Meta’s oversight board has found that a Facebook video wrongfully suggesting that the US president, Joe Biden, is a paedophile does not violate the company’s current rules while deeming those rules “incoherent” and too narrowly focused on AI-generated content.
The board, which is funded by Meta – Facebook’s parent company – but run independently, took on the Biden video case in October in response to a user complaint about an altered seven-second video of the president. Mark Zuckerberg at a Senate judiciary committee hearing at the US Capitol in Washington DC
It ruled that Meta was right to leave the video up under its current policy, which bars misleadingly altered videos only if they were produced by artificial intelligence or if they make people appear to say words they never actually said.
But the ruling is the first to critique Meta’s policy on “manipulated media” amid rising concerns about the potential use of new AI technologies to sway elections this year.
It said the policy “is lacking in persuasive justification, is incoherent and confusing to users, and fails to clearly specify the harms it is seeking to prevent”. It suggested Meta update it to cover both audio and video content and to apply labels identifying it as manipulated regardless of whether AI was used.
So what I’m hearing is that you can call anyone a pedophile on Facebook? Ok, every single employee and executive at Facebook are all pedophiles.
Sir this is Lemmy
Go ahead and post that to FB instead.
I don’t use Facebook or any of those mainstream social media platforms anymore… I’m not edgy, I just have really bad anxiety.
It’s edgy not have social media other than Lemmy?
I have no clue. I was worried I was gonna come off sounding like I think I’m edgy, so I was trying to clarify. Instead, it appears I suck my foot in my mouth?
Suck your foot all you want
Suck it
Found Quentin Tarantino
We really are all the same person on here, aren’t we? Lol
Zuckerberg is a paedoophile
Have you seen the video? It’s fairly conclusive.
People are saying it…
Well I don’t think you’re allowed to say “Mark Zuckerberg raped and murdered a 7 year old in 2014”, but you are allowed to say “did Mark Zuckerberg rape and murder a 7 year old in 2014?”
You may not be allowed to say it, but apparently a misleading video can say it all it wants… I guess, so long as you made it say that and not AI.
I’m Ron Burgundy?
I dunno, did he??? People are asking!
This isn’t Facebook, but also of course you can. Why wouldn’t you be able to?
Good point. I don’t know why everyone doesn’t already do that.
I seem to remember Facebook actively taking down videos critical of Trump back in 2016 and 2020. Hmm…
In May 2011 Facebook hired Kaplan as its vice president of U.S. public policy, as part of a Facebook’s effort to “strengthen” the company’s ties to Republican lawmakers on Capitol Hill.[16][17] In October 2014, Kaplan succeeded Marne Levine as Facebook’s vice president of global public policy.[18]
Within the company, Kaplan advocated against restrictions on racially incendiary speech.[19] He played an important role in crafting an exception for newsworthy political discourse when deciding on whether content violated the community guidelines.[19] During the 2016 election, Kaplan advocated against closing down Facebook groups which allegedly peddled fake news.[19] Kaplan argued that getting rid of the groups would have disproportionately targeted conservatives.[19][3] During and after the 2016 US presidential election, Kaplan argued against Facebook publicly disclosing the extent of Russian influence operations on the platform.[20]
In 2017, after Facebook had implemented changes to its algorithm to expose users to more content by family and friends and less by publishers who were determined by Facebook to engage in misinformation, Kaplan questioned whether the algorithm disproportionately hurt conservative publishers and successfully advocated for Facebook to change the algorithm again.[19]
He pushed against a proposed Facebook project that was intended to make Facebook users of different political views engage with each other in less hostile ways. Kaplan argued that this feature would lead conservatives to accuse Facebook of bias.[7][5] Kaplan also reportedly advocated on behalf of Breitbart News and the Daily Caller within Facebook.[5][6] Kaplan has helped to place conservatives in key positions in the leadership of Facebook.[3]
In 2018, he advocated strongly for the Supreme Court nomination of Brett Kavanaugh.[21] Kaplan sat behind Kavanaugh during his Senate confirmation hearings.[21]
During Donald Trump’s presidency, Kaplan was on friendly terms with the administration.[20] At one point, the administration considered nominating him as head of the Office of Management and Budget.[20]
Wow. Actually evil.
I even left out this bit.
Kaplan worked as a policy advisor on George W. Bush’s 2000 presidential campaign, during which he was a participant in the Brooks Brothers riot on November 22, 2000.[11]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brooks_Brothers_riot
Not a single person involved in the riot went to jail over it, and most got jobs with Bush’s White House.
So they’re saying that a very similar fake video calling Mark Zuckerberg a pedophile would be fine too, right?
Would it even need to be altered?
All Zuckerfuck cares about is $$$
Someone should create a series of AI deepfakes (or would they be called deepTRUTHS in this case) of Trump ‘telling the truth’. Having FACTUAL information coming from the horses mouth about his actual doings and intentions, would be a nice change.
Why on earth is this not a thing already?
I’d like to see a video of him mocking his base. We know he hates them.
Can Biden sue not Meta but this exact advertiser for defamation? Or would the lawsuit itself be damaging for his reputation?
I personally believe it’s more damaging to not go after people for those types of claims in one way or another, assuming you can go after them. A lie that spreads far and wide enough to enough ears will eventually become truth once the majority of the public tout it as truth.
The Streisand Effect is also a concern, though. How many people will be aware of the video if he does nothing vs how many people will be aware of the video if he retaliates. We also know that a significant chunk of the population will believe he’s a pedophile regardless of what he does or how a court rules if they know about the video.
The thing about the Streisand effect is that Barbara Streisand actually exists, so the only way for her to succeed was for her to stay out of the media entirely. There also wasn’t a whole industry dedicated to making people think about her.
With defamation against Biden, it’s foolish to think we can stop lies from spreading just by ignoring them, but what can be done is to debunk them.
Probably. But at the same time if you can shrug it of safely it may be better than being in news arguing that you are not a pedo.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
So Meta’s own board of review thinks that this video should be violating a rule (or implied as much) but the rules are so incompetently written that it isn’t…
Typical corporate pretzel think.
They want Biden brought low so are t-rex arming the rules.
Facebook is worse than cancer because cancer only kills one person. Facebook is killing the internet.
Friendly reminder to everyone reading that Donald Trump was a known associate of Jeffery Epstein. There are unaltered photographs to prove it.
This is just more right wing projection.
The number of comments I’ve reported to Facebook that are blatant racist/Nazi diatribes is insane, especially when you consider that Facebook ALWAYS says it doesn’t go against their “Community Standards.”
Looks like they don’t have any standards.
Sounds like it’s time for a round of populist trust busting, starting with Meta
How about this for a headline?
Meta’s Oversight Board Finds Company Policy on False Content Inadequate, Suggests Updates
Nah. Won’t get you guys up in arms. “Engaged” as Zuckerberg might say.
Facebook Takes Twenty Years To Realize Altering Videos To Make Presidents Look Like Pedophiles Is Undesirable
(They are a small bootstrapped startup, and some decisions are really tricky)
Sounds like meta is desperately asking to be regulated.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
But the ruling is the first to critique Meta’s policy on “manipulated media” amid rising concerns about the potential use of new AI technologies to sway elections this year.
It said the policy “is lacking in persuasive justification, is incoherent and confusing to users, and fails to clearly specify the harms it is seeking to prevent”.
It suggested Meta update it to cover both audio and video content and to apply labels identifying it as manipulated regardless of whether AI was used.
Meta, which also owns Instagram and WhatsApp, informed the board in the course of the review that it was planning to update the policy “to respond to the evolution of new and increasingly realistic AI”, according to the ruling.
The clip on Facebook manipulated real footage of Biden exchanging “I Voted” stickers with his granddaughter during the 2022 US midterm elections and kissing her on the cheek.
Enforcement, it added, should consist of applying labels to the content rather than Meta’s current approach of removing the posts from its platforms.
The original article contains 357 words, the summary contains 172 words. Saved 52%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
