soldiers wwII
© GettyOn Facebook it now seems that merely writing about – and then sharing those writings – could violate community standards.
One thing that is often taught to students of history is that "history" didn't happen. Events happened in the past, but history is just our way of chronicling those events. There is also a saying that history is written by the winners, but that too isn't entirely accurate - if history were only written by the winners we'd never hear of the setbacks, mistakes made by generals or losses incurred by said winners. History, to put it bluntly, is written by historians and those with knowledge of past events.

On Facebook it now seems that merely writing about - and then sharing those writings - could violate community standards. Even in this era of "fake news" it isn't so easy to understand why the social network has taken this stance, but that was the case with a recent story that marked the 75th anniversary of the end of the Second World War.

This reporter wrote the piece, titled "Fact: Adolf Hitler Could Have Won World War II," for The National Interest and shared it on several Facebook groups devoted to military history. While the title could be seen to be provocative and perhaps even slightly shocking, this story wasn't meant as a glorification for Nazi Germany or Hitler, but was rather a straight forward look into the facts.

The introduction noted, "As we celebrate the ending of the war 75 years ago, know this: victory for the Allies was never guaranteed, and historians agree there were countless ways Germany could have won the war."

Facebook warned that the "post goes against our Community Standards." As such my privileges were suspended. However, exactly what was at issue isn't clear. While this reporter reached out to Facebook's PR team, which originally offered to provide commentary, no response was ever provided.

At this point the best that can be assumed is that it was because it was considered objectionable content that fell either into the category of "hate speech" or "violent and graphic content." The story as written was really neither, but it was impossible to get clarification. Because of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic it was also impossible to request a review of the post, so the matter essentially ended there.

It Isn't Censorship

I'm not alone of course in having a post removed or tagged by a social media company for violating community standards. As Lon Safko, social media consultant and author of The Social Media Bible noted, "That's their catch all."

The problem is that it doesn't really describe what exactly is the problem. Yet, I know what it isn't: censorship. Too often when individuals do have their posts or photos or anything else deleted they cry censorship. You don't need to be a legal scholar to understand that this isn't an issue of censorship or free speech, and it certainly isn't one that is about the First Amendment.

Those apply to the government and give people a right to say something without fear of the government punishing you for speaking up. That doesn't apply in this case however. Facebook, simply put, is not a government agency or entity.


Comment: While the author treats this as cut and dried, the fact is that this issue is far from settled. The idea that social media platforms are private companies and are free to do as they wish, banning content as they see fit, there are those who argue that, due to the monopolistic nature of these platforms, this doesn't wash. Banning a person from Facebook or Twitter is like banning them from the public square. There is no definitive answer to this question, even though the author treats it as an open and shut case.


Understanding Community Standards

Despite the fact that Facebook isn't a government agency, it can still determine its own community standards. To publicly traded companies such as Facebook it is one of making sure it doesn't run afoul of the dreaded bad press, so it likely was easier to deem the post about the article a violation of community standards.

But what does community standards mean exactly?

"The concept of 'community standards' has been codified in American law for six decades," explained James R. Bailey, professor of leadership at the George Washington University School of Business.

"But it was applied to 'obscene' material," added Bailey. "Prurient, pornographic stuff. But as applied by media giants like Facebook and YouTube, community standards have become a self-righteous soap-box for anything that may offend anyone's delicate sensitivity."

In other words, their platform, their rules!

"If one were to question the wisdom of the recently enacted Title 9 or the five decades old Civil Rights legislation, they are branded as apostates, traitors, the worst of the worst, the lowest of the low," said Bailey. "How dare one question conventionally accepted morality! As much as Facebook, YouTube, and others, are pioneers of free expression — and they deserve credit for that — they fancy themselves moral arbiters. They are private companies, and thus enjoy full discretion in publishing what they see fit. Whether they rise to that responsibility is another story all together."

Can History Be Offensive?

Given what Bailey noted, it should be case closed. I may not have been in the wrong exactly, but Facebook could maintain it was in the right. But is that right, given that this was about the sharing of a news article?

"It's only the click-bait title that seems to be the trouble - specifically the inclusion of the word 'Fact,'" said technology industry analyst Josh Crandall.

"If you change that word to, say, 'Read' or 'Take note,' you probably would have skirted the problem," Crandall added. "Flagging an editorial piece that is well researched and factual in nature because of a sensational title is a little heavy handed. The pendulum is swinging in the opposite direction for the Facebook content screening algorithm. This is another example of how challenging the problem of policing content really is to do right."

Perhaps it was the title or the fact that the article included a photo of Hitler, but does this mean that the evils of Nazi Germany can't even be discussed on Facebook? This is a case not of the winners writing history but rather of a social network erasing even the mention of something that might offend someone.

"Censoring 'Glorification of Nazis' is understandable," said Safko. "With all the uprising of the Neo-Nazi nuts, I get that. But your post would have been in no way a glorification."

The question must be asked then whether it would have been a problem had this been a story about a movie or TV show. HBO just recently aired its series The Plot Against America, which depicted a world where the roots of fascism took hold in the United States.

The article in question wasn't really all that different in nature.

"It's a Man in the High Castle scenario," suggested Safko. "What if you posted a detailed review of that? Amazon and Philip K. Dick's estate are making a great deal off of that. Would that be throttled or censored?"

Historic Objects

It isn't just stories that are apparently a problem on the social network. Numerous Facebook groups devoted to military collectibles have faced warnings for the sharing of items from the actual Third Reich. These are collector groups, not Neo-Nazi or pro-fascist groups - yet the mere showing of a swastika has gotten some groups shut down.

The banning of such items isn't new online. eBay has banned the sale of such items for more than 20 years. Collectors often mistake this as an aforementioned "First Amendment issue" or one of outright censorship - but again that isn't the case.

"Objects should not be banned," suggested Safko. "Museums own, display and sell them regularly. Posting or selling artifacts from other conflicts are all perfectly within 'community standards.'"

That is a point that is often made by collectors - who ask whether Japanese, Soviet or Iraqi items should therefore be banned. That could be taking the point that two wrongs would somehow make a right. Yet other collectors warn that such a harsh stance against any historic items should be a concern.

"I certainly think that this will hinder, alienate and even villainize - to some degree or another - the collecting, historical and reenacting/living history communities alike," said Hunter Cogle, who is an administrator for a Facebook group devoted to the collecting of military helmets.

It is easy to see how this might not seem a big deal. The Nazis were certainly among the 20th centuries worst villains, so collecting objects from that horrible regime isn't easily understood by many. But the more worrisome part is that social media, with its vast reach, could control a narrative on what people should read, collect or even the information individuals share - at least if someone, or worse an algorithm, thinks it violated the community standards.