@marianaolaizola.bsky.social
All humans are equal in dignity and worth. Open to questioning anything else. Policy advisor on technology and law at NYU Stern Center for Business and Human Rights. Views are my own.
Happy to read your longer piece. I definitely appreciate hearing different perspectives but it’s easier if we know which sentences and sources we are talking about. The thread makes it hard for sure
February 1, 2025 at 11:00 PM
Happy to read your longer piece. I definitely appreciate hearing different perspectives but it’s easier if we know which sentences and sources we are talking about. The thread makes it hard for sure
You’re right - I should have linked to this article by Casey Newton which specifies the types of statements that Meta now considers non-violating, some of which fall into the category of hate speech (e.g., "Trans people are freaks.") www.platformer.news/meta-new-tra...
Inside Meta’s dehumanizing new speech policies for trans people
"A trans person isn't a he or she, it's an it," reads a new guideline telling moderators what is now allowed on Facebook and Instagram
www.platformer.news
February 1, 2025 at 10:58 PM
You’re right - I should have linked to this article by Casey Newton which specifies the types of statements that Meta now considers non-violating, some of which fall into the category of hate speech (e.g., "Trans people are freaks.") www.platformer.news/meta-new-tra...
You cited the report by the special rapporteur on freedom of expression, so I cited the same... It seems to me you just want to “win” an argument, not engage in good faith debate.
February 1, 2025 at 9:07 PM
You cited the report by the special rapporteur on freedom of expression, so I cited the same... It seems to me you just want to “win” an argument, not engage in good faith debate.
No. neither of those examples is hate speech. See my paragraph under “The need for nuance.”
Also, fwiw, I don’t say Meta is allowing hate speech - I say Meta is no longer committed to enforcing against it.
Also, fwiw, I don’t say Meta is allowing hate speech - I say Meta is no longer committed to enforcing against it.
February 1, 2025 at 9:06 PM
No. neither of those examples is hate speech. See my paragraph under “The need for nuance.”
Also, fwiw, I don’t say Meta is allowing hate speech - I say Meta is no longer committed to enforcing against it.
Also, fwiw, I don’t say Meta is allowing hate speech - I say Meta is no longer committed to enforcing against it.
Happy to consider your views. I value this exchange
January 31, 2025 at 5:46 PM
Happy to consider your views. I value this exchange
Finally, when Meta says “we remove serious insults…” etc they mean reactive removals, right? Which takes us back to the argument that relying on reactive moderation alone is not sufficient
January 31, 2025 at 5:46 PM
Finally, when Meta says “we remove serious insults…” etc they mean reactive removals, right? Which takes us back to the argument that relying on reactive moderation alone is not sufficient
The “Mexican” example is a perfect instance of why companies can’t rely on AI alone. A human reviewer would have corrected that error immediately (if companies had more of them)
January 31, 2025 at 5:45 PM
The “Mexican” example is a perfect instance of why companies can’t rely on AI alone. A human reviewer would have corrected that error immediately (if companies had more of them)
Second, why do you assume that proactive detection means using AI exclusively? The rapporteur noted the danger of increasing reliance on AI detection alone, but this doesn’t mean that a combination of AI plus human review is not compatible with IHRL and the rapporteur’s comments specifically
January 31, 2025 at 5:44 PM
Second, why do you assume that proactive detection means using AI exclusively? The rapporteur noted the danger of increasing reliance on AI detection alone, but this doesn’t mean that a combination of AI plus human review is not compatible with IHRL and the rapporteur’s comments specifically
Thanks for your views, Pranesh. A few questions: Isn’t it the case that “lower-severity violations” encompassed hate speech? Zuckerberg mentioned as high-severity only posts dealing with drugs, terrorism, CSAM. So that part of the argument holds, in my view. Second, …
January 31, 2025 at 5:40 PM
Thanks for your views, Pranesh. A few questions: Isn’t it the case that “lower-severity violations” encompassed hate speech? Zuckerberg mentioned as high-severity only posts dealing with drugs, terrorism, CSAM. So that part of the argument holds, in my view. Second, …
You’re right, Pranesh. But what percentage of hate speech gets reported? Meta has previously bragged about how effective its automated tools were at detecting violations. And now it’s simply rolling them back and shifting the burden on users. Happy to consider your perspective, though.
January 31, 2025 at 1:41 PM
You’re right, Pranesh. But what percentage of hate speech gets reported? Meta has previously bragged about how effective its automated tools were at detecting violations. And now it’s simply rolling them back and shifting the burden on users. Happy to consider your perspective, though.