Over 500 advertisers joined the #StopHateforProfit campaign, launched on 17 June, to boycott Facebook following recent instances of hate speech that the social media company refused to remove or label as hate speech.
THE BATTLE OVER CONTENT MODERATION
Recently, Facebook found itself at the centre of fierce debate over the American President Donald Trump’s Facebook post which quoted the former Miami Police Chief and known racist, Walter Headley. Mark Zuckerberg’s decision not to place a warning label or remove the post sparked widespread criticism from civil rights leaders and Facebook’s own employees. The company justified its reaction to the violence-inspiring post, claiming it did not want to limit freedom of speech and that the post did not breach its policies on content moderation.
On the other hand, Twitter removed the same post on the grounds that it glorified violence. Zuckerberg initially attempted to appease these protests by announcing a review of its moderation policies. But the failure of Facebook’s attempts at reconciliation with its critics are evidenced by the later creation of #StopHateforProfit campaign. As Facebook’s head of trust and safety policy pointed out in a call with advertisers, the company currently suffers from a “trust deficit”.
CAMPAIGN FOR CHANGE
The #StopHateforProfit campaign has proved to be a powerful response to anger at Facebook’s lack of enforcement of its moderation policies. Although the boycott may not seriously damage the firm’s revenues, due to its temporary nature and the limited number of brand advertising companies participating (rather than direct-response advertisers who make up the majority of Facebook’s clients), Zuckerberg has reason for concern about Facebook’s reputation.
The size of Facebook’s users has meant that the problem of content moderation has been a consistent subject of scandalsfor the firm and is likely to continue in future. If such scandals continue to receive a response like this, Facebook’s “trust deficit” may increase in an even more damaging way. However, the 10 points that the campaign has highlighted are not as pertinent as the movement itself. The #StopHateforProfit campaign is calling for some actions that the company has already implemented.
The campaign wants Facebook to hire a civil rights expert to “evaluate products and policies for discrimination, bias and hate” and to audit “identity-based hate and discrimination”. But Facebook already has a Global Chief Diversity Officerand a civil rights audit. Calls for Facebook to “create teams to review submissions of identity-based hate and harassment” have perhaps already been answered when Facebook announced its Oversight Board that will launch this year. Similarly, policies on hate and misinformation are already included in Facebook’s policies. Despite some novel ideas, the campaign’s agenda fails to tackle head-on the problem at-hand: Facebook’s lack of enforcement of their policies on content moderation.
IT’S ALL ABOUT THE MONEY
Mark Zuckerberg is stuck between a rock and a hard place. He wants to please both his users and advertisers who have the power to desert his internet creation as well as the politicians with the power to ban his business or make it suffer chronic legal difficulties (for example Trump has called for the repeal of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act which protects the like of Facebook from the liability that publishers face regarding content).
Since Zuckerberg has total voting control over shareholders, he has a secure standing in the face of a crisis. Ultimately, he has decided that the likes of Donald Trump are a greater threat and will hope that this scandal, like others, will blow over. Nevertheless, boycotts like this may prove to be one of the most effective ways of getting Facebook to take its duty to enforce its policies more seriously.
