[News] Facebook Report Concludes Company Censorship Violated Palestinian Human Rights

[Anti-Imperialist News]

theintercept.com
<https://theintercept.com/2022/09/21/facebook-censorship-palestine-israel-algorithm/>
Facebook Report Concludes Company Censorship Violated Palestinian Human
Rights
Sam Biddle - September 21, 2022
------------------------------

*Facebook and Instagram’s* speech policies harmed fundamental human rights
of Palestinian users during a conflagration that saw heavy Israeli attacks
on the Gaza Strip last May, according to a study commissioned by the social
media sites’ parent company Meta.

“Meta’s actions in May 2021 appear to have had an adverse human rights
impact … on the rights of Palestinian users to freedom of expression,
freedom of assembly, political participation, and non-discrimination, and
therefore on the ability of Palestinians to share information and insights
about their experiences as they occurred,” says the long-awaited report,
which was obtained by The Intercept in advance of its publication.

Commissioned by Meta last year and conducted by the independent consultancy
Business for Social Responsibility, or BSR, the report focuses on the
company’s censorship practices and allegations of bias during bouts of
violence against Palestinian people by Israeli forces last spring.

“Meta’s actions in May 2021 appear to have had an adverse human rights
impact.”

Following protests
<https://theintercept.com/2021/05/24/israeli-police-round-palestinian-protesters-global-attention-fades/>
over the forcible eviction
<https://theintercept.com/2021/05/14/israel-settler-evictions-jerusalem-nonprofits/>
of Palestinian families
<https://theintercept.com/2021/05/15/israel-apartheid-palestine-jerusalem/>
from the Sheikh Jarrah neighborhood in occupied East Jerusalem, Israeli
police cracked down on protesters in Israel and the West Bank, and launched
military airstrikes against Gaza that injured thousands of Palestinians,
killing 256, including 66 children, according to the United Nations
<https://reliefweb.int/sites/reliefweb.int/files/resources/Occupied%20Palestinian%20Territory%20%28oPt%29%20-%20Response%20to%20the%20escalation%20in%20the%20oPt%20-%20Situation%20Report%20No.%201%2C%2021%20-%2027%20May%202021.pdf>.
Many Palestinians attempting
<https://abcnews.go.com/Technology/facebook-employees-questioned-apparent-restrictions-palestinian-activists-account/story?id=80824995>
to document
<https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/ryanmac/instagram-facebook-censored-al-aqsa-mosque>
and protest the violence
<https://www.hrw.org/news/2021/10/08/israel/palestine-facebook-censors-discussion-rights-issues>
using Facebook and Instagram found their posts spontaneously disappeared
<https://www.theguardian.com/media/2021/may/26/pro-palestine-censorship-facebook-instagram>
without recourse, a phenomenon the BSR inquiry attempts to explain.

Last month, over a dozen civil society and human rights groups wrote an
open letter
<https://dawnmena.org/meta-must-release-assessment-of-content-moderation-in-palestine/>
protesting Meta’s delay in releasing the report, which the company had
originally pledged to release in the “first quarter” of the year.

While BSR credits Meta for taking steps to improve its policies, it further
blames “a lack of oversight at Meta that allowed content policy errors with
significant consequences to occur.”

Though BSR is clear in stating that Meta harms Palestinian rights with the
censorship apparatus it alone has constructed, the report absolves Meta of
“intentional bias.” Rather, BSR points to what it calls “unintentional
bias,” instances “where Meta policy and practice, combined with broader
external dynamics, does lead to different human rights impacts on
Palestinian and Arabic speaking users” — a nod to the fact that these
systemic flaws are by no means limited to the events of May 2021.

Meta responded to the BSR report in a document to be circulated along with
the findings. (Meta did not respond to The Intercept’s request for comment
about the report by publication time.) In a footnote in the response, which
was also obtained by The Intercept, the company wrote, “Meta’s publication
of this response should not be construed as an admission, agreement with,
or acceptance of any of the findings, conclusions, opinions or viewpoints
identified by BSR, nor should the implementation of any suggested reforms
be taken as admission of wrongdoing.”

*According to the* findings of BSR’s report, Meta deleted Arabic content
relating to the violence at a far greater rate than Hebrew-language posts,
confirming long-running complaints of disparate speech enforcement in the
Palestinian-Israeli conflict. The disparity, the report found, was
perpetuated among posts reviewed both by human employees and automated
software.

“The data reviewed indicated that Arabic content had greater
over-enforcement (e.g., erroneously removing Palestinian voice) on a per
user basis,” the report says. “Data reviewed by BSR also showed that
proactive detection rates of potentially violating Arabic content were
significantly higher than proactive detection rates of potentially
violating Hebrew content.”

BSR attributed the vastly differing treatment of Palestinian and Israeli
posts to the same
<https://restofworld.org/2021/newsletter-south-asia-facebooks-language-problem/>
systemic
<https://www.reuters.com/article/us-facebook-languages-insight/facebooks-flood-of-languages-leaves-it-struggling-to-monitor-content-idUSKCN1RZ0DW>
problems rights groups, whistleblowers
<https://www.wired.com/story/facebooks-global-reach-exceeds-linguistic-grasp/>,
and researchers
<https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/meghara/facebook-india-hate-speech-equality-labs>
have all blamed for the company’s past humanitarian
<https://www.cfr.org/blog/facebooks-content-moderation-failures-ethiopia>
failures
<https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/myanmar-facebook-hate/>:
a dismal lack of expertise
<https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/10/24/india-facebook-misinformation-hate-speech/>.
Meta, a company with over $24 billion in cash reserves
<https://investor.fb.com/investor-news/press-release-details/2022/Meta-Reports-Second-Quarter-2022-Results/default.aspx>,
lacks staff who understand other cultures, languages, and histories, and is
using faulty algorithmic technology to govern speech around the world, the
BSR report concluded.

Not only do Palestinian users face an algorithmic screening that Israeli
users do not — an “Arabic hostile speech classifier” that uses machine
learning to flag potential policy violations and has no Hebrew equivalent —
the report notes that the Arabic system also doesn’t work well: “Arabic
classifiers are likely less accurate for Palestinian Arabic than other
dialects, both because the dialect is less common, and because the training
data — which is based on the assessments of human reviewers — likely
reproduces the errors of human reviewers due to lack of linguistic and
cultural competence.”

Human employees appear to have exacerbated the lopsided effects of Meta’s
speech-policing algorithms. “Potentially violating Arabic content may not
have been routed to content reviewers who speak or understand the specific
dialect of the content,” the report says. It also notes that Meta didn’t
have enough Arabic and Hebrew-speaking staff on hand to manage the spike in
posts.

These faults had cascading speech-stifling effects, the report continues.
“Based on BSR’s review of tickets and input from internal stakeholders, a
key over-enforcement issue in May 2021 occurred when users accumulated
‘false’ strikes that impacted visibility and engagement after posts were
erroneously removed for violating content policies.” In other words,
wrongful censorship begat further wrongful censorship, leaving the affected
wondering why no one could see their posts. “The human rights impacts … of
these errors were more severe given a context where rights such as freedom
of expression, freedom of association, and safety were of heightened
significance, especially for activists and journalists,” the report says.

*Beyond Meta’s failures* in triaging posts about Sheikh Jarrah, BSR also
points to the company’s “Dangerous Individuals and Organizations” policy
— referred to as “DOI” in the report — a roster of thousands of people and
groups that Meta’s billions of users cannot “praise,” “support,” or
“represent.” The full list, obtained and published
<https://theintercept.com/2021/10/12/facebook-secret-blacklist-dangerous/>
by The Intercept last year, showed that the policy focuses mostly on Muslim
and Middle Eastern entities, which critics described as a recipe for
glaring ethnic and religious bias.

Meta claims that it’s legally compelled to censor mention of groups
designated by the U.S. government, but legal scholars have disputed the
company’s interpretation of federal anti-terrorism laws. Following The
Intercept’s report on the list, the Brennan Center for Justice called
<https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/so-what-does-facebook-take-down-secret-list-dangerous-individuals-and>
the company’s claims of legal obligation a “fiction.”

“Meta’s DOI policy and the list are more likely to impact Palestinian and
Arabic-speaking users, both based upon Meta’s interpretation of legal
obligations, and in error.”

BSR agrees the policy is systemically biased: “Legal designations of
terrorist organizations around the world have a disproportionate focus on
individuals and organizations that have identified as Muslim, and thus
Meta’s DOI policy and the list are more likely to impact Palestinian and
Arabic-speaking users, both based upon Meta’s interpretation of legal
obligations, and in error.”

Palestinians are particularly vulnerable to the effects of the blacklist,
according to the report: “Palestinians are more likely to violate Meta’s
DOI policy because of the presence of Hamas as a governing entity in Gaza
and political candidates affiliated with designated organizations. DOI
violations also come with particularly steep penalties, which means
Palestinians are more likely to face steeper consequences for both correct
and incorrect enforcement of policy.”

The document concludes with a list of 21 nonbinding policy recommendations,
including increased staffing capacity to properly understand and process
Arabic posts, implementing a Hebrew-compatible algorithm, increased company
oversight of outsourced moderators, and both reforms to and increased
transparency around the “Dangerous Individuals and Organizations” policy.

In its response to the report, Meta vaguely commits to implement or
consider implementing aspects of 20 out of 21 the recommendations. The
exception is a call to “Fund public research into the optimal relationship
between legally required counterterrorism obligations and the policies and
practices of social media platforms,” which the company says it will not
pursue because it does not wish to provide legal guidance for other
companies. Rather, Meta suggests concerned experts reach out directly to
the federal government.
[image: image.png]
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://freedomarchives.org/pipermail/news_freedomarchives.org/attachments/20220922/8d0cd8cf/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image.png
Type: image/png
Size: 936707 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://freedomarchives.org/pipermail/news_freedomarchives.org/attachments/20220922/8d0cd8cf/attachment.png>