Thread by @jason_kint

This entire Washington Post report today is a must-read and once again deeply disturbing receipts on Facebook’s willingness to allow toxic sludge in order to maintain global scalability. It sure seems like they lied during the most significant external audit in their history. /1

Facebook even went to white people in the heart of deeply conservative America in order to establish content was objectionable. But even that apparently wasn’t enough to get Bickert+Kaplan to support that hate speech against the most vulnerable groups needed to be prioritized. /2

The “worst of the worst” may better describe the governance, executive leadership and policy team that protects Facebook’s toxic and harmful business model putting profits over democracy and civil societies. Andy Stone once again features in this report protecting Kaplan. /3

Here is Stone once again spreading misleading metrics which others regularly warn about onboarding and giving Facebook a platform to share them. % of content on the platform is irrelevant context for a report like this. /4

Even this sentence is deeply misleading. The word “proactive” is key as it means 80%+ ***of the removed hate speech*** is due to removal by software (as opposed to ~20% by humans). We learned from WSJ that maybe as low as 5% of hate speech is actually removed. /5

This stat is absolutely horrific and new to me. We learned in prior reporting that % removed by automation was driven up by Facebook creating friction in the human review process but I didn’t know it also was driven up by removing comments directed at white people. /6

Here is the full and important report by @lizzadwoskin @nitashatiku @craigtimberg. When they report on Facebook the last few years, it’s always deeply reported and significant. Incredible work. /eof washingtonpost.com/technology/202…