The Intercept: Facebook views Muslims as the greatest danger

A

published by

, the American news website, revealed a secret black list developed by Facebook, which includes individuals and organizations that it described as dangerous.

The site attributed experts to saying that the list represents a clear embodiment of the priorities of US foreign policy, as it could result in the imposition of unequal control on marginalized groups.

According to the report, prepared by Sam Biddle - a journalist who specializes in topics related to wrongdoing and abuse of power in the field of technology - that Facebook has for many years been banning users from speaking freely about people and groups it says promote violence, in an attempt to stave off accusations against it by promoting " to terrorists."

Lists are steadily increasing

The restrictions imposed by the company appear to date back to 2012, when - in the face of growing concern within the corridors of Congress and the United Nations about the recruitment of "terrorists" online - it was forced to include a ban on "organizations with a terrorist record or violent criminal activity" in the Facebook Community Standards ( Community Standards). Since then, that “modest” standard has morphed into what is known today as “dangerous individuals and organizations policy,” a broad set of restrictions that nearly 3 billion Facebook users can see as including ever-growing lists of entities deemed beyond “reasonable.”

In recent years, this policy has been used at a faster pace - even against the President of the United States - and sanctified in the social network, where it has been put forward to reassure the general public whenever outbursts of violence have been linked to Facebook, such as the Myanmar massacre of Muslims and the storming of the US Capitol from by white supremacists.

The politics of dangerous individuals and organizations has become - as its critics see it - an unaccountable system in which certain societies are disproportionately punished.

The system is based on a blacklist of more than 4,000 people and groups, including politicians, writers, charities, hospitals, hundreds of music festivals and long-dead historical figures such as Nazi Germany's propaganda minister Joseph Goebbels and Fascist Italy's ruler Benito Mussolini.

Facebook prevents users from publishing materials about groups and individuals it considers dangerous, but it refuses to disclose who it considers dangerous (Reuters)

Invitation to publish the list

A group of legal scholars and civil liberties advocates appealed to Facebook to publish the list, so that users know that they are at risk of having their posts deleted or their accounts suspended for praising someone.

According to Sam Biddle's report, the company has repeatedly refused to publish the list, claiming that it could put its employees at risk and allow the banned entities to circumvent the policy.

Despite this claim, the "carefully chosen" Facebook Content Supervisory Board has officially recommended on several occasions - most recently in August - that it be published in the public interest.

For its part, The Intercept attached the 100-page list in PDF format to the body of Biddle's report.

The list included the names of organizations, such as: the Lebanese Hezbollah, the Taliban, the state and al-Qaeda organizations, the Pakistani group Lashkar-e-Taiba, and the names of a number of personalities.

almost impossible situation

The report quoted Faiza Patel, associate director of the Freedom and National Security Program at the Brennan Center for Justice, as saying that Facebook put its users in an almost impossible position by telling them that they could not post material about groups and individuals that the company deemed dangerous, but then refused to publicly disclose who it considers to be dangerous.

The report goes on to say that almost all of the individuals and organizations mentioned on the list are in the eyes of America or its allies an enemy or a threat.

More than half of the list is made up of "alleged foreign terrorists", about whom free discussion is strictly controlled by Facebook.

Under the Dangerous Individuals and Organizations policy, the company imposes flexible restrictions on comments about white anti-government militias, more than it applies to groups and individuals designated as "terrorist", the majority of whom are from the Middle East, South Asia and Muslims, or who are said to be part of organizations. violent criminality” and most of them are black and Latino, experts note.

Facebook Dilemma

Although experts who have seen the blacklist believe that Facebook's policy is unjustifiably withholding from users and taking punitive measures against them, this points to a real dilemma facing the company.

According to experts cited by The Intercept, the list and accompanying rules appear to be a clear embodiment of American concerns, political fears and foreign policy values ​​that the United States has adopted since the September 11, 2001 attacks on New York and Washington.

Information seen by the news site shows that Facebook wields "power and influence" over some communities, while treating others more carefully, according to Angel Diaz, a lecturer at the University of California School of Law, who has written about the impact of Facebook's policies on marginalized communities.

"The company is keeping the list confidential and trying to be as transparent as possible, placing the utmost importance on security, minimizing legal risks, and preventing groups from circumventing our laws," said Brian Fishman, director of policy for counterterrorism and dangerous organizations at Facebook, in a written statement.

He added that Facebook does not want "terrorists, hate groups or criminal organizations" to be present on its platform, "which is what prompts us to ban them and remove any content that praises, represents or advocates for them."

Fishman confirmed that they are currently working to ban more than 250 white supremacist groups.

Classify into separate groups

The report notes that the blacklist has classified dangerous individuals and organizations into separate groups, representing advocates of hate, "terrorism", militarized social movements, and violent non-state actors.

Those groups were then divided into 3 levels. Those who are blacklisted are not allowed to have a presence on Facebook platforms, nor are users allowed to represent themselves as members of any groups classified according to company policy.

However, those levels determine which other Facebook users are authorized to comment on prohibited entities.

Level 1 has very strict restrictions, as users may not express anything that praises or endorses groups or individuals in this category.

This level includes groups and members who allegedly practice terrorism, hatred and criminality.

Terrorism is defined under this level as any act that involves "organizing or advocating violence against civilians."

Hatred means "the dehumanization or advocacy of harm" to persons with common characteristics who are legally protected from being harmed, harassed or discriminated against.

In his report, Sam Biddle states that there are approximately 500 hate groups within Level 1, more than 250 of which are white supremacist organizations.

At level 2 are violent non-state actors, mostly made up of groups such as anti-government armed rebels who do not target civilians, but also include many of the factions involved in the Syrian war.

Level 3 is for groups who are not violent, but who frequently engage in hate speech and appear poised to engage in violence soon, or otherwise violate Facebook's policies for dangerous individuals and organizations.

Those classifications, Faiza Patel of the Brennan Center for Justice believes, seem to have created two distinct systems, with the most severe punishments imposed on Muslim-majority regions and communities.

The differences in demographics between levels (1) and (2) suggest that Facebook, like the US government, views Muslims as the “greatest danger,” as Patel puts it.