Turning a blind eye to threats of violence: The problem with Facebook’s ‘community standards’

A couple of days ago suggestions of violence were made towards a Facebook friend. This included the address of this person’s workplace and a call for others to join him. The reply directly below this was an image of a gun being held to a figures head at point blank range, blood spluttering from the victim’s head. This post was reported on Facebook repeatedly, but all who reported received the same message. Apparently, it did not breach “community standards”.

According to Facebook’s so-called community standards, co-ordinating harm is not allowed. They “prohibit people from facilitating or coordinating future criminal activity that is intended or likely to cause harm to people”. Further, they claim to disallow “Statements of intent, calls to action or advocation for…..acts of physical harm committed against people”.

Despite this, time and time again we hear of breaches of these community standards. The most serious of these has been the use of Facebook to spread hate speech and incite violence against Rohingya Muslims. UN human rights experts investigating in Myanmar were even concerned about the role Facebook played in the genocide. Even after repeated warnings and promises to act, hate speech and calls to violence still remained, and possibly still do.

The question becomes if these call to arms are clearly prohibited, why is Facebook allowing them to occur? Why, even after being reported time and time again, do posts such as this remain? Why do clear breaches of their community standards go ignored? What is wrong with the system?

The best case scenario is that its incompetence. And as much as I’d like to believe this, given the regularity with which it occurs, I’d say this is highly doubtful. A more likely scenario is that Facebook’s community standards represent a very specific part of the community. It goes beyond the noble and just sentiments suggested in their policies, to a shameful code set by those who are happy to turn a blind eye to bigotry.  A code which empowers those who fear and seek to persecute those who are different from themselves. 

In short, their community standards represents the worst among us. How many people have to be harmed by their double standards before they adhere to the standards they claim to espouse?

The Danger of Defending Violent Acts

Picture this: A 26-year-old king hits an 18-year-old.  It comes out of nowhere.  The punch is so forceful that the victim is left with a broken jaw and missing teeth.  After the first couple of days where people are critical, the narrative surrounding the transgressor begins to change.  “He is is beside himself,” it is said.  “Good people do bad things.” Some even go further, seemingly showing more sympathy for the culprit. The victim “will be uncomfortable for a week or two and then he’ll be fine”.  In contrast, “the guilt and the shame will live with [the culprit] for the rest of his life”.  Even the father of the victim weighs in,  showing concern for the offender’s welfare amid “this maelstrom which is pretty intense”.

This is precisely what has occurred very publically in Melbourne over the past few days.  The original incident occurred on the football field during an AFL match on Sunday, with West Coast player, Andrew Gaff, striking Fremantle youngster, Andrew Brayshaw. The story has dominated the media since the event and you’d almost have to be living under a rock in Melbourne to be unaware of it.

On the one hand, I admire these comments. On the surface, showing empathy to one who is clearly suffering is to be valued. By defending him they were trying to help alleviate his shame and anguish, exacerbated by the barrage of criticism he faced in the immediate aftermath. I particularly admire Brayshaw’s self-less father who was willing to overlook the wrong done to his son and reach out to a young man in pain. However, given that this episode is not a private matter and played in the public arena, it goes beyond personal views.

The fact is, as some legal experts have implied, if this had occurred anywhere other than the football field, criminal charges would be laid. “I’ve had people go to jail for less,” stated prominent lawyer, Tom Percy.  There would be no media coverage surrounding the culprit’s remorse.  There would be no character references and statements highlighting the importance of separating the act from the person.  There certainly wouldn’t be any words of support from the victim’s father.

It’s not only the double standards that are of concern.  More troubling, is the effect that this saga will have on society at large.  What is the underlying message are we sending the community when sympathies are almost more aligned with the culprit? What are we saying about violence when it is suggested that the violent action should be separated from the person?  And most importantly, how will this impact on the rates of potentially deadly king hits and violence episodes towards women when we emphasise that good people can do bad things?

Andrew Gaff is not merely a man who made a mistake.  Andrew Gaff is a role model and a hero to many.  When prominent individuals defend him after such a violent act, whether they are aware of it or not, they become defenders of all those who commit violent acts.  Maybe he is a good man and maybe the guilt will eat away at him for the rest of his life, but this is much bigger than the apparent suffering of one man.  The defense of Andrew Gaff can potentially contribute to the suffering of countless others, and people need to consider this before making these public statements of support.