This is a useful thread regarding the GIFCT. Folks should read it. I'm not going to speak for GIFCT, which is now an independent org, but a couple of thoughts:
https://twitter.com/daphnehk/status/1290328090061619201
1) Facebook reviews every hash it takes from the database against our community standards; 2) GIFCT has been clear that, to date, companies share hashes related to entities sanctioned by the UN;
2/n
2/n
3) Participating in the hash-sharing consortium has never meant companies agree to treat those hashes in the same way;
4) Facebook's internal systems are responsible for far more enforcement against terrorist entities than the shared hash database; 3/n
4) Facebook's internal systems are responsible for far more enforcement against terrorist entities than the shared hash database; 3/n
5) I personally think that human rights orgs made a mistake staying out of the IAC, because they are necessary voices, and many have been very constructive critics, and that's the best mechanism for them to shape the GIFCT going forward; 4/n
6)The issue of removing evidence is an important one and I'd love to see ideas for GDPR-compliant solutions that also allow companies to remove terrorist content; 5/n
7) Everyone should pay more attention to the GIFCT, but folks should also not overstate the hash database's role in driving counterterrorism enforcement by participating companies. It's a tool, but it's not the only one. /end
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
