<p>Facebook, like other Web superpowers, has always wanted to be seen as a technology business, not a media player.<br /><br /></p>.<p> That’s because media companies, which control their own content, are under the spotlight from regulators, politicians and advertisers.<br /><br />But overnight the company has had to respond to a campaign by women’s rights groups, angry about its apparent tolerance of misogynistic hate speech on the site. Facebook has been forced to face facts – offensive content posted on its platform will be seen by many as its responsibility and could harm its business.<br /><br />Facebook’s first response to campaigns by people disturbed by hateful material of any kinds on its pages has usually been to point out that it is a self-policing community, with controls that enable users to report offenders against its code.<br /><br />But now the social network admits that isn’t working.<br /><br />“In recent days, it has become clear that our systems to identify and remove hate speech have failed to work as effectively as we would like, particularly around issues of gender-based hate.”<br /><br />Facebook then outlines a series of moves to shore up those systems. The most significant appears to be an insistence that anyone posting cruel or insensitive humour – not hate speech – has to stand behind that with their own authentic identity so that they can be called out by other users.<br /><br />Women, Action and the Media, one of the groups which had been calling for action against anti-women hate speech, welcomed Facebook’s move, hoping it would mark “an historic transition in relation to media and women’s rights.”<br /><br />Last month, the social network removed decapitation videos from the site, after first maintaining that it could not censor material posted by users that gave a view of the “world in which we live.”<br /><br />So, is Facebook growing up, aware at last that it is a media company and has to take responsibility for the content created by its billion or so users?<br /><br />Maybe, but it is also a business which desperately needs to keep growing its revenue from advertisers. It has been reported that a number of major companies have suspended their advertising after their messages were seen alongside offensive material on Facebook.<br /><br />The Nationwide Building Society used its Twitter account – @asknationwide – to apologise to those who complained and announce it was suspending advertising. “Our ads target a user’s profile based on location, not pages. We’ll suspend our ads. Sorry for any upset this has caused,” read a series of tweets.<br /><br />Lessons then, for the social media firm and for those campaigning to force it to change. Facebook has learned that the spotlight on its content will shine ever brighter – and the campaigners have worked out that if you want a speedy response, target the advertisers. <br /></p>
<p>Facebook, like other Web superpowers, has always wanted to be seen as a technology business, not a media player.<br /><br /></p>.<p> That’s because media companies, which control their own content, are under the spotlight from regulators, politicians and advertisers.<br /><br />But overnight the company has had to respond to a campaign by women’s rights groups, angry about its apparent tolerance of misogynistic hate speech on the site. Facebook has been forced to face facts – offensive content posted on its platform will be seen by many as its responsibility and could harm its business.<br /><br />Facebook’s first response to campaigns by people disturbed by hateful material of any kinds on its pages has usually been to point out that it is a self-policing community, with controls that enable users to report offenders against its code.<br /><br />But now the social network admits that isn’t working.<br /><br />“In recent days, it has become clear that our systems to identify and remove hate speech have failed to work as effectively as we would like, particularly around issues of gender-based hate.”<br /><br />Facebook then outlines a series of moves to shore up those systems. The most significant appears to be an insistence that anyone posting cruel or insensitive humour – not hate speech – has to stand behind that with their own authentic identity so that they can be called out by other users.<br /><br />Women, Action and the Media, one of the groups which had been calling for action against anti-women hate speech, welcomed Facebook’s move, hoping it would mark “an historic transition in relation to media and women’s rights.”<br /><br />Last month, the social network removed decapitation videos from the site, after first maintaining that it could not censor material posted by users that gave a view of the “world in which we live.”<br /><br />So, is Facebook growing up, aware at last that it is a media company and has to take responsibility for the content created by its billion or so users?<br /><br />Maybe, but it is also a business which desperately needs to keep growing its revenue from advertisers. It has been reported that a number of major companies have suspended their advertising after their messages were seen alongside offensive material on Facebook.<br /><br />The Nationwide Building Society used its Twitter account – @asknationwide – to apologise to those who complained and announce it was suspending advertising. “Our ads target a user’s profile based on location, not pages. We’ll suspend our ads. Sorry for any upset this has caused,” read a series of tweets.<br /><br />Lessons then, for the social media firm and for those campaigning to force it to change. Facebook has learned that the spotlight on its content will shine ever brighter – and the campaigners have worked out that if you want a speedy response, target the advertisers. <br /></p>