Facebook: Australia content ban, SWP removal and related news

[wemakeyousoundb]

...

It seems all it takes is some targeted reporting of accounts and they're taken down.
...

Yep, I had to add a letter to my facebook name shortly after a heated argument some time back.
I guess it could be a coincidence

email and usenet are exactly that; decentralised common protocols that anyone can host or join.
There have been attempts at similar approaches for social media eg. Mastodon, but of course there's no critical mass, and no commercial incentive for any of the big boys to use such an open system. It would have to be enforced from above.

Yep I was using Diaspora for a while, but hardly anyone I knew did

 

[ska invita]

I'm honestly struggling to imagine what chain of events could lead to someone going "oh, this trot front group attempting to recruit London bus drivers, got to make sure we get them as well."

i expect its just a war mentality, with a take no prisoners attitude. the kind of people who go on aggressive malicious reporting missions know little and care less the difference between one group and another

 

[redsquirrel]

Not exactly on topic but related.

In Australia the government is pushing for Facebook and Google to pay news organisations for content. Only for both companies to threaten that they will "leave" Australia if the legislation goes through

Google has threatened to remove its search engine from Australia and Facebook has threatened to remove news from its feed for all Australian users if a code forcing the companies to negotiate payments to news media companies goes ahead.

The ALP (even more useless than the UK LP) has decided to back the companies, a move that, regardless of other considerations, I cannot imagine playing well with Australians

Labor’s shadow communications minister, Michelle Rowland, said it was concerning Google and Facebook believed the code was unworkable.

“[The treasurer] Josh Frydenberg and [communications minister] Paul Fletcher need to explain why they can’t find a way to support the media without also disrupting the millions of Australians who use Google Search and Facebook every month,” she said.

 

[NoXion]

What I find really odd about users mass reporting content to platform moderators is that it seems really fucking hit and miss. Why the fuck is it that YouTube channels with videos showing outright animal abuse manage to remain able to post, despite being reported by thousands of people? You'd think that removing such content would be entirely uncontroversial and done in quick order, no?

 

[ska invita]

What I find really odd about users mass reporting content to platform moderators is that it seems really fucking hit and miss. Why the fuck is it that YouTube channels with videos showing outright animal abuse manage to remain able to post, despite being reported by thousands of people? You'd think that removing such content would be entirely uncontroversial and done in quick order, no?

i don't know the answer to that, but my impression is Twitter is really quick to suspend accounts (especially those with less followers), Youtube isnt

 

[NoXion]

i don't know the answer to that, but my impression is Twitter is really quick to suspend accounts (especially those with less followers), Youtube isnt

When I report accounts on Twitter I get updates. YouTube? Nothing.

 

[moochedit]

i don't know the answer to that, but my impression is Twitter is really quick to suspend accounts (especially those with less followers), Youtube isnt

I don't know how either sites moderation process works but i would imagine it takes less time to review text posts than it does to view videos.

I suspect the main problem with these large sites is too many users and not enough human moderators to review the posts as companies don't want to pay for them. They could take the approach of taking down any post that someone complains about until moderators have reviewed it but that would just lead to mass campains by groups to remove "the other sides" posts. They could try automated systems to remove posts with certain words etc but that would lead to "false positives" as happens with anti spam software. Only other method i can think is to have "trusted users" whose reports are given priority for checking.

 

[chilango]

Something something cancel culture. Something something free speech. Right?

 

[steeplejack]

Oh for the days when "the party" enforced a social media policy: engage on some platforms, shun others.

I can remember c. 2003 "the party" instructing members not to engage on here. After months and months of the likes of rebelwarrior, Cliffite, lots of sockpuppet accounts named after obscure Soviet politicians murdered in 1937, & co. engaging in days-long windmilling dogfights on here and suffering horrific losses.

 

[The39thStep]

Oh for the days when "the party" enforced a social media policy: engage on some platforms, shun others.

I can remember c. 2003 "the party" instructing members not to engage on here. After months and months of the likes of rebelwarrior, Cliffite, lots of sockpuppet accounts named after obscure Soviet politicians murdered in 1937, & co. engaging in days-long windmilling dogfights on here and suffering horrific losses.

and the somewhat amusing act of Matt C posting live commentary from the SWP conference on these boards "to prove to people that the SWP was in fact democratic, and I hoped this would change some ex-members' minds" . As the Weekly Worker gravely reminded us

comrade Kidd found himself 'grassed' to the leadership by some SWP toady on the same discussion thread. He was denounced by a central committee member at the conference's morning session the next day

 

[JuanTwoThree]

I wonder if it is intentional but it will be perceived as some kind of cosmic see-saw: proud boys balancing out trots in the great scheme of things and these debate providers seeming oh-so-fucking fair-minded, somehow echoing the crassness of the BBC's search for the holy grail of ''balance'' when wheeling out some fuckwit science denier for every Nobel-winning development.

 

[JuanTwoThree]

As the Weekly Worker gravely reminded us

a relatively obscure website discussion board.

 

[tim]

Does Nick Clegg still work for Facebook?

Yes, but he's been banned from the atrium

Radio host asks Nick Clegg about torching greenhouses of rare plants

 

[PaulOK]

I may be out of date with this but i don't think the SWP runs candidates under their own name in elections (they have run candidates as part of "socialist allience" and "respect" in the past). Hence no need to be on the register.

They are back on fb now anyway.

I don't think the SWP have run candidates under their own name since the late 1970s when they put up Paul Foot against a NF candidate in a local Election. Anyway by going on the Electoral Register they would have to submit financial reports and be more transparent generally which is something they would definitely want to avoid. How the SWP funds itself (and where the money goes) is notoriously opaque. There was an old joke about the quickest way to get kicked out of The Party was the ask about the money. Far better from their POV to stand members for Election behind front groups.

Regarding the Facebook suspension. It will worry them as they have been pivoting more to online/social media work in recent years. The latest conference bulletins published in the WW show that the SWP seemed pleasantly surprised that they recruited a fair number online (according to them) over the past year when their branch meetings and public work have been constricted by Lockdowns. This after years of giving social media presence a low priority (and even being suspicious of The Web in general in the late 1990s/early 2000s as they feared 'horizontal' contact between members via message boards etc). That has changed now so any social media bans would worry them.

 

[The39thStep]

I don't think the SWP have run candidates under their own name since the late 1970s when they put up Paul Foot against a NF candidate in a local Election. Anyway by going on the Electoral Register they would have to submit financial reports and be more transparent generally which is something they would definitely want to avoid. How the SWP funds itself (and where the money goes) is notoriously opaque. There was an old joke about the quickest way to get kicked out of The Party was the ask about the money. Far better from their POV to stand members for Election behind front groups.

Regarding the Facebook suspension. It will worry them as they have been pivoting more to online/social media work in recent years. The latest conference bulletins published in the WW show that the SWP seemed pleasantly surprised that they recruited a fair number online (according to them) over the past year when their branch meetings and public work have been constricted by Lockdowns. This after years of giving social media presence a low priority (and even being suspicious of The Web in general in the late 1990s/early 2000s as they feared 'horizontal' contact between members via message boards etc). That has changed now so any social media bans would worry them.

The reason they don’t stand under the SWP label isn’t anything to do with financial transparency. That issue hasn’t presented any difficulties for other left party groups , if they wanted to do so they would simply get a decent accountant .

 

[PaulOK]

The reason they don’t stand under the SWP label isn’t anything to do with financial transparency. That issue hasn’t presented any difficulties for other left party groups , if they wanted to do so they would simply get a decent accountant .

I guess. There's also the added reason that nobody would vote for them.

 

[FridgeMagnet]

There are super well-developed, entirely robust web protocols for decentralised information distribution and interaction. There is literally no excuse for not using them apart from "well everyone uses Facebook" and, more significantly, "I don't actually take this seriously, I'm just playing at it and am not prepared to put the effort in to learn anything, I'd just like a multinational to tell me how to sort it all out".

 

[hitmouse]

I'm honestly struggling to imagine what chain of events could lead to someone going "oh, this trot front group attempting to recruit London bus drivers, got to make sure we get them as well."

As a footnote on this, I found myself mildly curious about what the poor facebook masses were now missing out on, and I was not disappointed:

Of course, what else could you possibly want to have as the first item of business at the first meeting of a bus drivers' safety committee in the middle of a pandemic?

 

[Cerv]

I remember when they used to complain about the internet being petty bourgeois, so I'm sure they won't be too upset

was it the SWP in the 90s who resolved that member were banned from using email lest they communicate with each other directly rather than through party meetings?

 

[The39thStep]

was it the SWP in the 90s who resolved that member were banned from using email lest they communicate with each other directly rather than through party meetings?

Only the Amish branches.

 

[editor]

a relatively obscure website discussion board.

If this place was relatively obscure, the SWP website was all but an unpopular lone atom lost in a big universe.

 

[Dom Traynor]

If this place was relatively obscure, the SWP website was all but an unpopular lone atom lost in a big universe.

No offence as much as I prefer this place I suspect more people have heard of the SWP.

 

[Smokeandsteam]

Another left group banned by another tech giant. Some enjoyable jollity on the thread justifiably mocking the SWP and their risible front for organising bus workers (first order of business in a pandemic where bus workers are right on the frontline..... Julian Assange). But not much to mock here:

 

[The39thStep]

Another left group banned by another tech giant. Some enjoyable jollity on the thread justifiably mocking the SWP and their risible front for organising bus workers (first order of business in a pandemic where bus workers are right on the frontline..... Julian Assange). But not much to mock here:

The bus drivers things isn't SWP , its some more loony Trot group

 

[Nigel]

The bus drivers things isn't SWP , its some more loony Trot group

I don't know if this has relevance, however can't find anything for sites, groups, pages etc of Post-Cannonitte, Jack Barnes, Socialist Workers Party on FB. Neither for Pathfinder Pres(although there appears to be new age site of the same name), The Militant or British section; Communist League.
Was there any before British SWP(IST) short 'ban' of FB?

British SWP*IST) on their FB sites are saying somenthing about a hedgefund takeover presumably by US investors.
The American SWP have had strong influence in the past, significantly on Labour Movement & Trade Union Movement (Teamsters Unionisation, Industrial Action, Strike etc.), they've also been sympatheitc allegedly (lefitst trainspotters) to 'Trump Supporters' and by dictum and default, arguably Trump.

Is it possible that there was a mix up?

 

[The39thStep]

I don't know if this has relevance, however can't find anything for sites, groups, pages etc of Post-Cannonitte, Jack Barnes, Socialist Workers Party on FB. Neither for Pathfinder Pres(although there appears to be new age site of the same name), The Militant or British section; Communist League.
Was there any before British SWP(IST) short 'ban' of FB?

British SWP*IST) on their FB sites are saying somenthing about a hedgefund takeover presumably by US investors.
The American SWP have had strong influence in the past, significantly on Labour Movement & Trade Union Movement (Teamsters Unionisation, Industrial Action, Strike etc.), they've also been sympatheitc allegedly (lefitst trainspotters) to 'Trump Supporters' and by dictum and default, arguably Trump.

Is it possible that there was a mix up?

Dunno I only use Facebook for my sisters annoying posts , a Dexy’s Appreciation Group and a gardening in the Algarve site . Sorry .

 

[Nigel]

Dunno I only use Facebook for my sisters annoying posts , a Dexy’s Appreciation Group and a gardening in the Algarve site . Sorry .

Have you got any pics. of Dexy's playing at George Roby?

 

[moochedit]

I don't know if this has relevance, however can't find anything for sites, groups, pages etc of Post-Cannonitte, Jack Barnes, Socialist Workers Party on FB. Neither for Pathfinder Pres(although there appears to be new age site of the same name), The Militant or British section; Communist League.
Was there any before British SWP(IST) short 'ban' of FB?

British SWP*IST) on their FB sites are saying somenthing about a hedgefund takeover presumably by US investors.
The American SWP have had strong influence in the past, significantly on Labour Movement & Trade Union Movement (Teamsters Unionisation, Industrial Action, Strike etc.), they've also been sympatheitc allegedly (lefitst trainspotters) to 'Trump Supporters' and by dictum and default, arguably Trump.

Is it possible that there was a mix up?

Swp fb page is

https://m.facebook.com/SocialistWorkersParty/

Edit - sorry you meant the usa party with same name? No idea then.

 

[hitmouse]

I don't know if this has relevance, however can't find anything for sites, groups, pages etc of Post-Cannonitte, Jack Barnes, Socialist Workers Party on FB. Neither for Pathfinder Pres(although there appears to be new age site of the same name), The Militant or British section; Communist League.
Was there any before British SWP(IST) short 'ban' of FB?

I think it might just be that the US Barnes SWP are quite an elderly and cranky group and they never really got around to setting up social media pages in the first place? I just had a look at the Pathfinder Press site and it still says "copyright 2005-2008" at the bottom, which suggest they might not be the most internet-savvy bunch. And if someone had just got deplatformed off one site, you'd expect them to still have links to their twitter/instagram/youtube/tiktok or whatever profiles, which I can't see any evidence of.

British SWP*IST) on their FB sites are saying somenthing about a hedgefund takeover presumably by US investors.

Odd thing to want to invest in, I hope the hedge funds manage to invest in the right SWP.

 

[PaulOK]

Is it possible that there was a mix up?

It's possible. I have been under the impression that there isn't actual human beings directly behind many of these bans. Facebook pages like that would suffer a lot of reporting by people who don't like that Party and then an algorithm would kick in, look for the quantity of keywords ("Trump" , "MAGA" , "Terrorism" etc) , hits a certain number and the ban occurs. Who know, the algorithm may have mistook it for a right wing page ?
The fact that it was brought back, after a deluge of complaints, so quickly points to a mistake being made and an actual person at Facebook correcting it.