Do you think the differences between the way Facebook handled these exact same postings had something to do with gender?

“When she publicly shared those messages, she found her own Facebook page temporarily suspended due to her having violated Facebook’s “community standards””

I’m a software engineer. I’m going to assume that there aren’t millions of Facebook employees scouring every comment and post on Facebook. Rather, they probably have an algorithm that scans for material that violates their rules. When she shared those messages she likely triggered it. Note that her suspension was “soon overturned”.

Right. I know there are algorithms (like Quora, who has idiotic algorithms) and it isn’t humans actually reading the posts, but why did those same algorithms flag her and not them? (I know. We’d probably have to see her posts in their entirety to have any clue.)

Thanks.

Again, I’m just speculating. But from the article, it seems like she got awful, hateful messages sent to her (see that screenshot of what appears to be in messages/messenger?). Those were not flagged. She then posted those messages on her feed. There was enough content to trigger the violation. (Just guessing).

I think the only relevant question here is whether or not the “please sit on a butcher’s knife” comment is truly in violation of Facebook’s policies. If it is, then they need to tweak their algorithm, which is probably being changed constantly to keep up with the hate and garbage that people post.

The last comment on that link indicates that face book doesn’t allow posting the name and picture without the user’s permission. If that’s the case it would be a violation. The content wouldn’t be the issue. I’m not into facebook so I can’t say but it doesn’t sound like it has anything to do with whether it’s a male or female.

I can’t answer this question, but I think Facebook’s so-called “guidelines” is so hard to understand. I used to be spammed many times by a user and one day I got sick and reported the user. Some time later the same user spammed me yet again!

And I once witnessed an unfairness on Facebook: a person wrote a hateful status attacking someone (they did not use any NSFW words in the status). Then a user commented something like this: “I think you shouldn’t attack that person so many times a day (the status’ OP had attacked the same person many times before). They may have been wrong, but what’s the point of rebuking them everyday? Give them a chance to redeemp!” The OP flagged the comment and BAM! The commenter got banned.

So I think it may have nothing to do with gender alone. There may be something more about the guidelines that I still can’t get.

“had something to do with gender”? What do you mean? As asked, of course it did, since the content was gender-oriented. If you mean, would they have done the same absurd crap to a man if he had complained about the same thing but gender-reversed, I don’t think that’s knowable without doing a study, which might tip them off and skew the results.

I think it’s intolerable behavior on their part any way you slice it, however.

Edit: Oh I see in your later post that you mean why didn’t the computerized filter flag their posts to her in the first place, but then did flag when she posted? Well, again I doubt we’ll get a definitive answer, but it’s possible they changed their filter in the interval, even possibly in response to her complaint. It’s also possible that their algorithm is doing odd things, maybe including poster’s gender, but I think more likely based on content history, which is the sort of thing they do. Maybe she wrote “Facebook doesn’t think this is abuse” in the post, and Facebook pays more attention to posts that include its own name, or something. Really though, it makes little sense and ends up being unfair and ironically silly.

I think @Jaxk has it: the content wasn’t banned in either case but the fact that she had posted names and accounts without their permission was what got her banned