The proof that Facebook's reporting procedure is broken, 14.4.10, econsultancy.com

http://econsultancy.com/blog/5744-proof ... ing-broken

The proof that Facebook's reporting procedure is broken


Posted 14 April 2010 09:20am by malcolm coles with 5 comments
Tweet this

Facebook has announced a new safety centre, claiming that "Safety is Facebook's top priority". But as I revealed just over a month ago, there are big problems with Facebook's procedures for reporting abusive content on groups, pages and forums.

And here's the proof. The content I complained about as part of that blog post is still live - comments which include racist language and false accusations of murder.
Accusing the wrong person of murder

Here's a Facebook page called Baby P's parents should be jailed for more than 12 years!

As I'd pointed out, Baby B's father had nothing to do with his death - it was the mother and boyfriend who were found guilty of his murder.

That page - accusing an innocent father of the murder of his child - is still live, five weeks after I reported it. The screenshot shows I can't report it again.


Racist language

Here's a Facebook discussion board about rugby songs, featuring language like:

"Down in Alabama where the n****rs shovel coal another n****r shoved a shovel up a n*****s hole".

This board, with its racist language, is still live, five weeks after I reported it.

Blaming Kate McCann for her daughter's death

Here's a Facebook discussion accusing Kate McCann of murdering her daughter. One comment says:

I suspect so too... Anyway.. If Madeleine against all odds is found, I think it would be inappropiate to return her to her parents. What c***s!

This comment - agreeing that Mrs McCann is guilty of her daughter's death - is still live, five weeks after I reported it.


Accusing an innocent man of being a child murderer

Here's a Facebook page that accuses an innocent man of really being the killer of Jamie Bulger. The comment says (I've masked the innocent man's name):

D**** C****** is the new name of john venables. He lives in fleetwood!!!!!! The sick bloke that killed that younge lil boy.

This comment - accusing an innocent man of being child killer Jon Venables - is still live, five weeks after I reported it.

Facebook needs to tighten up its procedures

Most of the attention on Facebook lately has been around whether or not to include a CEOP panic button.

But as these examples show, Facebook has wider problems than this. I identified three key flaws with its reporting procedure:
Some content that's impossible to flag.
No way to explain why some content is inappropriate, which means Facebook has to work it out itself.
Confusing error messages that tell you that you can't report content, even though you can.

Nothing in Facebook's latest announcement addresses these problems.

Malcolm Coles is Director at Digital Sparkle and a guest blogger for Econsultancy. He also blogs at malcolmcoles.co.uk. You can follow him on Twitter here.

Posted 14 April 2010 09:20am by malcolm coles with 5 comments

Tags: Facebook

Topics: Legal Issues Online, Online PR & Social Media, Social Networks & Online Communities, User Experience & Usability

Sectors: Publishing, Media & Entertainment

In some ways l feel sorry for FB, it must be overwhelmed with complaints. Imagine the spats of teenagers who fall in and out of friendships, and probalby make up the core of FB's main users. If one hurls an insult it would be reported to FB, they would need a multitude of employees to wade through them, and if they installed a panic button it would be abused by silly people negating it's cause and probably stopping a proper potential victim.

I know they need to do something but trouble is, by the time someone is in the clutches of a paedo they really believe what they are told and wouldn't believe they were in danger.

margaret wrote:In some ways l feel sorry for FB, it must be overwhelmed with complaints. Imagine the spats of teenagers who fall in and out of friendships, and probalby make up the core of FB's main users. If one hurls an insult it would be reported to FB, they would need a multitude of employees to wade through them, and if they installed a panic button it would be abused by silly people negating it's cause and probably stopping a proper potential victim.

I know they need to do something but trouble is, by the time someone is in the clutches of a paedo they really believe what they are told and wouldn't believe they were in danger.

I agree margaret - it's an impossible task for FB to patrol the actions of their members and as you say, the idea of a panic button is flawed for the very reason that it would be a magnet for abuse. So, you'd end up with the so-called panic button being abused and kids would still be in danger of being abused whilst everyone concentrated on the abuse of the panic button. The panic button is a gimmick dreamt up by a second-rate brain trying to justify the existence of his dubious organisation. Because of this person's actions, the whole discussion, which should be centred around parental responsibility, is being taken in the wrong direction.

Its ridiculous to assume that facebook can, or even should police this stuff

I have friends and family who's kids are regular users of facebook. They use facebook to communicate with friends of a similar age. Their parents are generally aware of the dangers, and ensure that details are not publically accessible etc.

HOWEVER, in very many cases, these kids are well below facebooks minimum age limit. If the parents of these kids allow them to violate facebooks terms and conditions, then why should facebook be held accountable for problems that may arise. Would these parents allow their 9 year old children to drive their cars ?, or drink in the local pub ?. So why do they allow them to use facebook ?

When I was kid, my parents took responsibility for me, they didnt abdicate that responsibility to Jim Gamble, or to social services, or a commercial organisation, or NSPCC, THEY took responsibility.

We have a police force, if you phone 999 someone will eventually answer the phone, and if your lucky, a copper might nip out and see you. Why the hell do we need a button on every webpage (apart from the obvious reason that Jim Gamble gets to ignore complaints against his clients and nip potential problems in the bud)

As usual, research based on hard analytical evidence is completely ignored, simply because some **** decides to build a career of the back of irrational fear that he, and his media friends have generated.

To me it seams quite simple, if facebook contains language from contributors that you object too, and facebook are not prepared to police their site to a standard that you feel comfortable with.... then dont use it. Its kind of like Mary Whitehouse visiting Bernard Mannings Embassy Club, and complaining about the "entertainment".

CEOP are by any objective measure a complete an utter failure. We have a couple of cases out of thousands of cases where facebook played some part. To suggest that facebook is responsible for placing children in danger is as ridiculous as suggesting that 95% of paedophiles brushed their teeth on the morning that they committed an offense, and then suggesting on that evidence that there's a causal link between brushing your teeth and committing acts of paedophillia.

Whatever happened to common sense ?

what is the panic button supposed to do? when pressed?

amethyst wrote:what is the panic button supposed to do? when pressed?

hopefully more than the data capture forms on the find madeleine website

well i was thinking if a child thinks they are being harrassed by a stranger, they woudln't meet up with them, so it cant be about stopping people going missing

so is it just reporting suss people?

yes the official website which cost 37000 pound couldnt even get their links to work hmmm

amethyst wrote:what is the panic button supposed to do? when pressed?

One example that some of you may be actually surprised about including Gamble, himself I shouldn't wonder.

https://missingmadeleine.forumotion.net/child-killers-rapists-pedophiles-f46/filthy-degenerate-kourtney-joy-babcock-pleads-guilty-to-sexually-abusing-boys-t9848.htm#204103

It all depends upon one's personal perception of a child predator & how far one is willing to go in order to protect ALL children (girls & boys) from sexual exploitation by ALL adults on the Internet regardless of the age, gender & social status of the offender.

Some child protection cops have different perspectives upon who they personally regard to be "online predators" it seems. However, Mike Detloff, a sergeant who specializes in Internet crimes against children, said that predators can be male or female, of any age and any profession.

Officer educates about online predators

http://www.wahpetondailynews.com/articles/2010/03/24/news/doc4baa72558ddee510210087.txt

I wonder if Jim Gamble agrees with him