> Last week, however, ProPublica reported that explicit misinformation about voting remains rampant on the platform.
Voting misinformation is not ambiguous in the way you describe, yet Facebook doesn't care.
"Your democracy, your freedom is being stripped away from you, and if you allow that then everything this country stood for, fought for, bled for is all in vain"
"the democratic party wants to rig our elections by forcing all voters to vote by mail. Vote by mail WILL lead to fraud"
"“Flooding the nation with ballots that can be stolen, sold, discarded, and forged—THAT’s the path to Leftist victory in November.”
“You think coronavirus is a crisis, wait till you see the voter fraud epidemic we have here in California. And mark my words it’s heading to your state like a diseased bat out of hell.”
“If you mail in your vote, your vote will be in Barack Obama’s fireplace.”
[1] https://www.propublica.org/article/outright-lies-voting-misi...
Your policy is still ill-defined, though. Do you mean ALL female nipples, or just human ones? Does the ban extend to babies? Who’s going to police that, and how?
Radiolab did an episode on all kinds of Facebook rules, covering the nipple conundrum as part of it. There’s very little that is straightforward about implementing any of them.
https://www.wnycstudios.org/podcasts/radiolab/articles/post-...
a) equally hard, given the common understanding of what “facts” mean nowadays, or
b) nudity is harder, given cultural contexts.
Culture makes a lot of difference for what’s considered nudity (e.g. women breastfeeding goats, as illustrated in the link), and it should matter less for statements about average temperatures for a given region, etc. But the “facts” as presented are contested anyway, since they are derivations based on data + interpretation, even if the interpretation is from >95% of scientists in the relative field.
That makes me lean more towards (a) even though I wish it was (b).
I think we still have a misunderstanding. I am saying that enforceable rules for nipples are easier to write, regardless of the cultural approval of those rules. A well written rule can be enforced by only looking at the content that is on the platform ( eg the image). That is not to say people might disagree (its Art!) or they might get it wrong (its a male nipple).
When it comes to statements of fact, this is not the case. The enforcers must draw conclusion based on off platform research, a presumed intent of the post, and/or a presumed interpretation.
In which case I’d have to agree! Thanks for taking the time to clarify it for me.
Is a trans woman's nipple OK? What about a trans man? What if the trans man has large breasts? What if a cis man has large breasts? What about the tattoo nipple of a cancer survivor?
Nothing is simple, there are value judgements at every turn. The implementation is absolutely making judgements.
In all above cases you could provide the reviewer with an objective yes/no answer. The reviewer does not need a PHD to know if there is a nipple in a picture.
This is not the case for questions of scientific truth, which other requires understand the scientific consensus with complex nuances.
For example, FB can make a policy that says no exposed nipples for females. There may be different opinions on the value of such a policy, but not the execution/implementation.
This is much more difficult for a policy stating that content must not be "misleading". Fact checking is much more problematic, because there can be support for either interpretation, nuance, as well as scientific uncertainty.