Facebook issues streaming guidelines after Castile shooting video goes viral

Facebook played a vital role in informing the public what was happening during the shooting of Philando Castile in Minnesota on Wednesday, and the massacre of police officers in Dallas later this week. 

Jacquelyn Martin/AP Photo
Taylor Quattlebaum, 19, of Washington, attends a protest of shootings by police, in Washington, last Friday, by the White House. In the span of four days, the United States has had to come to terms with the deaths of two black men at the hands of police - the first caught on video and the aftermath of the second livestreamed on Facebook - as well as the deadliest day for U.S. law enforcement since 9/11.

In the past week, thousands of Facebook users have watched two of the biggest news events of the month – the police shooting of Philando Castile and the massacre of Dallas police officers at a protest event – through live streaming videos posted by other users.

The proliferation of forums that allow civilians to step into the shoes of journalists has indelibly changed the news landscape, leaving formerly entertainment oriented websites such as Facebook to grapple with how to maintain these platforms responsibly.

“Live video allows us to see what’s happening in the world as it happens. Just as it gives us a window into the best moments in people’s lives, it can also let us bear witness to the worst,” wrote Facebook in a blog post following Diamond Reynolds’s live streaming of the death of her fiance, Philando Castile.

“We understand the unique challenges of live video. We know it’s important to have a responsible approach,” Facebook added. “That’s why we make it easy for people to report live videos to us as they’re happening.”

Live coverage of flashmobs or sports events are one thing, but knowing that thousands of people had watched a man die in real time forced Facebook to reconsider its live video policy.

“There are a handful of companies at the moment in a position to offer a live-streaming service where individual broadcasts are easily discoverable and shareable,” Harvard Law and computer science professor Jonathan Zittrain told The New York Times.  “It just puts companies in positions they weren’t designed to deal with well.”

According to a report on news consumption released by The Pew Charitable Trusts this month, some 80 percent of social media users say they look to Twitter or Facebook as a news resource.

Moreover, fully two thirds of Facebook users (44 percent of the US population) get their news from Facebook. And that number is growing. Although 66 percent of Facebook users use the site for news today, just 47 percent of Facebook users consumed news through the site in 2013.

Over the past decade, Facebook has grown from a Friendster-like entertainment platform for sharing thoughts socially with friends into a mechanism for sharing news articles and opinion posts.

And now, news consumption is giving way to news creation.

Not only can Facebook users click on article links shared by friends, but as evidenced by recent events, they can also use Facebook Live to act as journalists themselves.

While just three percent of social media users say they "often" post videos online, reported Pew, 16 percent "sometimes" do. All told, almost one in five social media is creating and posting videos online.

And although social media websites may be growing significantly in their role as news providers, circulators, and facilitators, the trend isn’t new.

After all, Twitter and other social media sites have been given great (though debated) credit for facilitating the Arab Spring revolutions in Tunisia, Bahrain, Egypt, and Libya.

"It's amazing that we participated via the internet in ousting him," Tarak Mekki said of the ouster of Tunisian president Zine Alabidine Ben Ali, according to the Guardian in 2011. "Via uploading videos. What we did on the internet had credibility and that's why it was successful."

Shortly after it was posted, the graphic Facebook Live video depicting Castile’s death was removed, which Facebook claims was due to a “technical glitch” but which many users thought was censorship by the social media giant.

On Friday, Facebook posted clearer guidelines for Facebook Live video posters.

Facebook officials do monitor Facebook Live streams, the company said in a blog post. And violence or graphic content is still not acceptable, unless it serves a higher purpose. Videos or comments that glorify violence will result in the video being removed, the company said.

Videos of events like the shootings in Dallas or the death of Philando Castile would be unacceptable on an entertainment website, and perhaps in Facebook’s original iteration, they would have been altogether prohibited. Yet now, Facebook and other social media sites recognize their role in enabling news dissemination by the very people who also consume the news.

"Live video on Facebook is a new and growing format," said the company in their statement. "We’ve learned a lot over the past few months, and will continue to make improvements to this experience wherever we can."

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.