Leaked documents reveal the special rules Facebook uses for 5.8M VIPs
"These people can violate our standards without any consequences."
arstechnica.com
It's pretty damning.
WSJ Reports FB has a special "whitelist" for 5.8m "VIP Users"
- Thread starter CurtisLemay
- Start date
arstechnica.com
It's pretty damning.
PsihoKekec
Swashbuckling Accountant
Twatter and google probably have similar lists of people who can do no wrong.
bintananth
behind a desk
Twitter flat out said they weren't going chastize Trump while he was President right up until they could no longer ignore the stuff he tweeted which violated their TOS, so yeah, they do.
According to the article, XCheck isn't a total free pass -- people with this status, which are basically defined as people who could cause PR trouble for Facebook if moderated, are moderated specifically by Facebook staff as opposed to the normal automatic algorithms and part time volunteers. It's not *fair*, but it's arguably a pretty rational way to handle people who can kick up a big, public fuss anytime moderation action is taken against them.
The main reason it became more of a free pass than intended was Facebook didn't allocate enough staff to this particular duty, so the already more lax standards became even more lax. That's definitely on Facebook, but I don't think I'd characterize it as a damning conspiracy.
The main reason it became more of a free pass than intended was Facebook didn't allocate enough staff to this particular duty, so the already more lax standards became even more lax. That's definitely on Facebook, but I don't think I'd characterize it as a damning conspiracy.
LordsFire
Internet Wizard
And, you know, the fact they claimed they had the same standards for everyone?
Is certainly bullshit, but frankly, it's the kind of PR-ass-covering bullshit everyone should expect from any corporation whatsoever.
bintananth
behind a desk
Not really. Most TOS's have terms which basically say "you agree not to sue us", and "we can terminate your account for any reason or no reason at all".
Fr'ex: If someone were post something along the lines of "@LordSunhawk is <<insert disparaging things about @LordSunhawk here>>" to TS, they'd be gone from TS forever within seconds of someone with mod powers seeing it and they'd have absolutely zero legal recourse for their removal from TS even if the disparaging things are factually true.
gral
Well-known member
But are TOS legally binding, no matter which terms? One can argue, for good or bad, that some terms of service do violate the law of the land and therefore aren't binding - 'you agree not to sue us' can be taken for one of these cases, depending on how good is your lawyer and how sympathetic is the judge.
bintananth
behind a desk
Contracts generally have a written section which basically says "if parts of this contract are not valid the parts which are valid remain valid". Lawyers aren't stupid.
TOS say a lot of things... And most of them won't actually hold up in court...
gral
Well-known member
True, but that wasn't my point. What I was saying is that putting 'you agree not to sue us' in the TOS may not block someone from suing. Running roughshod over the TOS arbitrarily has all sorts of bad future implications, but it has happened and will happen again.
Terthna
Professional Lurker
They're counting on going to court being too expensive for most people who might object to the terms.
Terms of Service themselves are always designed to run roughshod over peoples' legal rights, to try and protect the company from any and all liability for anything they might do.
Leaked documents reveal the special rules Facebook uses for 5.8M VIPs
"These people can violate our standards without any consequences."
It's pretty damning.
Yes, not surprising. As another poster mentioned, Trump basically had this too. And that's why you also get so many huge Republican names on Twitter and Facebook who can say pretty much whatever they want, without actually getting in trouble. A lot of them aren't nearly as brave as they try to make themselves out to be, like when they do posts calling the platform out. They KNOW that at worst, the post gets deleted. In most cases, they're just left alone.
That's kinda my point as well -- this is not a left-wing conspiracy, this is a corporation having a higher standard of review for people who have the ability to cause a PR headache for them by being able to (right or wrong) publicly push back on moderation action, and then inadequately staffing said higher standard reviews. Double standard, literally, but one that makes practical sense and is not actually tied to political positions.