Instagram Bans Babylon Bee Founder's Pro-Life Cartoon as 'Hate Speech'

[appleman2006]

Bootstrap. I get the point you are making and it is a good one.

I too would like to see whether an appeal was made in this case and how that went. I think the problem here might of been that the original point here was too good and too hard hitting and hit too close to home that it still may have been banned.


The cartoon makes a really good point. Yes it is hard hitting but it seems it takes that to wake some people up and I think some of the pro choice people are really starting to get scared they are losing the battle on this one. Smart people are starting to see the light.

I think we all agree that is a good thing.

[Josh]

Is white supremacy "conservative thought and speech"?

Excuse me, Bootstrap?

Are you accusing Adam Ford of being a white supremacist?

The phrases the algorithm caught are about racism, support for slavery, and questioning the humanity of blacks. I bet phrases about balancing the budget, integrity, moral sexuality, obeying the Bible, tradition, etc. would make it cleanly through the algorithm. A simple search on Instagram shows that Right to Life societies have no problem promoting their messages on Instagram.

Except the cartoon did NOT have a racist message, but was in fact anti-racist and anti-slavery.

I don't think you can have it both ways. I don't think white supremacy is conservatism. I don't think racism is conservatism. If you object to this because white supremacists are "conservative", that's not a conservative value I recognize. If they start filtering out things because they speak out against abortion or in favor of the Bible or perhaps for political conservative values like balancing the budget, the balance of powers, moral integrity, etc., then I will join you in objecting.

Boot, your position is basically that Facebook only ever bans white supremacist hate speech, and never gets caught suppressing or silencing conservative views (that aren't white supremacist).

Here's a golden example of Facebook doing that, and you've hidden behind computer algorithms and then accused Adam Ford of not following "due process" by not filing some kind of appeal - as if Instagram has any kind of transparent due process.

Come on, Boot. Do you really want us to be ruled by computer algorithms?

[Bootstrap]

Is white supremacy "conservative thought and speech"?

The phrases the algorithm caught are about racism, support for slavery, and questioning the humanity of blacks. I bet phrases about balancing the budget, integrity, moral sexuality, obeying the Bible, tradition, etc. would make it cleanly through the algorithm. A simple search on Instagram shows that Right to Life societies have no problem promoting their messages on Instagram.

Except the cartoon did NOT have a racist message, but was in fact anti-racist and anti-slavery.

If a human being has time to read and reflect on the cartoon as a whole, yes. But the computer just looks for phrases like what you see here:

Don't you think there are a few phrases there that might trigger an algorithm designed to filter out white supremacist messages?

I don't think you can have it both ways. I don't think white supremacy is conservatism. I don't think racism is conservatism. If you object to this because white supremacists are "conservative", that's not a conservative value I recognize. If they start filtering out things because they speak out against abortion or in favor of the Bible or perhaps for political conservative values like balancing the budget, the balance of powers, moral integrity, etc., then I will join you in objecting.

Boot, your position is basically that Facebook only ever bans white supremacist hate speech, and never gets caught suppressing or silencing conservative views (that aren't white supremacist).

No, my position is that when we are dealing with things designed to filter out white supremacist messages, we should discuss that directly and not keep changing the subject.

Are you opposed to having a filter that would find and reject messages that look like they are promoting white supremacy?

Here's a golden example of Facebook doing that, and you've hidden behind computer algorithms and then accused Adam Ford of not following "due process" by not filing some kind of appeal - as if Instagram has any kind of transparent due process.

I don't see how an algorithm could know this is not promoting white supremacy. Most messages with these phrases probably are. If Adam Ford had appealed, then a human being would read this and respond. I would like to see what the result of that process is.

As far as I can see, an awful lot of people crusading against abortion are making very strong statements without being filtered out.

[Neto]

The cartoon represents a discussion, an ARGUMENT, really. If the computer algorithm cannot evaluate the text in terms of the interchange and contrasting statements involved here, then it is primitive at best. The CONTEXT of the whole 'conversation' is clearly against slavery, and openly states that there is no difference in the humanity of the African slaves and their white masters. Can the computer model not even look at what statement is made last? (In general prose, that would be considered the conclusion.)
If we ran the Scripture through this same computer program, then would Paul be saying that we SHOULD multiply sin in order to make room for more grace, and thereby glorify God more? (That's just the first example that comes to mind.) It makes me wonder if this algorithm can also not understand rhetorical questions. That is basic for understanding English, for which I would suppose the computer model was originally created.

[Josh]

I would put good money on this censorship decision being made by a human (albeit probably one not paying very much attention), not an algorithm. Chances are that many, many people clicked the "Report" button, probably as part of a concerted left-wing harassment campaign against Adam Ford.

[Josh]

If Adam Ford had appealed, then a human being would read this and respond.

You don't know that he hasn't appealed.

I would like to see what the result of that process is.

Facebook's appeal process is opaque and they refuse to introduce more transparency into it. There is no due process. I think these kind of private tribunals are a grave threat to liberty. There's a reason due process exists, and there's also a reason private business is trying to replace due process with binding arbitration and so forth.

Due process in open, fair courts of justice means a return of power to the people instead of being concentrated in wealthy, corporate hands.

[Neto]

I missed it when it was actually just taking place, but I just now heard some of the recent news about Candice Owens. Forgive me for delving into politics here, but this is a classic example of people not listening to what another person is saying. In that hearing (or whatever it was), the moderator accused her of calling some member of the committee 'stupid'. She did correct him, and said that he didn't listen to what she had said at all. He just blew it off with a wave of the hand. (I'm also reminded of how, at Jesus' "trial", he was accused of saying that he would "destroy the temple".)

[Bootstrap]

I don't know what you expect social media platforms to do.

They can't allow hate speech, child pornography, incitements to violence, etc. if they want to be a family-friendly place that people feel safe on. That means they have to have some way of screening messages. Yes, this is censorship, they screen out things that would make other people feel unsafe or threatened or harassed on the platform. If they do not do this, they lose their customers. They might also help build partisan factions that hate each other. They have been widely blamed - and legitimately - for supporting the rise of various kinds of violent extremism and hate.

They have to screen messages in an efficient, affordable way. When I see phrases like "due process", that seems heavy-handed, they cannot afford to litigate each case in a court of law. They cannot afford to have a human being read and consider every individual post.

So they use imperfect algorithms to screen out things that are probably a problem. Phrases that typically occur in white supremacist posts are going to be flagged, even if the cartoon, read as a whole, does not promote white supremacy. When that happens, a human being reads the message and makes a judgment. They also rely on someone appealing messages if they are inappropriately rejected. They don't want to engage in a public debate whenever this happens, especially with polarized media ready to make each rejection into the latest Internet outrage. Everyone is such a victim if their post gets rejected, and these companies do not have infinite time and energy to spend hours defending themselves in the court of partisan opinion.

I don't know what else they could do. If you were doing this as a business, how would you handle it?

[Bootstrap]

Incidentally, the cartoon seems to be available on Instagram now:

https://www.instagram.com/p/BvnVUNfgFLv/

I don't know how long it took to be approved or what the process was.

[Neto]

I kept thinking about this as I was working tonight, and I really cannot see any way past this problem. It MIGHT be censorship based on the viewpoints of either the program hosts, or on having had so many complaints from anti-pro-life members of the 'forum' (or what ever it should be called). But it MIGHT be a simple result of the inability of the program to correctly understand & identify the gist of the comment or post in question. Those who are submitting complaints may be doing so because they are simply opposed to anything that questions abortion rights, or they may have simply not read it carefully enough to understand it, and were just too quick to respond with the complaint. (Therein lies another question we do not know the answer to: Was it taken down as a result of the routine scanning process by their program, or was it done only after many user complaints?)

So then the process falls to the company hosting the site to make the right judgement. On the one hand, one could say that if they cannot do it correctly, then they should stop providing the service. OR they could restrict ALL political & religious speech. This is the approach taken by several old car forums to which I belong. If you say anything pertaining to either of these topics, the post will be removed. But they probably do not want to do that, because many of their users come there for the purpose of aggressively engaging other posters. They want to appeal to the majority, so as society become more & more nasty, that's where these 'services' will follow.

In this case, there are statements made by the two persons in the cartoon, expressing opposite views about slavery. Perhaps they could do better by including a 'contradiction quotient' in their program, whereby it would automatically trigger an alert for a person to evaluate it. Posting could be delayed until this process was carried out. (This takes place for ALL posts made on one old car discussion board whee I occasionally make comments. NO responses are uploaded until they have been evaluated.)