Facebook simply didn’t know about it in time.įacebook’s Sonderby said in Tuesday’s blog post that the company “designated both shootings as terror attacks, meaning that any praise, support and representation of the events” are violations. Indecision didn’t seem to be the case here, though. In some cases, it’s not clear at the outset whether a video or other post violates Facebook’s standards, especially on a service with a range of languages and cultural norms. She calls it “incredibly offensive and inappropriate” to pin responsibility on users subjected to traumatic video. “If they cannot handle the responsibility, then it’s their fault for continuing to provide that service,” said Mary Anne Franks, a law professor at the University of Miami.
Nonetheless, they say Facebook cannot deflect responsibility. However, it’s less clear how these systems apply to Facebook’s live streaming.Įxperts say live video poses unique challenges, and complaints about live streaming suicides, murders and beatings regularly come up. The video also outlined how it uses “computer vision” to detect 97 percent of graphic violence before anyone reports it. Those reports are then sent to human reviewers, the company said in a November video. Facebook didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment and questions about its communications with police.įacebook uses artificial intelligence to detect objectionable material, while relying on the public to flag content that violates its standards. The company does have a page titled “ information for law enforcement authorities ,” but it merely outlines procedures for making legal requests for user account records. Facebook also doesn’t appear to post any public information instructing law enforcement how to report dangerous or criminal video.
0 kommentar(er)
