition is unjust and harmful is not - assuming we live in a country with some regard for free speech. However, people who are active in the anti-prohibition lobby sometimes find their accounts with facebook suspended, on the strength of a complaint made against them anonymously, and which they are powerless to defend themselves against. Facebook should not be in the business of silencing those who campaign against unjust laws.

[Dr. P. Rapoport]

Facebook's Barry Schnitt was clueless last year and is worse this year. Just how false his statements about banned photos of breastfeeding are is obvious from the over one hundred of those banned photos, archived at:

www.tera.ca/photos6.html

Facebook pretends to have a policy on acceptable photos, but its unjust, capricious removal of many that could fit no policy imaginable reveals that it hasn't one. Its removal of any breastfeeding women's photos goes contrary to the policy on breastfeeding in almost all US states and is demeaning and degrading to women everywhere, not to mention children.

Many larger companies don't remove photos. Facebook's immaturity and ignorance are known worldwide. It continues and promotes bad attitudes that connect immediately to America's problems with breastfeeding and to other social pathologies regarding bodies. Such irresponsibility is totally reprehensible.

[johburgjen]

Facebook ROCKS! Quit griping you people. If you don't like it, don't use it! So there will be 330 million users .... we rule the world.

[The Wham]

The enforcement, being hidden, is in itself a sort of tyranny. Yes, it is their site, and they have the right to do what they want with their system.

But I feel in the long run they will have a better shot at keeping up ( if they receive any competition, loss of users ) by having a more transparent system.

For one thing, there are so many other blogs that talk of people being suspended and the ordeals they had just trying to contact the right person ( just type "contact facebook" on Google:
http://www.google.com/search?ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&sourceid=navclient&gfns=1&q=contact+facebook

Its scary that 300,000,000 have to use forums on other sites in order to get information about getting in touch with the system. Considering that the Facebook feed is transparent in dispersing information and discussion, you would also think that Facebook issues would have its own "forum".

The Help center is atrocious. It is pretty much a replica a lot of hosting business FAQ pages, which is horribly old-school for such a complex networking system. Not Facebook's fault; many companies fall into this trap because it would suck having to organize real-time or ticketing discussions from thousands of people a day.

But, if they really wanted to govern, just like a government, they would have a list of laws, and publicly show past incidences that reflect why the law is in place. If an incidence occurs, they can create a forum, discuss, finalize a rule, and make it public, so if someone breaks the rule, the history can be referenced.

If a public school administrator separates children based on race, the government wouldn't fire or file a lawsuit for no reason. They would only have to reference Brown v. Board of Education, and the argument is over. If someone does something bad on Facebook, there is no "specific" former precedent on mitigating the issue. The terms of service is a long-lawyer written set of vague rules more in place to prevent lawsuit and control content, and less as a "constitution" for users to follow.

For Facebook to "really" excel, they have to begin aggregating these issues, set precedences, and make them public in some sort of wiki/autocomplete form. Right now, the forums of issues are convoluted, and they have spread to Yahoo Answers.

If someone is trying to understand your website by asking for help at ANOTHER website, then there is something wrong with the interaction system between the user and admins/controllers. This can be easily fixed; I wrote a solution, maybe I'll post it someday.

For now, a complex site such as Facebook should stand up and create a complext discussion system. A 21st century site with 20th century forums and 20th century FAQ pages is not just a slap in the face of users, but also to people who enjoy/work at/interact with Facebook everyday. If this communications system is the best that their 200+ engineers can come up with, ehhh...

[Repreived]

At one point this year, my FB account was locked. Allegedly for doing things that "annoy" or "harrass" others. Thing is: FB refused to tell what those things were. I had no idea who may have reported me...and there is NO appeal process. You're basically guilty and are not allowed to prove yourself innocent! After a week,I was allowed to post to mine and other people's pages again, but I don't see that I'm doing or saying anything differently. So seems to me FB is mighty arbitrary and very freewheeling as to whom decide is 'annoying' or 'harassing.'

[John Flowers]

As much garbage as the femme-nazis want to throw at Facebook for banning breast feeding photos, I applaud Facebook for their courage in doing so. Yes, these women are engaged in something very natural...not sexual. However, these photos should be kept private for a litany of reasons. That is a private moment for you and your children. Leave it off of you computer screen.

I also fully believe that others have shown sexually provocative, naked boobs on Facebook with this as their loophole. I recently caught my nephew up to no good on myspace...he's not allowed to visit any longer. Facebook remains a family friendly online forum because they only care about special interest groups up to and until they break policy. By having a policy, you clearly define a rule...if you put a naked boob on your profile, it will come down and you risk getting banned....period.

Okay, so now that we know, don't do it! my 13 year old nephew has a facebook profile. He doesn't need free access to naked boobs, even if they are breast feeding. Every one of those private actions are content that should be left for his mom and dad to explain to him once he reaches a level of maturity.

There, I said the uncomfortable thing that everyone is avoiding. And frankly, I don't care what you opinion is. Women who breast feed in public, cover yourself up. For crying out loud, do you really gain back some suppressed freedom by whipping your breasts out for everyone to see while junior feeds him or herself? I mean the argument is ridiculous, and you make your self ridiculous for clinging to it. Everyone around you is uncomfortable when you engage in public breast feeding. STOP IT ALREADY!!

[Malcolm Boura]

Facebook is imposing their prejudice on the rest of the world and there is no effective right of appeal. The only justification for restricting freedom of expression is to prevent harm and the only way to tell real harm from prejudice is evidence.

The evidence on nudity is clear. Prudery is child abuse with good intentions. Comparing the teenage pregnancy, abortion and sexually transmitted infection rates for prudish western countries with those which are less obsessed with body shame shows how widespread and how serious that harm is.

It may be Facebook's site, but that does not give them the right to encourage attitudes which result in so much harm.

[Malcolm Boura]

John Flowers is obviously concerned for his son. How old does he want his son to be when he becomes sexually active? Try looking at the international comparisons and then think long and hard about why young people in countries without such high levels of body shame are on average anything up to a year older when they lose their virginity. Does he want his son to find out what people look like from pornography or does he want it to be from a reliable source? That is the choice, that is social reality, and it is vital that parents do not delude themselves.

Finally, a request to John Flowers, please do not assume that everyone else shares your views and then state that as if it were a fact.

[I used to be in that group with P. Rapoport]

I used to be in the group that Dr. P Rapoport is part of and he and some others are forever begging people to put their breastfeeding/bare breast photos on his site. He spams it quite a bit. That group is not a support groups s it claims, but more of an "I hate Facebook and I want to complain about it and think of mean ways to try to ruin them" group. They even go out of their way to instigate fights with other moms who formula feed, and pretty much raise their babies in ways that apparnetly annoy the "support" group. They lurk on other groups sites and then either go back to their own page to complain or else they join the other groups and cause trouble and then run back to their own group and cry that people yelled at them. They act like children and then have the nerve to complain about Facebook.

The photos on that link he is posting is full of examples that Facebook is talking about regarding not being acceptable to the ToS. You really can't fault Facebook when it follows through on it's rules. He claims that photos with no nipple exposed are also removed and that group has constant whine sessions over that. Those photos are also removed because that group spams decent and indecent photos constantly to try to see what photos are acceptable. Dr. P perhaps if you stop spamming on the site the photos would remain.

Dr. P Rapoport, if you and others don't like Facebook and it's rules, then maybe you should make a chat or messageboard link on your own website you linked and just leave Facebook for good. It's a little silly on your parts to continue to stay on a social site you don't like just so YOU can try to cause trouble. Spamming and posting silly photos over and over to try to get Facebook riled up is ridiculous. For grow men and women, one would think you'd all know better and have better things to do than acting so immaturely over a social site.

[Not so much]

Malcolm, Facebook isn't forcing anyone to take on negative attitudes toward any group, where do you get that idea.

If you don't like Facebook or what you think it stands for, then dont use it. Why is that so hard for some to grasp?

[Steph]

Your post brings up some great points -- the last part especially. My account was disabled several weeks ago after my email and Facebook were hit by a hacker. After notifying FB, they have locked me out of my account and they refuse to provide anything but an auto-response to my repeated polite emails asking them to please reactivate my account. I was so reluctant to joint Facebook in the first place, and honestly now I wish I had just stayed away. Too bad I was sucked in by having an easy platform to reconnect with far away friends and relatives so they could keep up with pictures and videos of my daughter. I've spent far to long researching how to get anyone there to listen to me, and have discovered hundreds of cases just like mine -- banned for no reason or having too many friends or actually using all the applications they're constantly shoving in your face -- and FB couldn't care less. I can't even technically start a new account without being in violation of their Terms of Use -- and I'm not sure I would even want to anymore. Worst. Customer. Service. Ever.