A civil rights organization is suing Facebook and its executives, claiming that CEO Mark Zuckerberg (Mark Zuckerberg) issued a “false and deceptive” statement to Congress, saying that the giant social network deleted hate speech and other violations of its rules. material.

A lawsuit filed by Muslim advocates in the Washington, D.C. Superior Court on Thursday stated that Zuckerberg and other senior executives “have launched a coordinated campaign to persuade the public, elected representatives, federal officials, and non-profits in the country’s capital. Organization leader Facebook is a safe product.”

The lawsuit alleges that Facebook has repeatedly been warned of hate speech and called for violence on its platform, but nothing has been achieved. The lawsuit alleges that making false and deceptive statements regarding the removal of hateful and harmful content violated the District of Columbia’s Consumer Protection Law and fraud guidelines.

The lawsuit said: “Every day, ordinary people are bombarded with harmful content, violating Facebook’s own policies on hate speech, bullying, harassment, dangerous organizations, and violence.” “Hate, anti-Muslim attacks are particularly common on Facebook.”

Facebook said in a statement that it does not allow hate speech on its platform, and said it regularly cooperates with “experts, non-profit organizations, and stakeholders” to ensure that Facebook is a safe place for everyone, and recognizes Anti-Muslim speech may take different forms.

The company is headquartered in Menlo Park, California, and said it has invested in artificial intelligence technology aimed at eliminating hate speech and has proactively detected 97% of the hate it eliminates.

Facebook declined to comment. The statement did not address the allegations of the lawsuit, which claimed that it did not remove hate speech and anti-Muslim networks from its platform even when it was notified of the existence of hate speech and anti-Muslim networks.

See also  Facebook says it helps reduce COVID-19 vaccine "hesitation" by filtering misinformation

For example, the lawsuit cited research by Megan Squire, a professor at Elon University, who posted research on anti-Muslim groups on Facebook and alerted the company. According to the lawsuit, Facebook did not delete these groups, but it did change the way external scholars access its platform, so the kind of research Squire did “is impossible unless it is conducted by Facebook employees.”

Facebook’s hate speech policy prohibits “fake speech or images”, violent appeals, references to inferiority and low self-esteem, and generalization of low self-esteem, targeting individuals or groups. This policy applies to people based on race, religion, and national origin. Attack, disability, religious beliefs, caste, sexual orientation, gender, gender identity and serious illness.

But according to the lawsuit, in an example on April 25, 2018, Squire reported an organization called “Purge Worldwide” to Facebook. The organization described it as: “This is an anti-Islamic organization, a place to share information about what is happening in the world.”

Facebook responded that it will not delete the group or content. The lawsuit cites examples of other organizations whose names are “Death of the Killing of Muslim Muslims” and “Islamic Defilement.” Despite being notified, Facebook did not delete them, even though Facebook’s policy prohibits them based on ” Citing or relatively filthy “religion.” In the latter case, Facebook did delete some posts from the forum, but did not delete the forum itself.

The lawsuit also invoked Facebook’s exceptions to its former President Donald Trump’s policy, which issued a list of candidates in 2016 to prohibit all Muslims from entering the United States. Facebook’s exceptions to its rules.

See also  Bybit expands its influence through spot trading products – Exchange Bitcoin News

Zuckerberg and other social media executives have repeatedly testified to Congress on how they are fighting extremism, hatred and misinformation on their platforms. Zuckerberg told the House Energy and Commerce Committee that the issue is “subtle.”

He said, “Any system will make mistakes in reducing harmful substances.”

The plaintiff sought a trial by a jury and paid US$1,500 (approximately 11.2 million rupees) for each infringement.

What is the best phone under Rs. Now there are 15,000 in India? We discussed it on the gadget 360 podcast Orbital. Later (from 27:54), we talked with Neil Pagedar and Pooja Shetty, the creators of OK Computer. Orbital is available for Apple Podcast, Google Podcast, Spotify and wherever you get podcasts.