What is Facebook's responsibility when people broadcast crimes?

The apparent assault of a Chicago teenager was broadcast on Facebook Live, but no one reported it through the Facebook system designed to review inappropriate content. 

Facebook/AP
This image provided by Facebook shows a demonstration of live reporter support for Facebook Live feeds.

The apparent sexual assault of a Chicago teenager, broadcast on Facebook Live, has reignited debate about the feature and Facebook’s responsibility to address crimes.

On Sunday afternoon, a girl disappeared after being dropped off near her Chicago home. When she didn’t come home on Sunday, her mother filed a police report. It was not until Monday, however, that her family learned that an apparent sexual assault on the girl had been broadcast on Facebook Live. None of the 40 viewers had reported the incident through Facebook’s content-review system, but a teenager mentioned the video to Reginald King, one of the girl’s relatives. After the police saw screen grabs of that video, they launched an investigation. The girl was reunited with her mother on Tuesday.

For many observers, the most troubling aspect of the alleged assault is that no one reported it, either to Facebook or to the police. If one person had reported the incident, Facebook would have reviewed the video and might have been able to take it down sooner. And it raises the question of how to prevent similar abuses of the platform from occurring in the future.

"It hurts me to my core because I was one of the last people to see her [before the assault]," Mr. King told the Chicago Tribune. "I want to make sure this never happens to anybody else's kids."

This is not the first time that Facebook’s fledgling Live feature has documented abuse. In January, four people were arrested after broadcasting a video that showed them taunting and beating a man with special needs in Chicago. And last summer, the platform bore witness to the shooting death of Philando Castile, a black man, by a police officer in Minnesota.

Facebook takes its "responsibility to keep people safe on Facebook very seriously," Facebook spokeswoman Andrea Saul told the Associated Press. "Crimes like this are hideous and we do not allow that kind of content on Facebook."

In response to concerns about inappropriate content, particularly on Facebook Live, the tech giant has an around-the-clock content management team. The Facebook community is asked to flag any posts that they think are inappropriate, and the team then looks at all flagged content to decide whether it should be taken down.

In this case, however, that didn’t happen – because no one ever flagged the post for review.

Technically, that isn’t Facebook’s problem. But the tech giant, which is increasingly aware of its social responsibility, may be motivated to find a solution. 

To help address Facebook Live suicides, for instance, the company introduced new prevention tools that offer users help in real time. Offering practical steps to dissuade those considering taking their own lives – and help those those concerned about a loved one – is a significant step forward. Facebook may find a similar way to encourage users to speak up and connect them directly with local authorities.

Some say the Facebook Live violence points to a challenge that society as a whole must confront.

“As a society we have to ask ourselves, how did it get to the point where young men feel like it’s a badge of honor to sexually assault a girl ... to not only do this to a girl, but broadcast it for the world?” King asked.

This report contains material from the Associated Press.

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.