Meta's decision to allow hate speech against Russians is troubling and can impact other conflict areas, say experts
Facebook's decision to allow hate speech against Russians due to the war in
Facebook owner
It will also allow praise for a right-wing battalion "strictly in the context of defending
The move represents a "glaring" double standard when set against Meta's failure to curb hate speech in other war zones, said
"The disparity in measures in comparison to Palestine,
"Tech platforms have a responsibility to protect their users' safety, uphold free speech, and respect human rights. But this begs the question: whose safety and whose speech? Why were such measures not extended to other users?" she added.
Last year, hundreds of posts by Palestinians protesting evictions from
Digital rights groups slammed the censorship, urging greater transparency on how moderation policies are set and ultimately enforced.
ONE POLICY FOR ALL?
Facebook has come under fire for failing to curb incitement in conflicts from
"Under no circumstance is promoting violence and hate speech on social media platforms acceptable, as it could hurt innocent people," said
"Meta must have a strict policy on hate speech regardless of the country and situation - I don't think deciding whether to allow promoting hate or calls for violence on a case-by-case basis is acceptable," he told the
Scrutiny over how it tackles abuse on its platforms intensified after whistleblower
In December,
Meta recently said it would "assess the feasibility" of commissioning an independent human rights assessment into its work in
In a report on Wednesday,
In the case of
"This is a temporary decision taken in extraordinary and unprecedented circumstances,"
Responding to reports that the Russian government is considering designating Meta as an extremist organization for its policies in support of speech: pic.twitter.com/Y8sUbZDSML
--
And Meta's new tack underlines how hard it is to write rules that work universally, said
"While the policies of a global corporation should be expected to change slightly from country to country, based on ongoing human rights impact assessments, there also needs to be a degree of transparency, consistency and accountability," he said.
"Ultimately, Meta's decisions should be shaped by its expectations under the U.N. Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, and not what is most economical or logistically sound for the company," he said in emailed comments.
UNILATERAL DECISION
For Wahhab Hassoo, a Yazidi activist who has campaigned to hold social media firms accountable for failing to act against
Hassoo's family had to pay
"I am shocked," said Hassoo, 26, of Meta's decision to allow hate speech against Russians.
"When they can make certain decisions unilaterally, they can basically promote propaganda, hate speech, sexual violence, human trafficking, slavery and other forms of human abuse related content - or prevent it," he said.
"The last part is still missing."
Hassoo and fellow Yazidi activists compiled a report that urged
Meta's actions on
"They can promote or ban what fits in their interests and what they find important," Hassoo said. "It is not fair that a company can decide on what's good and what's not."
- Reporting by
Copyright Thomson Reuters Foundation. Distributed by AllAfrica Global Media (allAfrica.com)., source