EXCLUSIVE: Facebook’s Process to Label You a ‘Hate Agent’ Revealed

EXCLUSIVE: Facebook’s Process to Label You a ‘Hate Agent’ Revealed

China Social Credit Score Comes to USA



EXCLUSIVE: Facebook’s Process to Label You a ‘Hate Agent’ Revealed

Allum Bokhari 13 Jun 2019 Breitbart News

Facebook monitors the offline behavior of its users to determine if they should be categorized as a “Hate Agent,” according to a document provided exclusively to Breitbart News by a source within the social media giant.


I have already virtually came to that conclusion just by watching Facebook’s actions in the recent past.

Just imagine if Facebook could see the books you are reading!

They could “ban you” based on what you read too.

Good thing Amazon can’t listen to your conversations.

Alexa anyone?

Anyway. Back to the news story. . . .

The document, titled “Hate Agent Policy Review” outlines a series of “signals” that Facebook uses to determine if someone ought to be categorized as a “hate agent” and banned from the platform.

Those signals include a wide range of on- and off-platform behavior. If you praise the wrong individual, interview them, or appear at events alongside them, Facebook may categorize you as a “hate agent.” . . . .

. . . The document also says Facebook will categorize you as a hate agent for “statements made in private but later made public.” Of course, Facebook holds vast amounts of information on what you say in public and in private — and as we saw with the Daily Beast doxing story, the platform will publicize private information on their users to assist the media in hitjobs on regular American citizens.

Breitbart News has already covered some of the individuals that Facebook placed on its list of potential “hate agents.” Paul Joseph Watson eventually was categorized as “hateful” and banned from the platform, in part, according to the document, because he praised Tommy Robinson and interviewed him on his YouTube channel. Star conservative pundit Candace Owens and conservative author and terrorism expert Brigitte Gabriel were also on the list . . .

. . . . Here’s how “hate speech” — both on and off Facebook — will be categorized by the platform, according to the document:

Individual has made public statements, or statements made in private and later made public, using Tier 1, 2, or 3 hate speech or slurs:

3 instances in one statement or appearance = signal
5 instances in multiple statements or appearances over one month = signal

If you’ve done this within the past two years, Facebook will consider it a hate signal . . .

I’ve never used Facebook so a lot of what the article says makes no sense to me. How do they know what you say “in private?”

I’m new to FB and what you say in private may refer to their ability to monitor what you say in their messenger utility, but it may be more, somehow.

This puts a spotlight on a different location where we might WISH that there was some oversight – internet providers. Why do WE have to purchase our own virus protection software? Why don’t the internet providers (which get the revenue dollars) do the virus filtering ahead of the last line of defense, our individual computer? The internet providers and browsers ought to avoid being complicit in sending us buggy objects.

Ok thanks. This helps. I wasn’t aware there is a private option. The most experience I have with Facebook is business pages.

Statements said in private being made public later is not unusual. Recording devices are everywhere. Most people carry one around (phone). Additionally it isn’t uncommon for e-mails to be published. But removing use of technology from the equation it is possible that witnesses to the statements that were said in private could come forward . That a statement was not intended for public consumption isn’t usually a consideration in the reaction. (example: Donald Sterling).

Microsoft at one point looked to provide virus protection as a component integrated into Windows. But one of the companies that sold virus protections made anti-trust complaints against it; having built in virus protection would be damaging to them and other companies that sell it to you and was said to rob the consumer of the ability to choose the best virus protection. Microsoft, having just been found to have engaged in anti-competitive behavior through strategies that were specifically built to be damaging to competitors (which is different than just out-competing a competitor) didn’t fight it. They dropped the support.

Some ISPs provide virus protection through contracts with companies that make such software, but for the most part the ISPs can’t filter traffic going to your computer based on the presence or absence of a virus. Remember the Snowden revelations? There was a much misunderstood statement in it about getting monitoring on the pipes into/out of Google. What the statement was talking about at the time was that most internet traffic was unencrypted (over HTTP) and any device that could intercept an internet communication over HTTP could extract the data from it. In response to that there was a huge push to move to Secure Socket Layer (HTTPS). With SSL intercepting traffic isn’t sufficient for knowing the information in it. Traffic sent over HTTPS is encrypted. Your ISP can’t see what is being sent to your computer. It can only see what server it is coming from. Determining whether or not that communication contained a virus must be done on either your computer or on the server that it came from. The machines along the route of the communication (including your ISP) can’t determine that.

More recently Microsoft looked to make some changes that would lock out and protect some system functions but Kaspersky (a software security company) made an anti-trust complaint that it would also lock them out. So Microsoft decided not to make the changes.

Google Chrome will block URLs known to be URLs to viruses giving the option to bypass the blocking (Which in some circumstances is a valid thing to do). But distributers of malware have worked around this in some cases by having the URL to a bad piece of software change frequently. A static list of bad URLs won’t work for these situations.

The problem is more complex than it looks on the surface.

1 Like

Very true.

This topic was automatically closed 14 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.