脸谱网谎称将违反规则的有影响力的用户列入了白名单, demonstrating again why it cannot be trusted to self-报告 on how it moderates content.


脸谱网有一个独立的, unequally permissive content moderation scheme that it applies only to high-profile users, 该公司多年来一直在撒谎. 最近的一次 华尔街日报》 exposé on 脸谱网’s “Cross Check” or “XCheck” program provides yet another example of why social media platforms cannot be trusted to self-报告 and self-regulate. 需要独立的监督.

For those of us who have spent years comparing what 脸谱网 says to what it does, it was unsurprising to learn that the company has a get-out-of-jail-free card for high-profile users who violate its community standards. 我们的 研究 shows that 脸谱网’s rules have been consistently designed and enforced to protect powerful groups and influential accounts.

脸谱网试图把自己描绘成一个无私的人,强调它的无私 承诺 “给予人民发言权,保障人民安全,公平待人”.” 然而, company’s actions are largely driven by business priorities: in internal documents, 脸谱网 公认的 激怒有影响力的用户是“公关风险”,对业务不利.

It was surprising to learn (perhaps naively) the lengths that 脸谱网 was willing to go to conceal the true nature of the Cross Check program — explicitly misleading the 公共 and potentially undermining its 监督 Board, 数百万美元的自我监管赌注.

在脸谱网的只有 博客 在今年之前讨论交叉检查, the company claimed to have one set of rules for all users: “We want to make clear that we remove content from 脸谱网, 不管是谁发的, 当它违反我们的标准. 对任何群体都没有特殊保护. . . . 需要澄清的是, 在脸谱网上交叉检查并不能保护你的个人资料, 页面或内容被删除. 这样做只是为了确保我们的决定是正确的.”

脸谱网还重申了这一 谎言 in statements to its 监督 Board in January 2021 during the board’s consideration of President Trump’s suspension from the platform, 表示“相同的一般规则适用于”所有用户. 该公司还 断言, in response to the board’s recommendation that it provide more information about the program, that greater transparency was “not feasible” because Cross Check is used in only a “small number” of cases. 然而, 华尔街日报》 据报道,脸谱网对数百万账户使用了交叉检查, immunizing certain high-profile users from enforcement actions entirely and applying more lenient penalties to others. 监督委员会 宣布 it is reviewing whether 脸谱网 was “fully forthcoming in its responses in relation to cross-check, 包括白名单的做法.”

在过去的几年里,脸谱网有意这么做 转移 公共 focus regarding its treatment of influential users away from Cross Check and toward its newsworthiness policy. For example, Cross Check is not mentioned in any of the three 公共ations from the 民事 权利 审计 该公司委托, 尽管有些文件确实讨论了该公司的新闻价值政策. 这剥夺了公众的权利, 监管机构, and 民事 权利 groups of the opportunity to meaningfully engage with the company on its policies for high-profile accounts.

的 success of 脸谱网’s obfuscation is evidenced by the fact that in the 7,656 published 公开评论 监督委员会收到的有关特朗普停职的信息, some variation of “newsworthiness” or “公共 figure” appears more than 300 times, 而“XCheck”和“Cross Check”根本没有出现.

尽管它比其他平台更透明,包括 YouTube在美国,脸谱网严格控制其共享的信息和访问权限. 该公司已 突出显示 它的研究伙伴关系证明了它对透明度的承诺, but recent developments call 脸谱网’s dedication to those partnerships into question.

纽约时报 最近 报道 that 脸谱网 provided 研究ers studying misinformation on the site with data that only covered about half of U.S. users — those with clear political positions — rather than all users, as 脸谱网 had claimed. 与此同时,成千上万的bbin宝盈集团平台注册1月6日起义的帖子被转发 失踪 from 脸谱网’s CrowdTangle transparency tool, which 研究ers use to track what users are saying.

而有些事故可能是由于错误造成的, 脸谱网还故意切断了与一些外部研究人员的联系, making it difficult to get independent accounts of how the platform is being used. 研究政治广告的学者 纽约大学广告天文台 were suspended from the platform in August in the wake of several damaging news stories. 脸谱网 also 最近 implemented changes to its news feed that make it more difficult for 监管机构 对现场进行大规模的审计. In 4月, 脸谱网解散了CrowdTangle团队, 这引发了人们对该工具未来可能会停产的担忧.

很明显,脸谱网的自我报告是不可信的, but it is critical that the 公共 understand how the platform moderates content. 社交媒体是 新的公共广场 — it’s where we share ideas, get news, connect with others, and discuss current events. Equitable access to social media is vitally important because it has so pervasively reshaped how we communicate. 公民自由, 包括言论自由和集会的权利, are threatened when companies like 脸谱网 公共ly espouse their 承诺 to free speech and equality while secretly moderating online speech in a manner that reinforces existing power hierarchies. It places vulnerable groups with little political power at risk of online and offline harms, 包括因为仇恨言论而在网上保持沉默, 骚扰, 或over-removals, 还有doxing和暴力.

的 current regime of self-报告ing does not sufficiently allow policymakers and the 公共 to engage with platforms on their content moderation practices. 最近的布伦南中心 报告 为法律规定的透明度要求提出一个框架. It also proposes that Congress establish a commission to consider a privacy-protective framework for facilitating independent 研究 using platform data. 把政府监管和内容节制混为一谈有其自身的缺陷, 正如巴西总统博尔索纳罗最近所强调的那样 努力 在明年大选前对社交媒体进行监管. 尽管如此, 我们认为,建立可靠的渠道是至关重要的, 为公益研究人员提供精准平台数据.

内容审核既复杂又困难, 但没有可靠的信息, 政策制定者和研究人员无法提出有意义的监管或宝盈bbin平台接入. 我们不能依赖平台报告他们自己的活动. 透明度必须具有法律效力, 它应该从脸谱网扩展到所有社交媒体平台.