Facebook failed to remove sexualised images of children and then call the police on the BBC

[StriderX]

What makes the BBC reporter's reports more likely to get noticed over everyone else though?

What a load of crap, they likely have to look at thousands of algorithm checked reports and they will all be the same severity.

Just the BBC being pretentiously dumb again.

 

[enkoda]

What makes the BBC reporter's reports more likely to get noticed over everyone else though?

What a load of crap, they likely have to look at thousands of algorithm checked reports and they will all be the same severity.

Just the BBC being pretentiously dumb again.

Facebook admitted to hosting (and allowing the distribution of) illegal images of child exploitation that it previously stated were fine.
The BBC were highlighting the failure of Facebook's own system to remove this content, despite being told it was on their servers.

 

[Greebo]

Facebook admitted to hosting (and allowing the distribution of) illegal images of child exploitation that it previously stated were fine.
The BBC were highlighting the failure of Facebook's own system to remove this content, despite being told it was on their servers.

And more to the point FB saying it had vastly improved its checking from 2012 where similar pictures where found hosting. Clearly they are falling a long way short if their hit rate is 18%.

 

[FoxEye]

So the remaining 82 images that Facebook initially claimed did not breach community standards were subsequently found to not only breach those standards, but were also illegal.

No, that's not what they said.

They said:
"We have carefully reviewed the content referred to us and have now removed all items that were illegal or against our standards."

NOT

"We have carefully reviewed the content referred to us and have now removed all items, as they were illegal or against our standards."

You are reading it wrong, I fear.

 

[asim18]

That's a massive allegation to make. Sounds like the kind of stupid unfounded crap Asim normally comes out with!

Now hold on just a minute, even I don't think that's the case. Facebook would know which of those images are stored on their servers, it would be silly if the reporter bundled their own images into it, that's just madness.

The only reason you think I come out with "stupid unfounded crap" is because you refuse to discuss things in terms of potentiality and things like dependence and logical consequence. I know exactly how unfounded my understanding of matters is. And that is fair enough. The thing is I always explain myself and take on everything people say, if you still have any questions about something I've posted feel free to post in the respective thread. No need to spill it into other threads.

 

[enkoda]

No, that's not what they said.

They said:
"We have carefully reviewed the content referred to us and have now removed all items that were illegal or against our standards."

NOT

"We have carefully reviewed the content referred to us and have now removed all items, as they were illegal or against our standards."

You are reading it wrong, I fear.

No, I read it correctly, just typed it incorrectly - thanks for pointing that out.

 

[mmj_uk]

I'm guessing two different people working for Facebook's enforcement team have interperated the images differently? it doesn't really make sense otherwise. The images in question must have been borderline.