BBC ask Facebook for interview. Instead Facebook report BBC to police.

[northwichcat]

Facebook has reported the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) to the U.K. police after the media outlet sent the tech firm sexualized images of children it said the U.S. firm failed to remove from its website.

The BBC says it reported "dozens of photos" to Facebook using the site's own moderation system but the vast majority were not removed and so it then contacted Facebook to ask for an interview.

The broadcaster said it had sent Facebook the images after the firm's director of policy agreed to be interviewed but only on the proviso the BBC could provide examples of the improper material that had not been taken off Facebook's site.

However, instead of carrying out the interview to answer the claims, Facebook instead reported the BBC to the police.

Facebook provided CNBC with a statement Tuesday.

"We have carefully reviewed the content referred to us and have now removed all items that were illegal or against our standards," it said.

"This content is no longer on our platform. We take this matter extremely seriously and we continue to improve our reporting and take-down measures.

"It is against the law for anyone to distribute images of child exploitation.

"When the BBC sent us such images we followed our industry's standard practice and reported them to Ceop [Child Exploitation & Online Protection Centre].

"We also reported the child exploitation images that had been shared on our own platform. This matter is now in the hands of the authorities."

The BBC's director of editorial policy, David Jordan, questioned the move in a statement issued Tuesday.

"The fact that Facebook sent images that had been sent to them, that appear on their site, for their response about how Facebook deals with inappropriate images…the fact that they sent those on to the police seemed to me to be extraordinary," he said.

"One can only assume that the Facebook executives were unwilling or certainly reluctant to engage in an interview or a debate about why these images are available on the Facebook site."

In an email Tuesday, the U.K. National Crime Agency said it "does not routinely confirm or deny the existence of specific investigations".

http://www.cnbc.com/2017/03/07/face...olice-following-sexualised-images-report.html

Facebook will be giving Donald Trump ideas and it looks like Facebook have avoided committing to do more to ensure unsuitable content is removed from their site.

 

[AlterEgo]

Facebook is an awful place. Just another reason why I'm not on it.

 

[najaB]

I believe that is the definition of a 'dick move'.

 

[yorkie]

They're not known as Farcebook for nothing.

So, Farcebook refused to delete images that were reported to them using the proper channels in place, then said they'd look into why they were not deleted if they were sent to them, and then reported them to the police because they were sent to them?

The world would would be better off without Farcebook. But sadly they've become so big that many people feel pressured into using the site, simply because their friends are using it, so it doesn't matter how badly they behave, people will still use them in sufficient numbers to guarantee their existence for many years to come.

 

[DaleCooper]

Reverend Spooner would have had an apt name for Facebook.

 

[Merseysider]

I believe that is the definition of a 'dick move'.

Couldn't have put it better myself :roll:

 

[TheEdge]

I believe that is the definition of a 'dick move'.

Seeing as there is really no more discussion to be had...

[youtube]fEDycnyTpbk[/youtube]

 

[dosxuk]

In Facebook's defence, their agreement with the authorities means they have to do this to avoid being prosecuted for handling that type of content. The "dick move" was more them then telling the BBC that they couldn't discuss the case because they'd referred it to the authorities, even though the BBC were interested in their procedures rather than the content and FB wouldn't discuss the procedure without proof there was infringing content.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

They're not known as Farcebook for nothing.

So, Farcebook refused to delete images that were reported to them using the proper channels in place, then said they'd look into why they were not deleted if they were sent to them, and then reported them to the police because they were sent to them?

The world would would be better off without Farcebook. But sadly they've become so big that many people feel pressured into using the site, simply because their friends are using it, so it doesn't matter how badly they behave, people will still use them in sufficient numbers to guarantee their existence for many years to come.

I'm not sure the world would be a better place without Facebook, simply because without it everyone would be using MySpace which is owned by a certain Australian media tycoon...

 

[EbbwJunction1]

I'm not sure the world would be a better place without Facebook, simply because without it everyone would be using MySpace which is owned by a certain Australian media tycoon...

I don't (and won't, even though I've been asked to) use either of them.

 

[507021]

I don't (and won't, even though I've been asked to) use either of them.

Neither do I, and I never will. I've been nagged by a number of people to get Facebook, but they get the same answer every time.

 

[Hornet]

Facebook is for the terminally moronic.

 

[Howardh]

Facebook is for the terminally moronic.

Facebook is an intellectual highway compared with Twitter!

 

[Merseysider]

Facebook is for the terminally moronic.

And attention addicts seeking validation. There's just so much sh*te on it these days, it's only really good for free calling/messaging. And memes.

 

[D365]

There's just so much sh*te on it these days, it's only really good for free calling/messaging. And memes.

Pretty much sums up most of the reasons why I remain. Several of my clubs and friends depend on it for communication. I barely glean any news from it anymore.

 

[Strathclyder]

Facebook is for the terminally moronic.

Compared with ****ter, it's a bristling hive of intelligence.

Personally, the only reason I ever joined F.B in the first place was to join a college-related group set up, mainly for ease of communication. A few friends from other social media streams sent me friend requests, I ended up joining a few groups pertaining to my hobbies/interests and there I remain to this day. They're practically the only reason I'm still there, as I made a mental note before I joined not to glean any important news from it, as most of it is complete & utter twaddle.

 

[theblackwatch]

Dragging this thread back on topic, the BBC has to blame itself for its stupidity here. There've been plenty of reports in the media in recent years, including on the BBC news/website I expect, of people being done for 'distributing' (ie sending) or 'making' (saving) images which are of a dubious nature. Then they go and do this themselves...

 

[najaB]

Dragging this thread back on topic, the BBC has to blame itself for its stupidity here. There've been plenty of reports in the media in recent years, including on the BBC news/website I expect, of people being done for 'distributing' (ie sending) or 'making' (saving) images which are of a dubious nature. Then they go and do this themselves...

But it's still a sneaky move to specifically request examples of offensive images and then report the BBC for providing them.

It would be like me finding a gun on the street and then getting arrested for possession of a deadly weapon when I take it in to the police.

 

[Tetchytyke]

There've been plenty of reports in the media in recent years, including on the BBC news/website I expect, of people being done for 'distributing' (ie sending) or 'making' (saving) images which are of a dubious nature.

I don't agree.

The CEOP website states that if you come across online content that is questionable, you can contact the website administrators or the Internet Watch Foundation.

https://ceop.police.uk/Safety-Centr...ould-I-make-a-report-to-CEOP-concerned-adult/

If you have come across content online that you feel involves child abuse, please consider making a referral to the particular website administrators, and/or contacting the Internet Watch Foundation (IWF) who could possibly arrange for the content to be removed.

Now you wouldn't report a link to the website administrator if it's clearly some dodgy website hosted in Russia. You'd report it to the IWF. But you should be able to report abusive images to Facebook without them reporting you to the police for it. It was a sneaky move designed to stifle debate, nothing more and nothing less.

ETA: In this case, the BBC reported the images to Facebook, who did nothing. When challenged, Facebook then demanded proof that the BBC had reported images and they'd done nothing, and they wouldn't offer an interview without it. The BBC sent them the requested information and were then reported to the police, with Facebook cancelling the interview "because it was in police hands".

This is the problem with any company which gets so big. There is no accountability. It's clearly a failing of Facebook's moderation by algorithm- these abusive images of schoolchildren on the bus don't get taken down because there's no nudity, an image of my baby daughter in the bath (or breastfeeding) would because there is nudity. But changing it involves paying real people to look at things, and that costs cash, so nothing changes.