\n
![](\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.rsoftsolution.com\/blog\/wp-content\/plugins\/RSSPoster_PRO\/cache\/79504_facebook-stories-ios.jpg?w=640&ssl=1\")
<\/p>\n
\n<\/p>\n
Would you tell Facebook you\u2019re happy\u00a0to see all the bared flesh it can\u00a0show you? And\u00a0that the more gratuitous violence it pumps into your News Feed the better?<\/p>\n
Obtaining answers to where a person\u2019s\u00a0\u2018line\u2019 on viewing what can be\u00a0controversial types of content lies is now\u00a0on Facebook\u2019s product roadmap<\/a> \u2014 explicitly stated\u00a0by CEO Mark Zuckerberg in a lenthy\u00a0blog\u00a0post last week, not-so-humbly\u00a0entitled \u2018Building a global community<\/a>\u2018.<\/p>\n Make no mistake, this is a huge shift from the one-size fits all \u2018community standards\u2019 Facebook\u00a0has peddled for years \u2014 crashing into controversies of its own when, for example, it\u00a0disappeared\u00a0an iconic Vietnam war photograph<\/a> of a naked child fleeing a napalm attack.<\/p>\n In last week\u2019s wordy essay \u2014 in which Zuckerberg generally\u00a0tries to promote\u00a0the grandiose notion\u00a0that Facebook\u2019s future role is to\u00a0be\u00a0the glue\u00a0holding the fabric of global society together, even as he\u00a0fails\u00a0to flag the obvious paradox: that technology which helps amplify misinformation and prejudice <\/a>might<\/em> not<\/em> be so great for social cohesion after all \u2014 the Facebook CEO\u00a0sketches out an impending change\u00a0to community standards that will see the site\u00a0actively ask users to set a \u2018personal tolerance\u00a0threshold\u2019 for viewing\u00a0various types of less-than-vanilla content.<\/p>\n On this Zuckerberg\u00a0writes:<\/p>\n The idea is to give everyone in the community options for how they would like to set the content policy for themselves. Where is your line on nudity? On violence? On graphic content? On profanity? What you decide will be your personal settings. We will periodically ask you these questions to increase participation and so you don\u2019t need to dig around to find them. For those who don\u2019t make a decision, the default will be whatever the majority of people in your region selected, like a referendum. Of course you will always be free to update your personal settings anytime.<\/p>\n With a broader range of controls, content will only be taken down if it is more objectionable than the most permissive options allow. Within that range, content should simply not be shown to anyone whose personal controls suggest they would not want to see it, or at least they should see a warning first. Although we will still block content based on standards and local laws, our hope is that this system of personal controls and democratic referenda should minimize restrictions on what we can share.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n A following\u00a0paragraph caveats that\u00a0Facebook\u2019s in-house AI does\u00a0not currently\u00a0have the ability to automatically identify every\u00a0type of (potentially)\u00a0problematic content. Though the engineer in Zuck is apparently keeping the flame of possibility\u00a0alive \u2014 by declining to state the obvious: that understanding the\u00a0entire spectrum of possible\u00a0human controversies would require a truly super-intelligent AI.<\/p>\n (Meanwhile, Facebook\u2019s in-house algorithms have shown themselves to be hopeless<\/a> at being able to correctly ID some pretty bald-faced\u00a0fakery. And he\u2019s leaning on<\/a> third party<\/a> fact-checking organizations<\/a> \u2014 who do employ actual humans to separate\u00a0truth and lies \u2014 to help fight the spread of Fake News on the platform, so\u00a0set your expectations accordingly\u2026 )<\/p>\n \u201cIt\u2019s worth noting that major advances in AI are required to understand text, photos and videos to judge whether they contain hate speech, graphic violence, sexually explicit content, and more. At our current pace of research, we hope to begin handling some of these cases in 2017, but others will not be possible for many years,\u201d is how Zuck frames Facebook\u2019s\u00a0challenge here.<\/p>\n The problem is this \u2014 and indeed much else in the ~5,000-word post \u2014 is mostly\u00a0misdirection.<\/p>\n The\u00a0issue is not whether Facebook will be able to\u00a0do what he suggests is its ultimate AI-powered goal\u00a0(i.e. scan all user-shared content for problems; categorize everything accurately across a range of measures; and then dish up\u00a0exactly the stuff\u00a0each user\u00a0wants to see in order to\u00a0keep them fully engaged on\u00a0Facebook, and<\/em> save Facebook\u00a0from any more content removal controversies) \u2014 rather the point is Facebook is going to be\u00a0asking users to explicitly give it\u00a0even more personal data<\/em>.<\/p>\n Data that\u00a0is necessarily highly\u00a0sensitive in nature\u00a0\u2014 being as\u00a0the community governance issue he\u2019s flagging here relates to controversial content. Nudity, violence, profanity, hate speech, and so on.<\/p>\n Yet Facebook remains\u00a0an advertising business. It profiles all its users, and even tracks non-users<\/a>\u2018 web browsing habits, continually harvesting digital usage\u00a0signals\u00a0to feed its ad targeting algorithms.\u00a0So the obvious question\u00a0is whether or not any additional data Facebook gathers from users via a \u2018content threshold setting\u2019 will become\u00a0another input for fleshing out its user profiles for\u00a0helping it target ads.<\/p>\n We asked Facebook\u00a0whether it intends to use data provided by users responding to content settings-related questions in future for ad targeting purposes but\u00a0the company declined to comment further on Zuckerberg\u2019s post.<\/p>\n You might also wonder whether, given the scale\u00a0of\u00a0Facebook\u2019s tracking systems and machine learning algorithms, couldn\u2019t it essentially infer individuals\u2019 likely tolerance for controversial content? Why does it need to ask at all?<\/p>\n And isn\u2019t it also odd that Zuckerberg didn\u2019t suggest an engineering solution for managing controversial content, given, for example, he\u2019s been so intent on pursuing an\u00a0engineering solution to the problem of\u00a0Fake News. Why doesn\u2019t he talk about how\u00a0AI might also rise to the\u00a0complex challenge of figuring out personal content tastes without offending people?<\/p>\n \u201cTo some extent they probably can already make a very educated, very good guess at [the types of content people are okay seeing],\u201d argues\u00a0Eerke Boiten, senior lecturer in computer science at the University of Kent. \u201cBut\u2026 telling Facebook explicitly what your line in the sand is on different categories of content is in itself giving Facebook a whole lot of quite high level information that they can use for profiling again.<\/p>\n \u201cNot only could they derive that information from what they already have but it would also help them to fine-tune the information they already have. It works in two directions. It reinforces the profiling, and could be deduced from profiling in the first place.\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cIt\u2019s checking their inferred data is accurate,\u201d agrees Paul Bernal, law lecturer at the\u00a0University of East Anglia. \u201cIt\u2019s almost testing their algorithms. \u2018We reckon this about you, this is what you say \u2014 and this is why we\u2019ve got it wrong\u2019. It can actually, effectively be improving their ability to determine information on people.\u201d<\/p>\n Bernal also makes the point that there could\u00a0be a difference,\u00a0in data protection law terms, if Facebook users\u00a0are directly handing over\u00a0personal information about content tolerances to Facebook (i.e. when it asks them to tell it)\u00a0vs such personal information\u00a0being inferred<\/em> by Facebook\u2019s indirect tracking of their usage of its platform.<\/p>\n \u201cIn data protection terms there is at least some question if they derive information \u2014 for example sexuality from our shopping habits \u2014 whether that brings into play all of the sensitive personal data rules. If we\u2019ve given it consensually then it\u2019s clearer that they have permission. So again they may be trying to head off issues,\u201d he suggests.\u00a0\u201cI do see this as being another data-grab, and I do see this as being another way of enriching the value of their own data and testing their algorithms.\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cI\u2019m not on Facebook\u00a0and this makes it even clearer to me why I\u2019m not on Facebook\u00a0because it seems to me in particular this is increasing risks and increasing our vulnerability at a time when we should be doing exactly the opposite,\u201d adds Bernal.<\/p>\n Facebook users are able to request to see some of the\u00a0personal data<\/a> Facebook holds on them. But, as Boiten points out, this list is by no means complete. \u201cWhat they give you back is not the full information they have on you,\u201d he tells TechCrunch. \u201cBecause some of the tracking they are doing is really more sophisticated than that. I am absolutely, 100 per cent certain that they are hiding stuff in there. They don\u2019t give you the full information even if you ask for it.<\/p>\n \u201cA very simple example of that is that they memorize your search history within Facebook. Even if you delete your Facebook search history it still autocompletes on the basis of your past searches. So I have no doubt whatsoever that Facebook knows more than they are letting on\u2026 There remains a complete lack of transparency.\u201d<\/p>\n So it at least seems fair that Facebook\u00a0could\u00a0<\/em>take a shot at inferring users\u2019 content thresholds, based on the mass of personal data it holds on individuals. (One anecdotal example: I recall once seeing a notification float into my News Feed that a Facebook friend\u00a0had liked a page called \u201cRough sex\u201d, which would seem to\u00a0be just the sort of relevant preference signal Facebook could\u00a0use to auto-determine the types of content thresholds Zuckerberg is talking about, at least for\u00a0users who have shared\u00a0enough such signals with it.)<\/p>\n But of course if it did that Facebook\u00a0would be diving headfirst\u00a0into some very controversial territory. And<\/em> underlining exactly how much it knows about you, dear user \u2014 and that might\u00a0comes across as\u00a0especially creepy when paired with a News Feed that\u2019s\u00a0injecting\u00a0graphic content into your eyeballs\u00a0because\u00a0it thinks that\u2019s what you want\u00a0to see.<\/p>\n \u201cGiven the level at which they\u2019re profiling we shouldn\u2019t tell them anymore,\u201d says\u00a0Boiten, when asked whether people should feel okay feeding Facebook info\u00a0about their \u2018line in the sand\u2019 \u2014 pointing to another\u00a0controversy that arose last year<\/a> when it emerged Facebook\u2019s ad capabilities could be used to actively exclude or include people with specific ethnic affinities (aka \u2018racial profiling\u2019).<\/p>\n \u201cIf they make the advances in understanding of natural language content \u2014 the AI slant that Zuckerberg\u2019s [blog post] promises, probably unrealistically, but nevertheless \u2014 if they get that sort of advantage then blimey they\u2019re going to know an awful lot more than they already do,\u201d he adds.<\/p>\n \u201cYou can bet that they\u2019re going to be profiling people based on their standards settings in this way,\u201d adds\u00a0Bernal. \u201cThat\u2019s how it works, and then they aggregate it and they\u2019ll be using it \u2014 I bet \u2014 to target their advertising and so on. It is more total information management. The more they can get, and the more granular those personal controls get the more information they\u2019re picking up.<\/p>\n \u201cAnd I do think it\u2019s disingenuous in that Zuckerberg\u2019s\u00a0post is not mentioning any of this.\u201d<\/p>\n While it\u2019s not yet clear exactly how (or when) these\u00a0content settings\u00a0will be implemented, the structure\u00a0sketched out by\u00a0Zuckerberg already looks pretty problematic \u2014 given that Facebook users who do not want\u00a0to share any\u00a0additional sensitive signals with the ad-targeting giant will be forced\u00a0to tolerate their peers\u2019\u00a0predilections.<\/p>\n Which immediately puts pressure on\u00a0users\u00a0to confess their content\u00a0likes\/dislikes to Facebook in order to avoid this \u2018hell is other people\u2019s tastes\u2019 bind \u2014 i.e. in order to not be subject\u00a0to the preferences\u00a0of a\u00a0local median.\u00a0And<\/em> to avoid being tainted by association of the types of content showing up (or not showing up) in their\u00a0News Feed. After all, the Facebook News Feed is inherently individual \u2014 so there\u2019s a risk of the character of the content in a user\u2019s Feed being\u00a0assumed to be a reflection of their\u00a0personal tastes.<\/p>\n So by\u00a0not telling Facebook anything about your content thresholds you\u2019re put into a\u00a0default corner\u00a0of\u00a0telling Facebook you\u2019re okay with whatever the\u00a0regional average is okay with, content wise. And that may be the opposite of okay for you.<\/p>\n \u201cI think there\u2019s another little trap here that they\u2019ve done before,\u201d continues\u00a0Bernal. \u201cWhen you make controls granular it looks as if you\u2019re giving people control \u2014 but actually people generally get bored and don\u2019t bother changing anything. So you can say you\u2019ve given people control, and now it\u2019s all much better \u2014 but in general they don\u2019t use it. The few people who do are the few people who would understand it and get round it anyway. It will be very interesting to see what extent people actually use it.\u201d<\/p>\n Such a majority rule\u00a0system could also be at risk of being gamed by \u2014 let\u2019s say \u2014 mischievous 4Channers banding together and\u00a0working to get graphic boundaries opened up in a region where more conservative standards are the norm.<\/p>\n \u201cI can see people gaming this kind of system \u2014 in the way that all kinds of online polls and referenda are gamed, somebody will work out the way to get the systems set the way they want\u2026 There are all kinds of possibilities,\u201d argues\u00a0Bernal. \u201cThere\u2019s also a danger of \u2018community leaders\u2019 taking some degree of control; recommending people particular settings. I\u2019m wary of Zuckerberg\u00a0ending up doing this so you have standards for particular kind of people, so you \u2018chose\u2019 the standards that someone else has effectively chosen for you.\u201d<\/p>\n A lot will depend on the implementation of the content controls, certainly, but when you look at how easily, for example, Facebook\u2019s trending news section \u2014 not to mention its\u00a0News Feed in general \u2014 has been shown to be vulnerable to manipulation (by purveyors of clickbait, Fake News etc) it suggests there could well be risks of content settings\u00a0being turned\u00a0on their\u00a0head, and ending up causing more\u00a0offenses than they\u00a0were trying to prevent.<\/p>\n Another point Bernal makes is that shifting some of the responsibility for the types of content being shown\u00a0onto users implicitly shifts some of the blame away from Facebook when controversies inexorably arise. So, basically: see something you don\u2019t like in your News Feed in future? Well, that\u2019s YOUR fault now! Either you\u00a0didn\u2019t set your\u00a0Facebook content settings correctly<\/em>. Or you didn\u2019t set any at all\u2026 Tsk!<\/p>\n In other words, Facebook gets to deflect objections to the type of content its algorithms are shunting into the News Feeds of users all over the world\u00a0as a \u2018settings configuration\u2019 issue\u00a0\u2014 sidestepping having to address the more systemic and fundamental flaw embedded into the design of the Facebook\u00a0product: aka the filter bubble issue.<\/p>\n Facebook has long been\u00a0accused of encouraging\u00a0a narrowing of personal perspective via\u00a0its user-engagement focused\u00a0content hierarchies. And Zuckerberg\u2019s blog post has a fair amount of fuzzy thinking\u00a0on filter bubbles, as you might expect from the chief of an engagement-algorithm-driven content distribution machine. But\u00a0\u2014 for all his talk of \u201cbuilding global community\u201d \u2014 he offers no clear fix for\u00a0how Facebook\u00a0can help\u00a0break users out of the AI-enabled, navel-gazing circles its business model creates.<\/p>\n Yet a very simple fix for this does exist \u2014 which would be to show people a chronological News Feed of friends\u2019 posts as the default<\/em> vs the current default being the\u00a0algorithmically powered one. Facebook users can manually switch to a chronological feed but the option is tricky to find, and clearly actively discouraged as the choice gets reset back to the AI Feed either per session or very soon after. In short the choice\u00a0barely exists.<\/p>\n The root problem here of\u00a0course is that Facebook\u2019s business benefits massively from algorithmically engaged users. So there\u2019s zero chance Zuck is going to announce it\u2019s abandoning such a\u00a0lucrative and (thus far) scalable default. So\u00a0his\u00a0solitary\u00a0claim in the essay to \u201cworry\u201d about fake news and filter bubbles rings very\u00a0hollow indeed.<\/p>\n Indeed, there\u00a0is also a risk\u00a0that giving users controls over controversial content could exacerbate the filter bubble effect further. Because a user who can effectively dial down all controversy to zero is probably not\u00a0going to be encountering\u00a0news about conflict\u00a0in Syria, say. It\u2019s going to be a lot easier for them to live inside a padded\u00a0Facebook stream populated\u00a0with cute photos of\u00a0babies and kittens. News? What news? Awwww, how purdy!<\/p>\n And while that might make a pleasing\u00a0experience for individuals who wants to disengage from wider global realities, it\u2019s reductive for society as a whole if lots of people\u00a0start retreating into rose-tinted filter bubbles. (Dialing up hateful content, should that also be possible via the future Facebook content filters, would also obviously likely have a deleterious and divisive societal impact).<\/p>\n The point is, giving people easy opt outs for\u00a0types of content that\u00a0might push them outside their comfort zone and\u00a0force them to confront unfamiliar\u00a0ideas or encounter\u00a0a different or difficult perspective just offers a self-enabled\u00a0filter bubble (alongside the algorithmic filter Facebook users get pushed\u00a0inside when inside Facebook, thanks to its default setting).<\/p>\n This issue is of rising\u00a0important given how many users Facebook has, and how the massively dominant platform\u00a0has been shown to be increasingly cannibalizing\u00a0traditional news media; becoming a\u00a0place people go to get news generally, not just to learn what their friends are up to.<\/p>\n And remember, all this stuff is being discussed\u00a0in a post where Zuckerberg is seeking\u00a0to\u00a0position\u00a0Facebook as the platform\u00a0to glue the world together in a \u201cglobal community\u201d and at a fractious moment in history. Which would imply giving users the ability to\u00a0access perspectives far-flung from their\u00a0own, rather that helping people\u00a0retreat into reductive\u00a0digital comfort zones. A multitude\u00a0of disconnected filter bubbles certainly does\u00a0not have the ring of \u2018global community\u2019 to me.<\/p>\n Another glaring omission in Zuckerberg\u2019s writing\u00a0is the risk of Facebook\u2019s cache of highly personal (and likely\u00a0increasingly sensitive) data being misused by overreaching governments seeking to clamp down on particular groups within society.<\/p>\n It\u2019s especially strange\u00a0for a US CEO to stay silent on this at this point in time, given how social media searches by US customs agents\u00a0have\u00a0ramped up<\/a>\u00a0following President Trump\u2019s Executive Order on immigration last month. There have also been\u00a0suggestions<\/a>\u00a0that foreigners wanting to enter the US could be forced to hand over their social media passwords to US border agents\u00a0in future. All of which has very clear and very alarming implications for Facebook users and their Facebook data.<\/p>\n Yet\u00a0the threat posed to Facebook users by\u00a0government agencies appropriating\u00a0accounts to enable\u00a0highly intrusive, warrantless searches \u2014 and presumably go on phishing expeditions for incriminating content, perhaps, in future, as a matter of course for\u00a0all foreigners traveling to the US \u2014 apparently does\u00a0not merit public consideration by Facebook\u2019s CEO.<\/p>\n Instead, Zuckerberg is calling for more user data, and for increased\u00a0use of Facebook.<\/p>\n\n