Oversight committee attacks Meta’s ‘incoherent’ policy on misleadingly manipulated videos as too focused on AI

Meta’s oversight board has found that a Facebook video wrongfully suggesting that the US president, Joe Biden, is a paedophile does not violate the company’s current rules while deeming those rules “incoherent” and too narrowly focused on AI-generated content.

The board, which is funded by Meta – Facebook’s parent company – but run independently, took on the Biden video case in October in response to a user complaint about an altered seven-second video of the president. Mark Zuckerberg at a Senate judiciary committee hearing at the US Capitol in Washington DC

It ruled that Meta was right to leave the video up under its current policy, which bars misleadingly altered videos only if they were produced by artificial intelligence or if they make people appear to say words they never actually said.

But the ruling is the first to critique Meta’s policy on “manipulated media” amid rising concerns about the potential use of new AI technologies to sway elections this year.

It said the policy “is lacking in persuasive justification, is incoherent and confusing to users, and fails to clearly specify the harms it is seeking to prevent”. It suggested Meta update it to cover both audio and video content and to apply labels identifying it as manipulated regardless of whether AI was used.

  • thefartographer@lemm.ee
    121·
    10 months ago

    So what I’m hearing is that you can call anyone a pedophile on Facebook? Ok, every single employee and executive at Facebook are all pedophiles.

      • thefartographer@lemm.ee
        271·
        10 months ago

        I don’t use Facebook or any of those mainstream social media platforms anymore… I’m not edgy, I just have really bad anxiety.

          • thefartographer@lemm.ee
            14·
            10 months ago

            I have no clue. I was worried I was gonna come off sounding like I think I’m edgy, so I was trying to clarify. Instead, it appears I suck my foot in my mouth?

            • Masterblaster@kbin.social
              92·
              10 months ago

              the problem to me seems more like you’re worried about what other people think? you were defending yourself before you did anything, and it backfired, but if you hadn’t gave a fuck in the first place, we wouldn’t be 6 replies deep about your anxiety?

              anyways, please go tell FB that they’re pedophiles.

              i’ll stick with the tried and true method of just not having a FB. if we all just stopped using it, it would go away. it seems pretty simple to me.

              • thefartographer@lemm.ee
                4·
                10 months ago

                if you hadn’t gave a fuck in the first place, we wouldn’t be 6 replies deep

                True, but I appreciate the insight and conversation. How are you doing, Masterblaster? Sincerely asking.

                • Masterblaster@kbin.social
                  71·
                  10 months ago

                  ah, the wife is pissed and sad at me. she just left for her job away from home for 3 days without saying goodbye knowing that i will be leaving in a day for a work trip where i won’t be back for 2 weeks. it’s frustrating but i got a bad case of cynical stoicism that keeps me just distant enough and inside my own head that i don’t really care. i’m probably gonna play warthunder and smoke weed about it.

                  thanks for asking.

    • Blackmist@feddit.ukEnglish
      9·
      10 months ago

      Well I don’t think you’re allowed to say “Mark Zuckerberg raped and murdered a 7 year old in 2014”, but you are allowed to say “did Mark Zuckerberg rape and murder a 7 year old in 2014?”

    • quindraco@lemm.ee
      7·
      10 months ago

      This isn’t Facebook, but also of course you can. Why wouldn’t you be able to?

  • Silverseren@kbin.social
    58·
    10 months ago

    I seem to remember Facebook actively taking down videos critical of Trump back in 2016 and 2020. Hmm…

    • chaogomu@kbin.social
      30·
      10 months ago

      Joel Kaplan.

      In May 2011 Facebook hired Kaplan as its vice president of U.S. public policy, as part of a Facebook’s effort to “strengthen” the company’s ties to Republican lawmakers on Capitol Hill.[16][17] In October 2014, Kaplan succeeded Marne Levine as Facebook’s vice president of global public policy.[18]

      Within the company, Kaplan advocated against restrictions on racially incendiary speech.[19] He played an important role in crafting an exception for newsworthy political discourse when deciding on whether content violated the community guidelines.[19] During the 2016 election, Kaplan advocated against closing down Facebook groups which allegedly peddled fake news.[19] Kaplan argued that getting rid of the groups would have disproportionately targeted conservatives.[19][3] During and after the 2016 US presidential election, Kaplan argued against Facebook publicly disclosing the extent of Russian influence operations on the platform.[20]

      In 2017, after Facebook had implemented changes to its algorithm to expose users to more content by family and friends and less by publishers who were determined by Facebook to engage in misinformation, Kaplan questioned whether the algorithm disproportionately hurt conservative publishers and successfully advocated for Facebook to change the algorithm again.[19]

      He pushed against a proposed Facebook project that was intended to make Facebook users of different political views engage with each other in less hostile ways. Kaplan argued that this feature would lead conservatives to accuse Facebook of bias.[7][5] Kaplan also reportedly advocated on behalf of Breitbart News and the Daily Caller within Facebook.[5][6] Kaplan has helped to place conservatives in key positions in the leadership of Facebook.[3]

      In 2018, he advocated strongly for the Supreme Court nomination of Brett Kavanaugh.[21] Kaplan sat behind Kavanaugh during his Senate confirmation hearings.[21]

      During Donald Trump’s presidency, Kaplan was on friendly terms with the administration.[20] At one point, the administration considered nominating him as head of the Office of Management and Budget.[20]

  • doctortofu@reddthat.com
    36·
    10 months ago

    So they’re saying that a very similar fake video calling Mark Zuckerberg a pedophile would be fine too, right?

  • IgnatiusJReilly
    261·
    10 months ago

    Someone should create a series of AI deepfakes (or would they be called deepTRUTHS in this case) of Trump ‘telling the truth’. Having FACTUAL information coming from the horses mouth about his actual doings and intentions, would be a nice change.

    • Dizzy Devil Ducky@lemm.eeEnglish
      11·
      10 months ago

      I personally believe it’s more damaging to not go after people for those types of claims in one way or another, assuming you can go after them. A lie that spreads far and wide enough to enough ears will eventually become truth once the majority of the public tout it as truth.

      • VindictiveJudge@lemmy.worldEnglish
        6·
        10 months ago

        The Streisand Effect is also a concern, though. How many people will be aware of the video if he does nothing vs how many people will be aware of the video if he retaliates. We also know that a significant chunk of the population will believe he’s a pedophile regardless of what he does or how a court rules if they know about the video.

        • lolcatnip@reddthat.comEnglish
          2·
          10 months ago

          The thing about the Streisand effect is that Barbara Streisand actually exists, so the only way for her to succeed was for her to stay out of the media entirely. There also wasn’t a whole industry dedicated to making people think about her.

          With defamation against Biden, it’s foolish to think we can stop lies from spreading just by ignoring them, but what can be done is to debunk them.

      • andrew_bidlaw@sh.itjust.works
        1·
        10 months ago

        Probably. But at the same time if you can shrug it of safely it may be better than being in news arguing that you are not a pedo.

  • doggle@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    12·
    10 months ago

    So Meta’s own board of review thinks that this video should be violating a rule (or implied as much) but the rules are so incompetently written that it isn’t…

    • mods_are_assholes@lemmy.world
      3·
      10 months ago

      Typical corporate pretzel think.

      They want Biden brought low so are t-rex arming the rules.

      Facebook is worse than cancer because cancer only kills one person. Facebook is killing the internet.

  • Rooter@lemmy.world
    10·
    10 months ago

    Meta allows and advertises nazi content like stonetoss.

    Yes, the same nazi stonetoss that got banned from Reddit.

  • Furbag@lemmy.world
    9·
    10 months ago

    Friendly reminder to everyone reading that Donald Trump was a known associate of Jeffery Epstein. There are unaltered photographs to prove it.

    This is just more right wing projection.

  • shalafi@lemmy.worldEnglish
    105·
    10 months ago

    How about this for a headline?

    Meta’s Oversight Board Finds Company Policy on False Content Inadequate, Suggests Updates

    Nah. Won’t get you guys up in arms. “Engaged” as Zuckerberg might say.

    • brbposting@sh.itjust.works
      4·
      10 months ago

      Facebook Takes Twenty Years To Realize Altering Videos To Make Presidents Look Like Pedophiles Is Undesirable

      (They are a small bootstrapped startup, and some decisions are really tricky)

  • LocoOhNo@lemmus.orgEnglish
    3·
    10 months ago

    The number of comments I’ve reported to Facebook that are blatant racist/Nazi diatribes is insane, especially when you consider that Facebook ALWAYS says it doesn’t go against their “Community Standards.”

    Looks like they don’t have any standards.

  • AutoTL;DR@lemmings.worldBEnglish
    3·
    10 months ago

    This is the best summary I could come up with:

    But the ruling is the first to critique Meta’s policy on “manipulated media” amid rising concerns about the potential use of new AI technologies to sway elections this year.

    It said the policy “is lacking in persuasive justification, is incoherent and confusing to users, and fails to clearly specify the harms it is seeking to prevent”.

    It suggested Meta update it to cover both audio and video content and to apply labels identifying it as manipulated regardless of whether AI was used.

    Meta, which also owns Instagram and WhatsApp, informed the board in the course of the review that it was planning to update the policy “to respond to the evolution of new and increasingly realistic AI”, according to the ruling.

    The clip on Facebook manipulated real footage of Biden exchanging “I Voted” stickers with his granddaughter during the 2022 US midterm elections and kissing her on the cheek.

    Enforcement, it added, should consist of applying labels to the content rather than Meta’s current approach of removing the posts from its platforms.

    The original article contains 357 words, the summary contains 172 words. Saved 52%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!