People sometimes feel aggrieved or offended by what they see on social networks such as Facebook or Twitter.
But is all offence actionable? When does hurt or outrage translate into genuine bullying or abuse that social networks should remove? What is the difference between a robust challenge and an over-the-line personal attack? And should ‘public’ persons simply grin and bear more abuse than private individuals?
In some cases, a dividing line remains elusive. But social networks are now setting clearer boundaries on what they think can stay up versus what must be taken down.
Demonstrably serious threats, harassment or the posting of privacy-protected information (like credit card details or personal phone numbers) is generally against the rules for Facebook, Twitter and other social networks.
They will also remove reported posts that cross a certain ‘shaming’ line. Specific examples of this include so-called ‘revenge porn’, photos or videos of physical bullying or doctored photos intended “to shame a victim”.
Facebook has also recently added an expanded set of rules of how it defines ‘hate speech’ and harassment, including some notable exceptions to it. It says that directly attacking people based on race, religion, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation or disability immediately raises a red flag.
However, Facebook will allow satire or humour around these themes if the overall impression is not one of victimisation. It will also allow posts highlighting hate speech, if it’s in the context of raising awareness about it. (Read on via link below)