[bArray]

I suspect a significant number of posts removed for "hate speech" could have been people sharing videos/documents related to the Christchurch terrorist attack. It depends on the definition of a post and whether the BBC interpretted Facebook's message correctly. The number 1.5 million gets thrown around a lot [1]. I also heard the value 4 million, but cannot find the source. If that's true, then I imagine the details of other such attacks were also suppressed.

[1] https://www.engadget.com/2019/04/24/facebook-christchurch-vi...

[wolco]

I know family members who will report posts between each other as hate speech when they are fighting and calling each other names.

[Scoundreller]

And sometimes you see something that is an obvious scam/spam, and you figure it will get reviewed faster if labelled “hate speech”.

Just like needing technical support, so you call sales instead.

Or when you say you’re going to cancel just so you “unlock” the retention deals.

Such is the MBA league game of modern life.

[bArray]

I wondered about cases like this. I don't think Facebook is well suited to dealing with the social nuances of real-life humans - context matters. Mass false flagging must be an equally difficult problem to deal with.

Not that I make a habit of it, but sometimes something really annoys me on Facebook, but there's rarely an option that explains the actual problem. For example the other day I got a friend request from some young woman which I didn't accept (but left the request there encase it turned out to somebody who didn't look like their profile). A few days later the request turns into a young Indian looking man. I think most people can agree that bate and switch is bad behaviour for a social media network, but I couldn't find an option to report it using their limited interface.