Sargon of Akkad - Carl Benjamin - Facebook's Hate Agents

All Episodes

Previous Next

June 14, 2019 - Sargon of Akkad - Carl Benjamin

14:02

Facebook's Hate Agents

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	So we have finally discovered how Facebook decides to ban people.
	They apparently have a list of people who they consider to be hate entities, who are simply not allowed on the platform, and then hate agents who express a support for these hate entities, and the level of support that they give is dependent on the number of times they quote signal about said thing, even if they are standing in direct opposition to that thing.
	On the 23rd of May, my candidacy for the European election became the source of a kind of leak from Facebook, in which they apparently had designated me as a hate agent in a secret Facebook list.
	Do I have to point out that this is the most subjective thing in the world?
	Do I have to point out that there is going to be no consistent standard for this?
	Okay, so I'm famous among many different communities for going around promoting classic liberal British values.
	Individualistic values that care about personal freedoms, government accountability and restrictions on the power and authority of the executive.
	And apparently for this, I get put on a hate agent watch list.
	Alright.
	According to the excerpts from the internal Facebook document, as cited by Breitbart, the social networking site's sensors are keeping a detailed log of Benjamin's behaviour on and off the platform, such as voicing support for a member of the right-wing Proud Boys group or hurling a homophobic slur.
	So if I insult someone in real life or I say this person's alright, Facebook is watching.
	That's kind of terrifying, isn't it?
	Why do you care about what I do off your platform?
	Just out of interest, Facebook.
	I always have a trouble working out why that would be.
	And aren't you giving yourself an incredible mandate over my entire life to say that I have to abide by your rules when not using your platform or else?
	I am allowed to have a life away from Facebook, Mr. Zuckerberg?
	I don't know whether you know that or not, but you don't actually own me?
	The online snooping is encouraged by Facebook, which allegedly tells us employees to collect various signals of individuals' bad behaviour, even outside the platform.
	The entries are then used to determine whether the person should be included on the hate agent list.
	Well given how outside of Facebook I have done absolutely nothing wrong, what on earth could get me on this hate agent list?
	Just out of interest!
	The examples provided by Breitbart show how laboriously Facebook's thought police documents not only hate signals, but takes note of borderline content by Benjamin and others.
	It has a long memory too, apparently looking at content posted as early as three years into the past.
	These are level three signals.
	Level two and level one signals are respectively two and one years old.
	Benjamin is on notice for level two and level three signals.
	In one particular instance, Benjamin is given a black mark for giving a neutral representation of John Kinsman, member of the Proud Boys, on October the 21st last year.
	Despite its admitted neutrality, the instance was filed by Facebook under praise or support for a designated hate entity.
	Well there we go then.
	This isn't exactly a set of rules that are fair under which I am designed to be able to succeed.
	This is a way of essentially whittling my reputation down in Facebook until eventually they can say, oh no, he was a hate entity.
	We had to get rid of him.
	Even if the examples you're going to give do not back up your assertion.
	A neutral, objective representation of someone is not praise or support.
	I don't know why I have to say that.
	I don't know what kind of loony, loopy groupthink has taken hold at Facebook, but neutrality is not support.
	I don't know what to tell you.
	These are just contradictory words.
	You end up with a logical contradiction and from then anything follows, which means you support the hate entity.
	That's what it means, isn't it, Facebook?
	And this was because controversial hate monitor group the Southern Poverty Law Center describes the Proud Boys as an extremist and hate group known for anti-Muslim and misogynistic rhetoric.
	Contrary to initial media reports, it was not designated as extremist by the FBI last year.
	So we have the SPLC, a biased activist organization whose entire purpose is to further the radical left-wing agenda by describing everything it doesn't like as hateful, or the FBI who are like, no, we don't feel the extremists.
	I guess we just have to choose the one we like the most, right?
	Benjamin was also found to have run afoul of Facebook guidelines for posting a screenshot of a homophobic slur directed at himself.
	Reposting a commenter's anti-German rant with a seemingly neutral comment of his own, which Facebook considered support for a statement of inferiority against Germans, and a post mocking the ideology of an ethnostate, which for some reason was flagged as promotion of the creation of an ethnostate by an overzealous Facebook censor.
	That is an amazing cavalcade of nonsense, isn't it?
	If I post a screenshot of someone calling me a name that is homophobic, that's me being homophobic.
	That's not me presenting evidence of abuse that I'm receiving online, is it, Carlos Mazer?
	Oh no, that's me being homophobic.
	If I repost someone else's anti-German rant with a neutral comment of my own, that's a statement of inferiority against Germans.
	Which is not something I believe.
	If the Germans were inferior, they wouldn't be half the problem that they are.
	The problem is they're smart and capable.
	That's why we have to be careful of the eternal German.
	Seriously though, am I going to get in trouble for being racist against Germans?
	Because I'm not taking that back.
	I'm just kidding, obviously.
	But this is the point, isn't it?
	Oh, God.
	Now we're going to condemn national banter.
	You can't make jokes about the Germans.
	Don't mention the war.
	And if I say that an ethnostate is a bad idea, the very fact that I talked about an ethnostate is a form of promotion of an ethnostate.
	You see, what it is, is very much like NewSpeak.
	We're going to erase concepts from the English language by simply preventing you from even knowing the term for that concept.
	And if you keep saying the word ethnostate, then that doesn't get rid of that term.
	And therefore, you are promoting an ethnostate.
	Some of the content is marked as borderline, and most of the examples are suggested for deletion.
	Apart from hate signals, there are also notes that highlight controversial content published by Benjamin, including a provocative cartoon on Islam listed as a cartoon violence against vulnerable people.
	Oh yeah, let's see what this was.
	That was a picture by a guy called Brent Cherry.
	That's so spicy, I can't believe I could get away with it now.
	That was posted in 2017.
	That just goes to show you how far things have changed.
	I mean, now I'm just like, Christ, I don't think I would post that.
	Oh yeah, I also got in trouble for calling Hitler an SJW.
	Apparently in really low resolution, but I think the meme makes a good point.
	Opposed cultural appropriation, believed we was Kangs and shit, fought oppression, blamed Jews for his problems, and supported a totalitarian state.
	And as someone in the comments put, he was a smug vegetarian.
	Good point.
	And if there's something I fucking hate, it's smug vegetarians.
	So you can't say that this was a neutral representation of Hitler and therefore advocacy, Facebook, alright?
	And of course, it mostly figures right-wing personalities.
	And I guess I'm a right-wing personality because I'm not a fucking communist.
	And yesterday, Alan Buccari of Breitbart managed to find out exactly how Facebook goes to label you a hate agent.
	So the document titled Hate Agent Policy Review outlines a series of signals that Facebook uses to determine if someone ought to be categorized as a hate agent and banned from the platform.
	Those signals include a wide range of on and off platform behaviour.
	If you praise the wrong individual, interview them, or appear at events alongside them, Facebook may categorise you as a hate agent.
	Facebook may also categorise you as a hate agent if you self-identify with or advocate for a designated hateful ideology.
	If you associate with a designated hate entity, one of the examples cited by Facebook as a hate entity is Islam critic Tommy Robinson, or if you have tattoos of hate symbols or hate slogans, no examples, but of course the okay hand sign has recently become a hate slogan, so you know, calm down.
	You will also be categorized as a hate agent for possession of hate paraphernalia, although it doesn't provide any examples.
	You see, now I would have thought that traditionally feminist groups would have considered something like the Burker to be hate paraphernalia, but then you know what?
	I'm no feminist.
	I'm just an old, old-fashioned liberal who thinks that maybe we shouldn't have societal norms that force women to cover from head to toe until all we can see is the sort of letterbox slot of their eyes.
	That's all I'm saying.
	I just think that's bad thing for us to do socially to women.
	You know, so women grow up thinking, oh god, I've got to cover myself or else God will be angry with me.
	I think that's bad.
	But then I guess that's why I'm on the hate agent list, isn't it?
	The document also says that Facebook will categorize you as a hate agent for statements made in private but later made in public.
	Of course, Facebook holds vast amounts of information on what you say in public and private, and as we saw the Daily Beast doxing story, the platform will publicize private information on their users to assist media in hit jobs on regular American citizens.
	This is of course in relation to the Daily Beast report that on a Trump supporter who made a meme about Nancy Pelosi when went viral and Facebook helped give them information and doxed them effectively in order to what publicly shame them for making an effective meme?
	I'm not even sure what the purpose was.
	But Facebook didn't even take the meme down because they were like, well, it doesn't violate the guidelines.
	You just don't like it.
	So obviously this is how people like Milo, Tommy Robinson and Paul Joseph Watson got banned from Facebook.
	Frankly, it's obvious that I'm not long for the platform either.
	Paul Joseph Watson eventually was categorized as hateful and banned from the platform in part, according to the document, because he praised Tommy Robinson and interviewed him on his YouTube channel.
	Well I've done the same thing.
	Why would I not have been banned?
	I mean I realise that I'm going to get banned after putting this video up but like also on the list are Candace Owens, Bridget Gabrielle and Anne-Marie Waters.
	Because why not?
	All of these people are speaking out against the progressive order in a manner that is effective.
	Because that's the only thing they're really concerned about here, the fact that you are an effective voice against radical left-wing politics.
	And of course, in addition to deciding whether you are in fact a hate agent on Facebook is the use of hate speech.
	Facebook divides hate speech into three tiers depending on severity and considers attacks on a person's immigration status to be hate speech.
	Individual has made public statements or statements made in private and later than made public using tier 1, 2 or 3 hate speech or slurs.
	3 instances in one statement or appearance is a signal.
	5 instances in multiple statements or appearances over one month is a signal.
	If you've done this within the past two years, Facebook will consider it a hate signal.
	Other signals used by Facebook to determine if its users should be designated as hate agents include carrying out violence against people based on their protected or quasi-protected characteristics, attacks on place of worship, and conviction of genocide.
	It's all the same, isn't it?
	Put them in the same category.
	They're essentially the same.
	Honestly, Silicon Valley has gone mad.
	It's gone absolutely mad.
	It's the radical left that has just driven it off the edge to have to categorise this because they're insistent that they must do something about these people we don't like.
	And the thing is, they actually don't have to do anything about any of these people.
	There's no particular reason.
	None of these people are inciting violence.
	None of these people were breaking the law.
	But they are violating progressive moral standards.
	The sort of progressive Sharia that is being created on social media platforms at the moment, they're in total violation of that.
	Like the absolute infidels that they are.
	And they need to be dealt with.
	And for some reason, Facebook and all of the other Silicon Valley platforms are like, you know what?
	We do need progressive Sharia on our platforms.
	And that creates a massive rod for their own back, because now they have to spend millions and probably billions on policing their platform for reasons that are otherwise not necessary, where there is no legal compulsion.
	There is a reason that Alphabet, the parent company of Google and YouTube, had 70 billion in market cap wiped out, and it says openly that YouTube is one of the problems.
	That was an 8% drop in their value.
	While Alphabet themselves are not directly connecting this massive loss in profits to the anpocalypse, CNBC, the source I'm using to give you this information, well, they think it is.
	And honestly, I can't imagine what else it could be.
	YouTube have a fantastic business model.
	I don't know why they're messing with it.
	I don't know why they're allowing the far left to mess with it.
	The same with Facebook.
	I don't know why they're allowing the farm left to mess with it on their platform.
	It's not your business what I do outside of these platforms.
	What your business is, is what I do on these platforms.
	And everything I do on these platforms is within the terms of service.
	And the thing is, I don't even do anything particularly controversial outside of these platforms.
	I don't do anything that's illegal or wrong off these platforms.
	So what on earth is your problem?
	Why have you got to start lying about things like, oh, this is neutral representation, which was support for something?
	No one listens to that and thinks, well, yeah, that's a sensible use of the English language.
	That's how that word works.
	If you're neutral on something, you're openly in support of it.
	No one thinks that.
	No one thinks that that's the case.
	What is wrong with the way you're thinking?
	There is obviously a particular kind of groupthink that has afflicted Silicon Valley and is being driven by the far left and it's hurting the platforms themselves.

▲