Instagram expands anti-bullying system, starts issuing alerts over offensive captions

You are aware that the terms you are both using are degrading and a problem?

Dec 17, 2019permalink

Capi, those terms have been a part of my vocabulary for decades and quite frankly, by your claims, you are coming off very offensive and i also feel you are trying degrade me.

Nobody is a mind reader, including you, i use those words to describe somebody who likes a brand ect, you don't have the right to define my vocabulary. Your attempt to do so is borderline fascist and again, is very degrading.

Perhaps this can be a lesson that trying to police speech is a two way street, for every person you try to correct, there's somebody who can do the same to you. Is that really the world we want to live in?

Dec 17, 2019permalink

@Max: At what point have I been commenting on what you say?

Dec 17, 2019permalink

entoman

CaPi - F**boy and troll are words that we all know the meaning of. They are descriptive of certain types of offensive commentator here, who are thoroughly deserving of these demeaning terms. I and most others however do try to minimise using the words, as they often just result in escalation.

Dec 17, 2019*permalink

EXkurogane

These algorithms can be easily beaten. I type with spelling errors on purpose in social media a lot. When you do spelling errors on purpose in the middle of a word, the are so many possible combinations and you'll still be able to get your point across.

The problem with algorithm is that it does not take the context into account. Something like calling your cat a fatfck leading to a temporary ban, just because that word is considered as offensive / bullying. I've also seen cases where a word was penalised as offensive but it has a completely different meaning in other languages.

Dec 16, 2019permalink

Sadly enough you seem to be more focused on tricking a system than on the problem?
And it is a problem

Dec 17, 2019permalink

The real problem is social media that is teaching our population to be weak minded, thin skinned "individuals", with herd mentality. What would you rather do, fight an endless fight against countless offenses, or simply teach your kids that the insulting opinions of strangers don't matter?

I don't see why people waste their time trying, the world will never be a place where everybody likes everybody, that's not the way humans work.

Dec 17, 2019permalink

EXkurogane

CaPi, it's called taking precautions. We don't have a choice. I'm not going to abandon my Facebook photography page which I spent years building, that it now has 30,000 followers. If you get a temporary post ban on your personal profile, you will also be unable to update and post on your page during that period.

Sometimes you haven't done anything wrong but fb decides to change a rule and suddenly what was OK in the past is not OK now because there are too many mentally weak and highly sensitive ppl on the Internet, and you get penalised for a post you made 3 years ago. So, the solution is to spell wrongly on purpose if you use harsh words, even if you meant no harm. It's completely the fault of the social media itself trying so hard to appease everyone.

Dec 17, 2019permalink

@EX: point taken. But what’s the alternative?

Dec 17, 2019permalink

Running on empty

@Max: Oh yes, definitely! The "insulting opinions of strangers don't matter"--except in the weak minded, where they can teach hate and/or fear.

Dec 17, 2019permalink

So the solution, if society were being smart about it, is to teach people how to not be weak minded, instead of policing every avenue of interaction. Because clearly, no amount of policing will ever be enough.

Dec 17, 2019permalink

Running on empty

@Max: Totally! I'm a big believer in might is right and social darwinism. Those at the bottom of the food chain should learn not to be offended when they are trampled all over by those above them (have you seen my avatar? that little man underfoot complains too much, methinks).

Dec 17, 2019permalink

You could do a little better job pretending to not be sarcastic. No skin off my back.

Dec 18, 2019permalink

Astro Landscapes

IG's anti-bullying "system" is a joke.

I just found this out today. One account attempted to dox another, and accused ME of being behind an anonymous vigilante account. Reported the libel/defamatory story, got rejected. Requested a "click here if you think we made a mistake", and it was rejected again. Of course. Also, doxing, whether they get it right or wrong, is against IG policy, and grounds for account deletion.

Oh well. I got "put on blast" for a few hours, so I got a few hundred new followers and zero hate mail. I hafta call it a backfire+win, but it sure proves that IG doesn't care about actually policing their "influencers"...

Dec 16, 2019*permalink

Horshack

I wonder if some will use it as a reverse-filter, ie will keep trying different captions until they get the warning, to be assured of triggering the most people.

Dec 16, 2019permalink

mxx

Of course. They're human.

Dec 16, 2019permalink

ScottTomlinson

But what if someone actually IS stupid? How will they know unless I tell them? Freaking ridiculous minority report BS.

Dec 16, 2019permalink

Great Bustard

Re: "But what if someone actually IS stupid?"

Then they run for office and win because of all the other stupid people. I mean, duh -- are you stupid or something? : )

Dec 16, 2019permalink

nathanbush

Error. Wrongthink detected. Please correct your thinking in accordance to 2019 Woke Milquetoast Inoffensive Protocol. Liberal tech giants need to be regulated to ensure free speech. They can't be entrusted with the very agora of our times.

Dec 16, 2019permalink

Owned by Facebook. Expected.

Dec 16, 2019permalink

Free speech doesn't apply to social media. Not until social media is run by the government, that is.

Dec 16, 2019permalink

These social media sites have become public platforms, and should be subject to free speech laws, but until the politicians change that, we are stuck.

Dec 16, 2019permalink

They absolutely should not be subject to free speech laws. So long as a platform is funded privately there's no reason for them to be told what they have to allow on their platform.

If they become taxpayer funded then you have a point.

Dec 17, 2019*permalink

Like I just said, sites like Twitter and Facebook have become public platforms, and should be regulated as such. If you are not a supporter of free speech, you are anti-American. Plain and simple.

Dec 17, 2019permalink

They aren't public platforms. They are private... no matter how many times you say they are public platforms they aren't unless they're government-funded and/or state actors.

Public platforms are things like state and federal schools, state and federal roads and sidewalks, etc.

Straight from the Constitution:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

"Congress" is a very important word, there. That stipulates that the *government* can't limit speech through laws. However, it leaves the door wide open for private entities to limit speech on their platforms.

Unless you can give a compelling argument as to why Facebook and Twitter are state actors, you have no point.

Dec 17, 2019*permalink

As things currently stand, yes, they are private. My point is, they shouldn't be. These social media sites have become powerful, public platforms. Trump was already sued on this basis, and lost because the judge determined he was violating 1A rights.

And then there is the whole platform vs publisher debate. These tech companies want it both ways.
https://www.city-journal.org/html/platform-or-publisher-15888.html

This is all beside my point. Like I said before, censorship evil. It's a fascist tactic that the left likes to use on conservatives, but that's just the beginning. We've already seen liberals get bitten by it, too.

Bottom line is, if you're for censorship, then you need to GTFO of this country an go live in China or someplace.

Dec 18, 2019permalink

"As things currently stand, yes, they are private. My point is, they shouldn't be. "

So you think Facebook and Twitter should be government run? Just so they can be subject to 1A platform-wide? No thanks.

I'm all for gov officials not being able to block and/or censor users if they're using social media in a government capacity. That makes the platform a state actor in those situations. However, that is unique to those situations. The courts have confirmed this, per your own link. However, freedom of speech starts and stops with interactions involving government accounts.

I prefer things the way they are--privately-owned forums can be censored in any way they see fit (it's their prerogative so long as they're paying for it) and public forums remain subject to freedom of speech.

What I want is in agreement with the Constitution and what you're saying is in disagreement with it. Yet I'm the one that needs to "GTFO and live in China or someplace (sp)"?

Insanely hypocritical.

Dec 18, 2019*permalink