How Should Facebook Deal with Offensive Groups?
For nearly a week now, Facebook has found itself in an uncomfortable position: It has had to defend the rights of Holocaust deniers who have set up incendiary group pages on the site. Today, Facebook announced that it had removed two of the pages, but the issue is likely to be revisited frequently in the future, exposing one of the grayest areas in Facebook’s Terms of Service.
Yesterday, Attorney Brian Cuban — the brother of Dallas Mavericks owner Mark Cuban — wrote an open letter to Facebook’s CEO Mark Zuckerberg, asking him to remove all the Holocaust denial sites. While these groups might stop short of explicitly encouraging violence against Jewish people, Cuban wrote, they nevertheless promote hateful speech and egregiously inaccurate information about one of the darkest incidents in modern history.
A key passage in Cuban’s letter:
The Holocaust Denial movement is nothing more than a pretext to allow the preaching of hatred against Jews and to recruit other like minded individuals to do the same. Allowing these groups to flourish on Facebook under the guise of “open discussion” does nothing more than help spread their message of hate. Is this the kind of open discussion that Facebook wants to encourage? Is this really where you want to draw your line?
The issue has dogged Facebook for a week now. It started with an earlier post by Cuban, in which he tried to make a legal case as to why the Holocaust denier groups violated laws in some European countries. Seeing as Facebook operates internationally (not just in the U.S.), Cuban argued the groups should be removed. In addition, because Facebook is a closed network that requires members to join, U.S. First Amendment rights don’t apply as vigorously as they do on the public Web.
Facebook hasn’t relished the task of defending the groups, which it called “offensive” in several interviews with the media. In a CNN article, Barry Schnitt, a Facebook spokesman, noted the company debates the issue of controversial groups frequently. While Facebook disagrees with the views expressed on the Holocaust denier pages, he said Facebook will not remove a page unless it promotes violence or threatens an individual, which is outlawed in Facebook’s terms of service. The idea, he says, is to facilitate an open dialogue across the social network.
“It’s a difficult decision to make. We have a lot of internal debate and we bring in experts to talk about it,” Schnitt said. “Just being offensive or objectionable doesn’t get it taken off Facebook. We want it [the site] to be a place where people can discuss all kinds of ideas, including controversial ones.”
CNET published a full-length Q&A with Schnitt that details the internal discussions Facebook has on these matters, and how the company approaches dealing with them.
Conclusion
The Holocaust represents one of the darkest moments in human history. We of course find a group that seeks to deny the existence of those awful events offensive, and we believe it offends Facebook as well.
But we also believe that, in the Facebook ecosystem, Facebook itself must act as a judicious governor that enforces a steady policy. As a company, Facebook is mostly comprised of technologists, engineers and marketers. As a result, we think its inclination to defer to U.S. laws of free speech make sense in the long run.
By having a consistent stance, Facebook won’t have to judge groups continually on an agonizing, case-by-case basis. As this incident revealed, holding firm to its terms of service won’t always be popular, but if you believe in the First Amendment, it’s ultimately the right thing to do.
May 11th, 2009 at 6:41 pm
I completely agree with your conclusion here. Long-term consistency and application of their terms of service will be important for Facebook’s future. Great look at this hot topic.
Maria Reyes-McDavis
May 12th, 2009 at 12:52 am
FaceBook has been condoning Mormong anti-gay groups for years, despite anti-discrimination reports from users.
Zuckerburg simply does not care about hate speech.
May 12th, 2009 at 3:36 pm
[...] How Should Facebook Deal with Offensive Groups? (insidefacebook.com) [...]
May 12th, 2009 at 9:45 pm
Consistency is key. There are many parties, individuals, movements and ideas that are bashed on Facebook. The question is where do they draw the line and by whose assessment will the decision be made? When it goes against the grain will they be able to uphold their stance? Will larger or more vocal groups be protect and others not? For a large operation like Facebook this is a can of worms.
May 13th, 2009 at 5:18 am
facebook increasingly hides behind the 1st ammendment as if facebook is an American only site, it is not, it is a globally recognised and used interface, which recently boasting 2 million users now in Germany.
Correct me if I’m wrong but do those 2 million Germans have to adhere to the Amercan consitution and also every other user across the globe outside of America.
This is a global issue being heard by a global audience facebook has to think very carefully about this issue because it is against the law in many countries to express views which can and do incite racial hatred.
Very much like the PORN on facebook issue, how can this issue not be taken more seriously especially when children are a massive audience for facebook who draw in their friends and families.
If facebook wants an international audience it has to adhere to international laws in whatever country it allows to access it.
We are not all AMERICANS, just because facebook hosts in the USA it cannot blame the USA for allowing it to escape international condemnation.
The more issues that arise that are detrimental to American freedom of speech will no doubt raise more questions across the world.
There are many countries that have access to facebook who find that this cop out may find that facebook actually breaks the laws of those countries.
facebook must be aware that they are walking on very thin ice and a more international terms of service may have to come into play or facebook could suffer on the international stage and be accused of breaking those international laws not only on the two issues mentioned above but many others that have yet to rise.
It has been rumoured that facebook wants to build a nation within itself, we must all remember that facebook is only a WEBSITE, a website made up of individuals without whom facebook would be a non entity.
facebook if you want to hide behind the 1st ammendment of the American constituion then keep facebook within American borders, stop taking for granted the laws of other countries.
I am sure I am not the only Non American that find that you allow your users to laugh in the face of our constitutions.
May 13th, 2009 at 5:35 am
Holocaust denial is a bad and opressive law in some states. It is not a universal truth or a belief by any standards. Why to force people to believe a story which many believe to be false. That is neither confirmed by history or evidence. Why to force people to abide by a law which is flawed, discriminatory and racist?
Deny what is not true, support FB policy.
May 14th, 2009 at 5:02 pm
your conclusion is correct. facebook can and should not police, unless the are asked to by the people who make the laws.
as a friend pointed out:
“showing women’s faces is illegal in some places where facebook has a presence. ”
will they censor that too.
on a more specific note, holocaust denial is not racism. similarly, if one denies the rodney king beating, it doesnt mean they are racist.