Byrne joined Meta in September 2021.
She and her team helped draft the rulebook that applies to the world’s most diabolical people and groups: the Ku Klux Klan, cartels, and of course, terrorists. Meta bans these so-called Dangerous Organizations and Individuals, or DOI, from using its platforms, but further prohibits its billions of users from engaging in “glorification,” “support,” or “representation” of anyone on the list.
Byrne’s job was not only to keep dangerous organizations off Meta properties, but also to prevent their message from spreading across the internet and spilling into the real world. The ambiguity and subjectivity inherent to these terms has made the “DOI” policy a perennial source of over-enforcement and controversy.
A full copy of the secret list obtained by The Intercept in 2021 showed it was disproportionately comprised of Muslim, Arab, and southeast Asian entities, hewing closely to the foreign policy crosshairs of the United States. Much of the list is copied directly from federal blacklists like the Treasury Department’s Specially Designated Global Terrorist roster.
Byrne tried to focus on initiatives and targets that she could feel good about, like efforts to block violent white supremacists from using the company’s VR platform or running Facebook ads. At first she was pleased to see that Meta’s in-house list went further than the federal roster in designating white supremacist organizations like the Klan — or the Azov Battalion.
She was also unsure of whether Meta was up to the task of maintaining a privatized terror roster. “We had this huge problem where we had all of these groups and we didn’t really have … any sort of ongoing check or list of evidence of whether or not these groups were terrorists,” she said, a characterization the company rejected.
Byrne quickly found that the blacklist was flexible. "Meta’s censorship systems are “basically an extension of the government…”
Yes Facebook is bad really bad. If you have not left, please do.
Better to figure this out late than never I guess. Wasn’t this obvious 10+y ago though? Facebook has always been a predatory propaganda firehose.
Haha. If this comment section is positive it proves nobody read the actual article… because in the middle of it is a huge trigger for a certain kind of user around here lmao.
The article is behind a paywall, and nobody likes a vaguepost.
https://12ft.io/proxy?q=https%3A%2F%2Ftheintercept.com%2F2024%2F12%2F04%2Fmeta-facebook-terrorism-censorship-speech%2FI don’t subscribe to the Intercept and read them all the time you can click out of their paywall.
Spoiler it’s everyone’s favorite whodunnit with Syrian chemical weapons.
Hahaha, took her that long, and didn’t understand this before then?
Ok so the two main points:
- Bad people are who the US said are bad
- Azov are Nazis
I think the first one is obvious: Meta is a US company. If you want to see the inverse, check out WeChat.
The second is a case is an extension of the first, where the US is saying “bad people doing the right thing is fine”.
"As a Counterterrorism and Dangerous Organizations policy manager, Byrne’s entire job was to help form policies that would most effectively thwart groups like Azov. Then one day, this was no longer the case. “They’re no longer neo-Nazis,” Byrne recalls a policy manager explaining to her somewhat shocked team, a line that is now the official position of the White House.
Shortly after the delisting, The Intercept reported that Meta rules had been quickly altered to “allow praise of the Azov Battalion when explicitly and exclusively praising their role in defending Ukraine OR their role as part of the Ukraine’s National Guard.” Suddenly, billions of people were permitted to call the historically neo-Nazi Azov movement “real heroes,” according to policy language obtained by The Intercept at the time.
Byrne and other concerned colleagues were given an opportunity to dissent and muster evidence that Azov fighters had not in fact reformed. Byrne said that even after gathering photographic evidence to the contrary, Meta responded that while Azov may have harbored Nazi sympathies in recent years, posts violating the company’s rules had sufficiently tapered off.'"
