{"database": "press", "table": "releases", "rows": [["https://www.murphy.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/murphy-blumenthal-press-facebook-to-take-immediate-action-to-combat-anti-muslim-bigotry-on-its-platform", "Murphy, Blumenthal Press Facebook To Take Immediate Action To Combat Anti-Muslim Bigotry On Its PlatformRead More", "2020-11-17", "2020", "2020-11", "Democrat", "House", "CT", "Christopher Murphy", "M001169", "www.murphy.senate.gov", null, null, "legacy", "WASHINGTONU.S. Senators Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) and Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) joined U.S. Senator Chris Coons (D-Del.) and 12 colleagues in a letter to\r\nFacebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg calling on the company to fully address the\r\nproblem of anti-Muslim bigotry on its platform, which has enabled offline\r\nviolence against Muslims in the United States and elsewhere around the world. Of particular concern is how\r\nFacebook has addressed the targeting of mosques and Muslim community events by\r\narmed protesters through the platform. In June 2019, Facebook responded to\r\nconcerns about these practices by creating a call to arms policy that\r\nprohibits event pages that call for individuals to bring weapons to a location.\r\nHowever, the Senators note that Facebook has not taken adequate steps to\r\nenforce this policy, which should have barred an event page in Kenosha,\r\nWisconsin earlier this year, as well as a 2019 event page used to plan an armed\r\nprotest at the largest Muslim community convention in the country. Facebook is a\r\ngroundbreaking company that has revolutionized the way we communicate.\r\nUnfortunately, the connectivity that can bring people together in many positive\r\nways also has been used to dehumanize and stoke violence against Muslims, Black\r\npeople, Latinos, immigrants, the Jewish community, Sikhs, Christians, women,\r\nand other communities here and across the world,the senators wrote. We recognize that Facebook\r\nhas announced efforts to address its role in the distribution of anti-Muslim\r\ncontent in some of these areas,the\r\nsenators wrote. Nevertheless, it is not clear that the company is\r\nmeaningfully better positioned to prevent further human rights abuses and\r\nviolence against Muslim minorities today. As members of Congress who\r\nare deeply disturbed by the proliferation of this hate speech on your platform,\r\nwe urge you to do more. An independent civil rights\r\naudit of Facebook from July 2020 highlighted disturbing examples of anti-Muslim\r\nabuse on the platform ranging [f]rom the organization of events designed to\r\nintimidate members of the Muslim community at gathering places, to the\r\nprevalence of content demonizing Islam and Muslims, and the use of Facebook\r\nLive during the Christchurch massacre These concerns have also prompted\r\ncurrent Facebook employees to write a letter demanding action on anti-Muslim\r\nbigotry and calling for broader structural changes. In their letter, the Senators\r\nurge Facebook to take a number of actions to address these issues including\r\ncollecting and publishing the data needed to understand the scope of the\r\nproblem, publishing readily available information to help the public evaluate\r\nits response, and implementing a plan to ensure robust enforcement of its call\r\nto arms policy. Murphy, Blumenthal and Coons\r\nwere joined on the letter by Senators Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii), Dick Durbin\r\n(D-Ill.), Mark Warner (D-Va.), Robert Menendez (D-N.J.), Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.),\r\nBen Cardin (D-Md.), Michael Bennet (D-Colo.), Gary Peters (D-Mich.), Amy\r\nKlobuchar (D-Minn.), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.), Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.),\r\nChris Murphy (D-Conn.), and Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.). Groups supporting the letter\r\nincludeMuslim Advocates, The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human\r\nRights, Center for American Progress, Human Rights Watch, Human Rights\r\nCampaign, Asian Americans Advancing Justice, Bend the Arc: Jewish Action, Free\r\nPress, Global Project Against Hate and Extremism, Interfaith Alliance, Japanese\r\nAmerican Citizens League, MediaJustice, National Hispanic Media Coalition,\r\nShoulder to Shoulder, Sikh Coalition, and UltraViolet. Full\r\ntext of the letter ishereand\r\nbelow. Dear Mr. Zuckerberg: We write to express our deep\r\nconcern regarding anti-Muslim bigotry on Facebook. An independent civil\r\nrights audit of the company from July 2020 highlighted disturbing examples of\r\nanti-Muslim abuse on the platform ranging [f]rom the organization of events\r\ndesigned to intimidate members of the Muslim community at gathering places, to\r\nthe prevalence of content demonizing Islam and Muslims, and the use of Facebook\r\nLive during the Christchurch massacre . . . . These concerns have\r\nalso prompted current Facebook employees to write a letter demanding action on\r\nanti-Muslim bigotry and calling for broader structural changes. As members of\r\nCongress who are committed to protecting the Muslim community, we urge you to\r\ntake immediate action to combat this bigotry on Facebook's platforms. Facebook is a groundbreaking\r\ncompany that has revolutionized the way we communicate. Unfortunately, the\r\nconnectivity that can bring people together in many positive ways also has been\r\nused to dehumanize and stoke violence against Muslims, Black people, Latinos,\r\nimmigrants, the Jewish community, Sikhs, Christians, women, and other\r\ncommunities here and across the world. The enabling of hate speech and\r\nviolence against any group is not acceptable. We appreciate that Facebook\r\nhas taken certain steps to combat these problems. For instance, you\r\nrecently reversed a prior decision that had allowed content denying the\r\nHolocaust, and you have altered your policies to ban blackface and certain\r\nanti-Jewish stereotypes. But much more must be done to protect these\r\nvulnerable communities. With regard to the Muslim community in\r\nparticular, the civil rights audit noted advocates' alarm that Muslims feel\r\nunder siege on Facebook and explained how attacks on Muslims present unique\r\nconsiderations that require separate analysis and response compared to other\r\nkinds of attacks. Yet, the auditors noted, Facebook has not yet\r\npublicly studied or acknowledged the particular ways anti-Muslim bigotry\r\nmanifests on its platform. Of particular concern is how\r\nFacebook has addressed the targeting of mosques and Muslim community events by\r\narmed protesters through the platform. In June 2019, Facebook responded\r\nto concerns about these practices by creating a call to arms policy that\r\nprohibits event pages that call for individuals to bring weapons to\r\nlocations. Yet, in August 2019, when advocates reported to Facebook\r\nthat a militia group was using an event page to plan an armed protest at the\r\nlargest Muslim community convention in the country for the second year in a\r\nrow, it took Facebook more than a full day to remove the content, a delay that\r\nFacebook acknowledged was too long and an enforcement misstep. Other recent events have\r\ndemonstrated how Facebook has not taken adequate steps to enforce this call to\r\narms policy. In August 2020, a group called the Kenosha Guard posted an\r\nevent page titled Armed Citizens to Protect Our Lives and Property, calling\r\nfor armed individuals to gather in Kenosha, Wisconsin, following the shooting\r\nof Jacob Blake. Notwithstanding multiple reports by users that this page\r\nviolated Facebook policies, Facebook did not take the page down. An armed\r\n17-year-old traveled from out of state to join this gathering, fatally shot two\r\nprotestors that night, and is charged with their murder. You stated that\r\nthe failure to take down the event page and the Kenosha Guard's group page was\r\nlargely an operational mistake because contract content moderators without\r\nspecialized training failed to detect that the pages violated a new militia\r\npolicy Facebook had established in August 2020. Your statement was\r\nmisleading as to the event page, however, because it did not mention that the\r\nevent page also violated the call to arms policy that had been in place for\r\nover a year. Importantly, we understand that the contractors who review\r\nuser-reported content are not instructed to enforce a core component of the\r\ncall to arms policy. It is not apparent that Facebook ensures meaningful\r\nenforcement of this policy, and that is not acceptable. As the Change the\r\nTerms Coalition has explained, that isn't an operational mistake  that's a\r\ndesign defect. We have similar concerns about\r\nFacebook's efforts to ensure that the platform is not used to enable systematic\r\nviolence and discrimination against Muslims around the world. A United\r\nNations report concluded that the company played a determining role in\r\nviolence against Rohingya Muslims in Myanmar, and Facebook has similarly\r\nacknowledged that the platform was used to foment division and incite offline\r\nviolence against the Rohingya. Unfortunately, this is not an\r\nisolated incident. According to a New York Times report published a month\r\nafter anti-Muslim violence erupted in Sri Lanka in March 2018, Facebook's\r\nnewsfeed played a central role in nearly every step from rumor to\r\nkilling, despite numerous attempts by Sri Lankan activists and\r\ngovernment officials to warn Facebook about potential outbreaks of\r\nviolence. In an especially horrific episode of anti-Muslim activity on\r\nFacebook, in March 2019, a white nationalist gunman broadcasted his 17-minute\r\nslaughter of 51 Muslims at two mosques in Christchurch, New Zealand, for the\r\nentire world to see using Facebook Live. Reports indicate that the\r\nplatform has also been used to support the internment of the Uyghurs in China\r\nand other human rights violations against this population, that Facebook and\r\nWhatsApp have been used to incite violence against Muslims in India, and that\r\nFacebook has been used to promote hate and violence in other areas around the\r\nworld. The civil rights audit and\r\nother reports have documented the shortcomings of Facebook that have led to\r\nthese results over the years. The United Nations explained in 2018 that\r\nFacebook launched its Myanmar-specific services without content moderators who\r\nspoke the necessary languages, without adequate technology, and without\r\nsufficient transparency and coordination with local organizations. It\r\nalso documented how speech in clear violation of Facebook's policies remained\r\non the platform notwithstanding multiple reports, and how even after the speech\r\nwas taken down, re-posts continued to circulate months later. Furthermore,\r\nthe civil rights audit found that Facebook is not sufficiently attuned to how\r\nits algorithms fuel extreme and polarizing content, and thereby may driv[e]\r\npeople toward self-reinforcing echo chambers of extremism, as seen in Myanmar\r\nand Sri Lanka. Advocacy groups similarly detailed the extent and\r\npersistence of anti-Muslim hate content on Facebook India in multiple reports\r\nlast year, concerns that have been amplified by recent allegations that some\r\nhigh-ranking employees at Facebook India have enabled hate speech against\r\nMuslims and others by applying the platform's content moderation policies in a\r\nselective manner. We recognize that Facebook has\r\nannounced efforts to address its role in the distribution of anti-Muslim\r\ncontent in some of these areas. These include, for instance, adding\r\ncountry-specific staff and content moderators proficient in certain local\r\nlanguages, investing in proactive detection technologies, strengthening local\r\nfact-checking partnerships, and limiting the ability to reshare certain kinds\r\nof messages. Nevertheless, it is not clear\r\nthat the company is meaningfully better positioned to prevent further human\r\nrights abuses and violence against Muslim minorities today. In part, this\r\nis because Facebook still does not collect the information needed to evaluate\r\nthe effectiveness of its responses. For instance, Facebook reported that\r\nit took action on 22 million pieces of hate speech content in the second\r\nquarter of 2020, up from over 9 million in the first quarter. It is\r\nnot apparent, however, whether this is a sign of an improving or worsening\r\nproblem, because this data lacks crucial context: Facebook does not\r\ncalculate or report on the overall prevalence of hate speech on the\r\nplatform. It is thus unclear how significant this increase is as a\r\nproportion of total hate speech or whether takedowns are increasing only\r\nbecause hate content on the platform is increasing. Facebook recognizes\r\nthat the statistic it reports only tells part of the story, and Facebook does\r\nestimate prevalence in other contexts. Its failure to do so as to hate\r\nspeech is concerning. In addition, the civil rights\r\naudit pointed out that for content that Facebook does remove, the company does\r\nnot collect data about which protected groups were the target of the removed\r\npost. This prevents Facebook and the public from understanding the volume\r\nof hate against a particular group, whether attacks against certain groups are\r\nconsistently not removed, and whether there are gaps in Facebook's policies that\r\nresult in perpetuating or increasing hate speech and attacks against particular\r\ngroups. It is difficult to understand how Facebook can effectively combat\r\nhate speech without this information. There is also basic information\r\nthat Facebook has or could readily make available, but which it has\r\ninexplicably declined to make public. For instance, while pointing to its\r\nincreases in country-specific staff and language-specific content moderators in\r\ncertain areas, Facebook has declined repeated requests from advocates to\r\nprovide detailed information about its country-specific staff or\r\nlanguage-specific content moderators across the world. Such information\r\nis necessary to evaluate Facebook's suggestion that its additions are adequate\r\nand to determine whether there are gaps in coverage in other regions that\r\nshould be addressed proactively before the next violent event. Facebook\r\nsimilarly does not provide information about how the hate speech it has taken\r\ndown is disaggregated by language or country of origin, information that would\r\nhelp identify volatile areas in need of further attention from content\r\nmoderators or others at Facebook. That is so even though Facebook has\r\nconceded that [t]hese breakdowns are feasible for these count-based metrics\r\nand that it recognize[s] the value in having different subpopulations of the\r\nvarious metrics. The United Nations 2018 Myanmar report expressed\r\nregret[] that Facebook did not provide country-specific data about hate\r\nspeech and deemed it essential that such information be\r\ndisclosed. Though these concerns have been\r\nraised for years, Facebook thus far has not taken the steps required to\r\neffectively address hate and violence targeting Muslims. In 2018,\r\nFacebook acknowledged that it can and should do better after its platform\r\nfueled violence in Myanmar and outlined steps it would take. In\r\n2020, Facebook apologize[d] for the human rights impacts that resulted from\r\nmisuse of its platform in Sri Lanka and outlined more steps.\r\nDespite these experiences, recent reporting suggests that today, Facebook is\r\ncontributing to the spread of hate speech and violence against ethnic and\r\nreligious groups in Ethiopia, where Facebook dominates the\r\ninternet. Meanwhile, it announced a call to arms policy to assuage\r\nconcerns but has failed to adequately enforce it. As members of Congress\r\nwho are deeply disturbed by the proliferation of this hate speech on your\r\nplatform, we urge you to do more. We believe Facebook must frankly and\r\nopenly detail the scope of the problem and take concerted and sustained actions\r\nto address this problem fully. We respectfully request that you respond\r\nto the questions below by December 16, 2020. As to each question, insofar\r\nas Facebook will commit to taking action, please provide details of its plan\r\nand expected timing. 1. Will Facebook commit to developing and implementing a plan to ensure robust\r\nenforcement of its call to arms policy, including through proactive review of\r\nevent pages, content moderator review of user reports, and prioritization of\r\nhighly reported events? If not, why not? 2. Will Facebook commit to collecting and publishing data about the overall amount\r\nand prevalence of hate content on the platform and whether hate content is\r\nincreasing on its platform? If so, please specify whether Facebook will\r\nbreak down this data by country and language. If not, why not? 3. Will Facebook commit to collecting and publishing data about which groups were\r\nthe subject of the hate speech it removes and enforcement rates across\r\ngroups? If so, please specify the groups for which Facebook will provide\r\nthis information. If not, why not? 4. Will Facebook commit to collecting and publishing country-specific or\r\nlanguage-specific data on hate speech that is on or removed from the\r\nplatform? If not, why not? 5. Will Facebook publish detailed information about the number of country-specific\r\nstaff and language-specific content moderators it employs? If not, why\r\nnot? 6. Will Facebook commit to studying regularly its civil rights and human rights\r\nimpacts and making future human rights impact assessments or rights audits\r\npublic in their entirety? If not, why not? 7. Will Facebook commit to establishing and publishing criteria that must be met\r\nfor Facebook to expand or maintain usage of its services in markets at risk of\r\nhate content fueling religious and/or ethnic violence to ensure Facebook does\r\nnot enable human rights violations? If so, please specify the outside\r\ninput that Facebook will solicit in developing these criteria. If not,\r\nwhy not? 8. Will Facebook conduct an analysis of how it can better design its systems and\r\nalgorithms to not just identify and take down hate speech, but limit the reach\r\nof this content and its ability to cause offline violence? If not, why\r\nnot? 9. Will Facebook commit to creating a working group led by a senior employee with\r\nexpertise in anti-Muslim bigotry specifically tasked with monitoring,\r\nreviewing, and coordinating efforts to proactively remove anti-Muslim content\r\non the platform? If not, why not? Thank you for your\r\nconsideration of our views. We appreciate your prompt attention to this\r\nmatter. Sincerely, ###", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"]], "columns": ["url", "title", "date", "year", "month", "party", "chamber", "state", "member_name", "bioguide_id", "domain", "scraper", "source", "date_source", "text", "has_text", "collected_at", "updated_at"], "primary_keys": ["url"], "primary_key_values": ["https://www.murphy.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/murphy-blumenthal-press-facebook-to-take-immediate-action-to-combat-anti-muslim-bigotry-on-its-platform"], "units": {}, "query_ms": 2.8731320053339005, "source": "dwillis/congress-press", "source_url": "https://github.com/dwillis/congress-press", "license": "MIT", "license_url": "https://github.com/dwillis/congress-press/blob/main/LICENSE"}