Yesterday, David Cameron posted on Twitter that Facebook were being 'irresponsible'. A sentiment likely to be shared by many, where anyone from the age of 13 can unknowingly click on a violent video that has somehow ended up on their news feed. Most people, no matter how old, would have no desire to see such content.
The BBC initially broke the story last May as Facebook initially refused to take down a minute long video of a woman being beheaded in Mexico. People's complaints were met with a generic email telling them that the content did not break Facebook's 'Community standard on graphic violence'. Facebook eventually buckled under pressure from both charities and forces within.
Children seeing this kind of content isn't seen as dangerous because of some social norm, but because of fears of what effect such content could have on a child. The BBC quoted Dr Arthur Cassidy as saying "It only takes seconds of exposure to such graphic material to leave a permanent trace - particularly in a young person's mind". Even with the vague warning Facebook are giving potential viewers, it is a mere formality considering how young some users are.
We should also ask what Facebook mean when they say it cannot 'glorify violence'. Hauntingly, a graphic video of decapitation is bound to glorify violence to some, regardless to the context the user uploading the video has tried to place it in. Would remembering a violent uprising or revolution, or remembering a battle or sacrifice, count as 'glorifying violence'?
But the negative effect it has on Facebook's image isn't the main reason advertisers may well leave Facebook. In fact, this isn't Facebook's only content related issue worrying advertisers. No advertiser wants their company logo to be put next to pages promoting domestic violence, sexism, racism, or a variety of other things. Nissan and Nationwide ceased advertising with Facebook in May for this very reason. This problem isn't actually unique to Facebook; according to the Financial Times, adverts for Vodafone have previously ended up on a YouTube video containing al-Qaeda supporters calling for Jihad. To make themselves more advertiser-friendly, Facebook should be clamping down on unethical content. Allowing videos of executions such as beheadings, and placing a company’s advertisements next to said videos, is likely to drive further potential investment away.
Facebook seem to be fighting against themselves here. They are between a rock and a hard place; having to pander to the needs of the advertisers but also allow freedom of speech to the largest extent possible. They are a company trying to allow users to post what they like; whether this is private details or news from across the globe. For such a company, censoring their users would lead to considerable discontent and protest. Not censoring would arguably cost them more, as the number of businesses tied to them could dwindle considerably, and may well spark a moral debate around the integrity of the website.
We will see over the coming weeks if Facebook continue to reluctantly bow to pressure from charities, advertisers and politicians. We will also learn what Facebook considers to be ‘glorifying’ violence.
