vox--2020-07-09--What’s in a name? From Aunt Jemima to the Redskins, enough ugly history to demand change.

As tens of millions of people worldwide have taken to the streets over the past six weeks to pronounce that Black lives matter , corporate America has been nudged into action .
But instead of marching alongside protesters , it ’ s eyeing its own shelves .
Quaker Oats spoke up first , announcing in June that Aunt Jemima , the name and face of the brand ’ s syrup and pancake mix for more than 130 years , would be no more .
The company said in a statement that “ while work has been done over the years @ @ @ @ @ @ @ intended to be appropriate and respectful , we realize those changes are not enough.
” In quick succession , Grammy-winning country music group Lady Antebellum shed the “ Antebellum ” — and its glamorization of the pre-Civil War South — to become Lady A .
The Dixie Chicks did the same two weeks later when it dropped “ Dixie.
” Plantation Rum apologized for using the word “ plantation ” in its name and branding .
Unilever agreed to stop equating light skin with beauty by removing the “ fair ” from South @ @ @ @ @ @ @ And on Monday , the trustees of Virginia ’ s Washington and Lee University ( WLU ) announced they would rename the 271-year-old institution to exclude its homage to Confederate general Robert E. Lee .
Perhaps most surprising of all is that , after years of efforts by Indigenous activists , the Washington Redskins football team said June 3 that it would review the team ’ s name for a possible rebranding “ in light of recent events around our country.
” This spring ’ s spate of brutal police killings of unarmed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ particular — has renewed activists ’ calls to address , and erase , all kinds of public depictions of racism .
Companies , sports teams , universities , and even musical acts have been forced to reckon with the images and messages they put forth , in some cases for generations .
Demands for these changes aren ’ t new , but companies ’ acquiescence to them are .
So , when a well-known brand changes its name to shirk racist or offensive historical connotations in the wake of social unrest , is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ does it really accomplish ?
Historians and scholars differ on how sincere and effectual these name changes can be .
A simple rebranding isn ’ t the systemic change that America really needs , experts say , but it is a remarkable step toward the larger mission of taking to task and dismantling everyday racism .
What ’ s also clear is that consumers are in a unique position right now to weaponize social media to get results .
Online , anyone can protest societal ills and direct those complaints directly at their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ voices that agree .
“ In a process where you see a lot of movement centered around the kind of changes people want to see , one of the most visible ways you can demand change is by literally turning brands to say things you think are important , ” said Sonia Katyal , a legal scholar and the distinguished chair of the Haas Institute ’ s LGBTQ Citizenship research cluster who has written extensively on racism in branding .
“ So when Quaker Oats says they ’ re going to retire their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s a really dramatic statement , not just of the desire to insulate the company from criticism but also of recognition that we are in a new era of racial branding.
” Consumers , particularly consumers of color , have argued for decades that symbols such as Aunt Jemima and the Washington Redskins continue to perpetuate age-old racial stereotypes about Black and Indigenous people .
But these criticisms have largely been ignored or inadequately addressed .
Aunt Jemima received incremental redesigns without fully being distanced from the stereotype ’ s post-Reconstruction past , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Redskins have defended the team ’ s name as a crucial part of its legacy .
Aunt Jemima is perhaps the oldest and most enduring example of a brand built on a Black stereotype , “ an outgrowth of Old South plantation nostalgia and romance grounded in an idea about the ‘ mammy , ’ a devoted and submissive servant who eagerly nurtured the children of her white master and mistress while neglecting her own , ” Riché Richardson , an associate professor at Cornell University ’ s Africana Studies and Research @ @ @ @ @ @ @ York Times op-ed calling for the brand ’ s retirement .
That explicitly mammy-inspired branding has rankled Black consumers practically since the brand hit the market in 1889 .
In the early 20th century , they pushed back against Aunt Jemima ’ s design .
In Aunt Jemima , Uncle Ben , and Rastus : Blacks in Advertising , Yesterday , Today , and Tomorrow , author Marilyn Kern-Foxworth cited a 1932 study in which Black men and women were asked their opinion of Aunt Jemima ’ s advertising .
Most takes were @ @ @ @ @ @ @ against any picture of [ a ] former slave mammy , ” one man responded .
“ I made my opinion about slave advertisements a long time ago , and the picture of Aunt Jemima would make me pass it by , ” a female participant said .
Brand owner Quaker Oats addressed some concerns about Aunt Jemima ’ s image in the late 1980s when it gave her more of a modern housewife look , sans do-rag .
The name , however , has remained a pain point .
“ The image @ @ @ @ @ @ @ title , ” said Theodore Carter DeLaney , professor of history emeritus at WLU and co-founder of the school ’ s Africana Studies program .
The name , he said , maintains the idea that “ she would be referred to as an aunt even by white families because she had somehow been more than a cook , but a nanny.
” Although Aunt Jemima ’ s updated , uncovered hair revealed a stylish perm , DeLaney added , her modernized look made her outdated name stand out that much more .
Recognizing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ representation has changed dramatically , Quaker Oats announced in June that it would scrap the Aunt Jemima branding entirely .
Other groups publicly disavowed their names soon thereafter : Country act Lady Antebellum became Lady A , with the members writing on Instagram that they were “ regretful and embarrassed to say that we did not take into account the associations that weigh down this word [ Antebellum ] referring to the period of history before The Civil War , which includes slavery.
” ( Just as regrettable and embarrassing , though , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a copyright claim against a Black artist who has performed as Lady A for more than 20 years . )
Two weeks later , the Dixie Chicks dropped “ Dixie , ” a reference to the land south of the Mason-Dixon line — or the heart of the Confederacy during the Civil War .
“ We wanted to meet the moment , ” the Chicks said of its new name .
Fair and Lovely , a hugely successful skin-lightening product marketed in South Asia , is now called Glow and Lovely .
And @ @ @ @ @ @ @ towns named after plantations have gathered traction online .
Other plainly racist branding , like that of the Washington Redskins , remains steadfast .
The Washington , DC-based football team has been known by the slur — a term that gained prominence among white people in the 19th century and is even recognized in Merriam-Webster ’ s dictionary as “ usually offensive ” — since 1933 .
Although some Indigenous folks have said they ’ re unbothered by the name , the term “ redskin ” was conceived as , and has always @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the turn of the 20th century [ redskins ] had evolved to become a term meant to disparage and denote inferiority and savagery in American culture , ” the National Congress of American Indians explained in a 2013 report on the deleterious effects of Indigenous stereotypes in sports .
Since the 1960s , activists have protested offensive team names and logos , including the Redskins and the Cleveland Indians baseball team .
In 1972 , the Washington Post reported , advocates from the Indian Legal Information Development Service and elsewhere met with Edward @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Redskins at the time , to ask that the teams drop the name , replace it with one that was epithet-free , and encourage other NFL teams to do the same .
What they instead walked away with was a rewrite of the team cheer , “ Hail to the Redskins , ” and a promise that the cheerleaders would no longer wear “ Indian-style ” wigs — effectively brownface .
Twenty years later , the first of several lawsuits filed against the Redskins by Indigenous people sought to remove the team ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , but the Redskins inevitably managed to maintain rights to the name .
Another lawsuit , decided in 2014 , pitted a younger group of Indigenous activists against the Redskins organization .
When , amid the trial , USA Today asked majority owner Dan Snyder whether he would consider renaming the Redskins , his response was plain : The Redskins , he said , “ will never change the name of the team.
” “ We ’ ll never change the name , ” Snyder reiterated when prodded .
“ It ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ use caps.
” Katyal cites Snyder as the roadblock that is preventing the Redskins from achieving any level of Aunt Jemima-like evolution .
“ I can not think of another team that has been so steadfast in its refusal to change , ” she said .
“ Most other teams at least try to rebrand or seek a partnership with a Native American tribe .
That ’ s not always a perfect solution either , but most brands are much more responsive.
” In 2017 , Snyder and the team prevailed in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ trademark after the Supreme Court ruled in a separate case that banning “ disparaging ” trademarks violated the First Amendment .
But now , nearly 90 years after the Redskins first adopted the moniker , the team appears to finally be considering what kind of message it is sending by blatantly using a slur in its name .
It seems like a very belated hallelujah , just like Aunt Jemima ’ s — but one perhaps possible only right now , during the new momentum gained by the Black Lives Matter movement .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Redskins , Lady Antebellum , the Dixie Chicks , and so on — their names are reminders of the worst aspects of US history .
So why did it take until 2020 for owners and artists to take action ?
Recent protests have advocated for racial equity of every kind , including in the marketing of consumer products , Katyal said .
“ One of the big tenets of the Black Lives Matter protests , which has not happened before on such a wide scale , is that the symbols of enslavement and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their pedestals , ” Katyal , referencing statues of Confederate soldiers that activists have beheaded or knocked down across the country , told me .
“ So what you have is this mood where anything ... that might be construed as a symbolic form of respect for discrimination or oppression has basically literally been lifted by these crowds and disposed of.
” Symbols of the Confederacy are an obvious place to start when dismantling paeans to a more oppressive era .
The state of Mississippi in June said it would redesign its flag @ @ @ @ @ @ @ flag .
Around the same time , Nascar banned racers from using any Confederate symbols in another win against American racism .
But brands can serve as symbols glorifying a racist history , too , if less obviously .
The police killing of George Floyd in May helped Americans see the racial biases inherent everywhere , said Shirley Staples Carter , associate dean for diversity , equity , and inclusion at the University of South Carolina .
“ People are beginning to see these [ brand names as ] stereotypes , these emblems @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s been part of the cause of systemic racism that would lead to police brutality , treating people like they ’ re not human , ” Carter told Vox .
“ George Floyd ’ s death did that for many people — it resonated.
” DeLaney suggested that the movement ’ s ability to capture such a wide set of eyes , however , is thanks to another big phenomenon in 2020 .
“ What is different about this conversation [ about race ] is , I think , not so much Black @ @ @ @ @ @ @ largely a result of what ’ s been going on in the US in the last few weeks ... the pandemic , ” said DeLaney .
“ One of the things that has happened is that people have been sheltered at home to a large extent .
... As a result , you are seeing things that you might not have seen , had you not been hunkered down at home.
” In 2020 , the coronavirus pandemic and Black Lives Matter have given the owners of stereotypical brand names less cover to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , bands , sports teams , and more appear to be instituting long-sought changes to their products as damage control — namely , out of fear of the economic effects a consumer revolt could have if they ’ re canceled before they ’ ve had a chance to address the wrongs .
The Redskins make a compelling case for this interpretation : Snyder ’ s decision to even consider changing the name came after FedEx , Nike , and PepsiCo threatened to pull their sponsorships , with each asking the franchise to rename @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to sell their stakes .
But it feels disheartening and cynical to call the actions of such companies wholly preemptive or fearful , Carter said .
He echoed Katyal ’ s contention that brands are going through the same sort of racial awakening as consumers .
“ I think it ’ s more than just reactive , ” he said .
“ I think it ’ s the beginning of some real changes.
” The real changes that Black Lives Matter and its supporters seek , however , are social , economic , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ permanently rework the system that allowed such names to be marketable in the first place .
“ We can begin with retitling Aunt Jemima and Uncle Ben and renaming buildings and removing Confederate statues , all these emblems of slavery and oppression , but we also need to deal with the larger and more difficult issue , ” said Carter .
“ The systemic racism that needs to change in our society.
” But branding , like all media , wields an important power in culture .
Media is where many people see @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Regardless of whether they like football or pancakes or country music , people can be deeply affected by the messages those products implicitly or explicitly send .
“ Someone asked me , ‘ do you really think it ’ s racist ?
’ ” Carter said of Aunt Jemima , which was inspired by a tune called “ Old Aunt Jemima , ” composed by Black comedian and performer Billy Kersands and later popularized as a minstrel song .
“ And it has to do with its origin , of course .
It @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the fact that it ’ s so stereotypical of how people perceive the role of Black women in society , I think [ the name change ] is important , and it will be impactful.
” It can be traumatizing for people of color to encounter brands that perpetuate prejudices against them , Katyal said .
Indeed , studies have shown that experiencing racism and discrimination can negatively affect one ’ s mental health .
But acknowledging and then removing these racist images can be empowering and inspiring , no matter how minor @ @ @ @ @ @ @ public .
“ The sheer emotion that happens for people who are people of color when they see these symbols being taken down is a recognition that these individuals are being seen , ” Katyal said .
“ I totally get why one would be cynical about that , but I also think that it ’ s so important for young people to have that feeling that seeing our movement made these changes happen.
” Katyal has a much simpler retort to the naysayers who find these changes insubstantial or irrelevant .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ retire an image or change a brand than it is to dismantle the very structures of economic and political injustice , ” she said .
Allegra Frank is an associate culture editor at Vox .
She covers music , the internet , and video games .
Every day at Vox , we aim to answer your most important questions and provide you , and our audience around the world , with information that has the power to save lives .
Our mission has never been more vital than it is in this moment @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Vox ’ s work is reaching more people than ever , but our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources — particularly during a pandemic and an economic downturn .
Your financial contribution will not constitute a donation , but it will enable our staff to continue to offer free articles , videos , and podcasts at the quality and volume that this moment requires .
Please consider making a contribution to Vox today .

As tens of millions of people worldwide took to the streets this summer to pronounce that Black lives matter, corporate America was also nudged into action. But instead of marching alongside protesters, it started eyeing its own shelves.
Quaker Oats spoke up first, announcing in mid-June that Aunt Jemima, the name and face of the brand’s syrup and pancake mix for more than 130 years, would be no more. The company said in a statement that “while work has been done over the years to update the brand in a manner intended to be appropriate and respectful, we realize those changes are not enough.” In quick succession, Grammy-winning country music group Lady Antebellum shed the “Antebellum” — and its glamorization of the pre-Civil War South — to become Lady A. The Dixie Chicks did the same two weeks later when it dropped “Dixie.”
Plantation Rum apologized for using the word “plantation” in its name and branding. Unilever agreed to stop equating light skin with beauty by removing the “fair” from South Asian skin-lightening cream Fair and Lovely. And early this month, the faculty of Virginia’s Washington and Lee University voted to rename the 271-year-old institution to exclude its homage to Confederate general Robert E. Lee; trustees are now reviewing the name and campus symbols.
Perhaps most surprising of all is that, after years of efforts by Indigenous activists, sports teams, too, are finally relenting to pressures to abandon their stereotypical branding. the Washington Redskins football team on July 13 announced amid a review that it would drop the Redskins name and the logo, of an Indigenous chief. As the team continues to deliberate upon a replacement, it’s adopted a somewhat comical placeholder: the Washington Football Team.
Not long after Washington announced its pending name change, the Cleveland Indians baseball team, after years of public protests by Indigenous groups, said that it, too, would consider changing its name; the team added that it would consult with Indigenous groups on the decision.
On December 13, the New York Times reported that the team would move forward with the change. (The Indians had already retired their stereotypical logo, of a cartoon Indigenous character named Chief Wahoo, after the 2018 baseball season concluded.) The team will officially introduce a new name by the 2022 season.
The spring’s spate of brutal police killings of unarmed people of color — Black people in particular — have renewed activists’ calls to address, and erase, all kinds of public depictions of racism. Companies, sports teams, universities, and even musical acts have been forced to reckon with the images and messages they put forth, in some cases for generations.
Demands for these changes aren’t new, but companies’ acquiescence to them are. So, when a well-known brand changes its name to shed racist or offensive historical connotations in the wake of social unrest, is it done in earnest? And what does it really accomplish?
Historians and scholars differ on how sincere and effectual these name changes can be. A simple rebranding isn’t the systemic change America really needs, experts say, but it is a remarkable step toward the larger mission of taking to task and dismantling everyday racism.
What’s also clear is that consumers are in a unique position to weaponize social media and get results. Online, anyone can protest societal ills and direct those complaints directly at their sources, while finding a chorus of voices that agree.
“In a process where you see a lot of movement centered around the kind of changes people want to see, one of the most visible ways you can demand change is by literally turning brands to say things you think are important,” said Sonia Katyal, a legal scholar and the distinguished chair of the Haas Institute’s LGBTQ Citizenship research cluster, who has written extensively on racism in branding. “So when Quaker Oats says they’re going to retire their image of Aunt Jemima ... that’s a really dramatic statement, not just of the desire to insulate the company from criticism but also of recognition that we are in a new era of racial branding.”
Consumers, particularly consumers of color, have argued for decades that symbols such as Aunt Jemima, the Washington Redskins, and the Cleveland Indians perpetuate age-old racial stereotypes about Black and Indigenous people. But these criticisms have often been ignored or inadequately addressed. Aunt Jemima received incremental redesigns without fully being distanced from the stereotype’s post-Reconstruction past, for example, while various owners of the Redskins have defended the team’s name as a crucial part of its legacy.
Aunt Jemima is perhaps the oldest and most enduring example of a brand built on a Black stereotype, “an outgrowth of Old South plantation nostalgia and romance grounded in an idea about the ‘mammy,’ a devoted and submissive servant who eagerly nurtured the children of her white master and mistress while neglecting her own,” Riché Richardson, an associate professor at Cornell University’s Africana Studies and Research Center, wrote in a 2015 New York Times op-ed calling for the brand’s retirement.
That explicitly mammy-inspired branding has rankled Black consumers practically since the brand hit the market in 1889. In the early 20th century, they pushed back against Aunt Jemima’s design. In Aunt Jemima, Uncle Ben, and Rastus: Blacks in Advertising, Yesterday, Today, and Tomorrow, author Marilyn Kern-Foxworth cited a 1932 study in which Black men and women were asked their opinion of Aunt Jemima’s advertising. Most takes were negative: “I am prejudiced intensely against any picture of [a] former slave mammy,” one man responded. “I made my opinion about slave advertisements a long time ago, and the picture of Aunt Jemima would make me pass it by,” a female participant said.
Brand owner Quaker Oats addressed some concerns about Aunt Jemima’s image in the late 1980s when it gave her more of a modern housewife look, sans do-rag. The name, however, has remained a pain point.
“The image had been evolving, but not the title,” said Theodore Carter DeLaney, professor of history emeritus at WLU and co-founder of the school’s Africana studies program. The name, he said, maintains the idea that “she would be referred to as an aunt even by white families because she had somehow been more than a cook, but a nanny.” Although Aunt Jemima’s updated, uncovered hair revealed a stylish perm, DeLaney added, her modernized look made her outdated name stand out that much more.
Recognizing that America’s threshold for Black representation has changed dramatically, Quaker Oats stated that it would scrap the Aunt Jemima branding entirely.
Other groups publicly disavowed their names soon thereafter: Country act Lady Antebellum became Lady A, with the members writing on Instagram that they were “regretful and embarrassed to say that we did not take into account the associations that weigh down this word [Antebellum] referring to the period of history before The Civil War, which includes slavery.” (Just as regrettable and embarrassing, though, is that the group has since filed a copyright claim against a Black artist who has performed as Lady A for more than 20 years.)
When the Dixie Chicks dropped “Dixie,” a reference to the land south of the Mason-Dixon line — or, the heart of the Confederacy during the Civil War — they explained the decision by saying only, “We wanted to meet the moment.” Fair and Lovely, a hugely successful skin-lightening product marketed in South Asia, is now called Glow and Lovely. And petitions to change the names of Southern towns named after plantations have gathered traction online.
Other plainly racist branding, like that of the Washington Redskins, held out for much longer. The Washington, DC-based football team has been known by the slur — a term that gained prominence among white people in the 19th century and is even recognized in Merriam-Webster’s dictionary as “usually offensive” — since 1933. Although some Indigenous folks have said they’re unbothered by the name, the term “redskin” was conceived as, and has always been, a pejorative.
“By the turn of the 20th century [redskins] had evolved to become a term meant to disparage and denote inferiority and savagery in American culture,” the National Congress of American Indians explained in a 2013 report on the deleterious effects of Indigenous stereotypes in sports.
Since the 1960s, activists have protested offensive team names and logos, including the Redskins and the Cleveland Indians. In 1972, the Washington Post reported, advocates from the Indian Legal Information Development Service and elsewhere met with Edward Bennett Williams, part-owner of the Redskins at the time, to ask that the team drop the name, replace it with one that was epithet-free, and encourage other NFL teams to do the same. What they instead walked away with was a rewrite of the team cheer, “Hail to the Redskins,” and a promise that the cheerleaders would no longer wear “Indian-style” wigs — effectively brownface.
Twenty years later, the first of several lawsuits filed against the Redskins by Indigenous people sought to remove the team’s trademark, citing it as disparaging, but the Redskins inevitably managed to maintain rights to the name. Another lawsuit, decided in 2014, pitted a younger group of Indigenous activists against the Redskins organization. When, amid the trial, USA Today asked majority owner Dan Snyder whether he would consider renaming the Redskins, his response was plain: The Redskins, he said, “will never change the name of the team.”
“We’ll never change the name,” Snyder reiterated when prodded. “It’s that simple. NEVER — you can use caps.”
Katyal cites Snyder as the roadblock that had held the Redskins back from achieving any level of Aunt Jemima-like evolution. “I cannot think of another team that has been so steadfast in its refusal to change,” she said. “Most other teams at least try to rebrand or seek a partnership with a Native American tribe. That’s not always a perfect solution either, but most brands are much more responsive.”
In 2017, Snyder and the team prevailed in the legal battle to maintain the Redskins’ trademark after the Supreme Court ruled in a separate case that banning “disparaging” trademarks violated the First Amendment. But now, nearly 90 years after the Redskins first adopted the moniker, the team has finally reconsidered what kind of message it was sending by blatantly using a slur in its name.
It seems like a very belated hallelujah, just like Aunt Jemima’s — but one perhaps possible this year, amid the momentum gained by the Black Lives Matter movement.
Aunt Jemima, Uncle Ben, the Redskins, the Indians, Lady Antebellum, the Dixie Chicks, and so on — their names are reminders of the worst aspects of US history. So why did it take until 2020 for owners and artists to take action?
Recent protests have advocated for racial equity of every kind, including in the marketing of consumer products, Katyal said.
“One of the big tenets of the Black Lives Matter protests, which has not happened before on such a wide scale, is that the symbols of enslavement and colonization are being literally pulled off of their pedestals,” Katyal, referencing statues of Confederate soldiers that activists have beheaded or knocked down across the country, told me. “So what you have is this mood where anything ... that might be construed as a symbolic form of respect for discrimination or oppression has basically literally been lifted by these crowds and disposed of.”
Symbols of the Confederacy are an obvious place to start when dismantling paeans to a more oppressive era. The state of Mississippi said in June that it would petition to redesign its flag, which for more than 100 years featured the Confederacy’s flag within it, and voters in November approved a new replacement. Around the same time, NASCAR banned racers from using any Confederate symbols in another win against American racism.
But brands can serve as symbols glorifying a racist history, too, if less obviously. The police killing of George Floyd in May helped Americans see the racial biases inherent everywhere, said Shirley Staples Carter, associate dean for diversity, equity, and inclusion at the University of South Carolina.
“People are beginning to see these [brand names as] stereotypes, these emblems of slavery and Black oppression that’s been part of the cause of systemic racism that would lead to police brutality, treating people like they’re not human,” Carter told Vox. “George Floyd’s death did that for many people — it resonated.”
DeLaney suggested that the movement’s ability to capture such a wide set of eyes, however, is thanks to another big phenomenon in 2020.
“What is different about this conversation [about race] is, I think, not so much Black Lives Matter, but it’s largely a result of what’s been going on in the US in the last few weeks ... the pandemic,” said DeLaney. “One of the things that has happened is that people have been sheltered at home to a large extent. ... As a result, you are seeing things that you might not have seen, had you not been hunkered down at home.”
In 2020, the coronavirus pandemic and Black Lives Matter have given the owners of stereotypical brand names less cover to hide behind.
In response, brands, bands, sports teams, and more appeared to be instituting long-sought changes to their products as damage control — namely, out of fear of the economic effects a consumer revolt could have if they’re canceled before they’ve had a chance to address the wrongs. The Redskins make a compelling case for this interpretation: Snyder’s decision to even consider changing the name came after FedEx, Nike, and PepsiCo threatened to pull their sponsorships, with each asking the franchise to rename itself, and minority owners reportedly looking to sell their stakes.
But it feels disheartening and cynical to call the actions of such companies wholly preemptive or fearful, Carter said. He echoed Katyal’s contention that brands are going through the same sort of racial awakening as consumers.
“I think it’s more than just reactive,” he said. “I think it’s the beginning of some real changes.”
The real changes that Black Lives Matter and its supporters seek, however, are social, economic, and political — wide-ranging systemic shake-ups to permanently rework the system that allowed such names to be marketable in the first place.
“We can begin with retitling Aunt Jemima and Uncle Ben and renaming buildings and removing Confederate statues, all these emblems of slavery and oppression, but we also need to deal with the larger and more difficult issue,” said Carter. “The systemic racism that needs to change in our society.”
But branding, like all media, wields an important power in culture. Media is where many people see their identity reflected back at them. Regardless of whether they like football or pancakes or country music, people can be deeply affected by the messages those products implicitly or explicitly send.
“Someone asked me, ‘Do you really think it’s racist?’” Carter said of Aunt Jemima, which was inspired by a tune called “Old Aunt Jemima,” composed by Black comedian and performer Billy Kersands and later popularized as a minstrel song. “And it has to do with its origin, of course. It has that very racist origin, and the fact that it’s so stereotypical of how people perceive the role of Black women in society, I think [the name change] is important, and it will be impactful.”
It can be traumatizing for people of color to encounter brands that perpetuate prejudices against them, Katyal said. Indeed, studies have shown that experiencing racism and discrimination can negatively affect one’s mental health. But acknowledging and then removing these racist images can be empowering and inspiring, no matter how minor that image may seem to the wider public.
“The sheer emotion that happens for people who are people of color when they see these symbols being taken down is a recognition that these individuals are being seen,” Katyal said. “I totally get why one would be cynical about that, but I also think that it’s so important for young people to have that feeling that our movement made these changes happen.”
Katyal has a much simpler retort to the naysayers who find these changes insubstantial or irrelevant. “It’s so much easier to retire an image or change a brand than it is to dismantle the very structures of economic and political injustice,” she said.
But it’s definitely a start.
Allegra Frank is an associate culture editor at Vox. She covers music, the internet, and video games.
Correction: A previous version of this story incorrectly stated that Washington and Lee University trustees announced they would remove the reference to Robert E. Lee in the university name. Faculty members voted to do so; trustees are reviewing the name.


vox--2020-07-09--Why Facebook failed its civil rights audit

On Wednesday , after two years of work , the social media giant finally released the results of its independent audit , a wide-ranging report on the state of civil rights on Facebook , from hate speech to advertising to algorithmic bias .
The auditors found that the company simply hasn ’ t done enough to combat hate and abuse on its platform .
Following up on two previous updates in December 2018 and June 2019 , the audit concludes that the company ’ s handling of civil rights issues is “ too reactive and piecemeal , ” and ultimately @ @ @ @ @ @ @ committed to addressing its myriad problems .
That ’ s especially concerning given that the November 2020 election is just months away .
Former ACLU director Laura W. Murphy , who led the report along with civil rights attorney Megan Cacace , compared Facebook ’ s work to climbing Mount Everest .
She noted that though the social media company had made some progress , Facebook still hadn ’ t invested enough resources or moved quickly enough to address its many civil rights challenges , creating “ legitimate questions about Facebook ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The audit , which was commissioned by Facebook at the urging of civil rights leaders and politicians , comes amid a growing advertiser boycott of the platform called Stop Hate for Profit , which is led by civil rights groups including the NAACP , the Anti-Defamation League , and Color of Change , none of which seem to have any plans to halt their campaign .
More than 1,000 companies have now signed on , despite CEO Mark Zuckerberg dismissing its impact .
For these leaders of the boycott , who have long @ @ @ @ @ @ @ findings of the audit confirm much of what they ’ ve previously said about the company : that it isn ’ t taking issues around hate speech , bias , polarization , and diversity seriously enough .
“ Ridding the platform of hate and misinformation against Black people only became a priority when there was a PR crisis to endure , ” said Rashad Robinson , the president of Color of Change , who hinted that Congress may have a role in protecting civil rights on the ever-embattled platform .
The report is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reputation , but it isn ’ t binding .
Facebook can choose to implement the recommendations in the report or to dismiss them — which is what some advocates like Robinson fear .
In a blog post announcing the report ’ s release on Wednesday , Facebook COO Sheryl Sandberg said that the company “ won ’ t make every change they [ auditors ] call for , ” but that it “ will put more of their proposals into practice.
” Regardless of what the company ends up doing , the audit @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s long-standing struggle to reconcile its stated values around free speech with the history of harm caused by unchecked vitriol and discrimination on its platform .
With that overarching theme in mind , here are five key takeaways about Facebook and civil rights from the 89-page report .
Facebook has failed to penalize Trump for violating its community guidelines , the auditors say , which stands “ to gut policies ” that had represented progress for civil rights on the platform .
The report specifically highlights a group of Trump ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and the president ’ s infamous “ looting … shooting ” post about protesters .
Echoing previous concerns from civil rights groups , the auditors say these posts clearly violate Facebook ’ s community guidelines and that not removing them establishes a concerning precedent for Trump and other politicians .
The voting-related posts by Trump referenced in the report include false claims about mail-in ballots in California , Michigan , and Nevada .
Facebook ultimately decided that these posts did not violate its guidelines , arguing in the case of Michigan and Nevada @ @ @ @ @ @ @ merely “ challenging the legality of officials.
” The auditors explain that they “ vehemently expressed ” their view that the posts violated policy but were “ not afforded an opportunity to speak directly to decision-makers ” until after the final decision was made .
Facebook ’ s decisions , they said , constitute a “ tremendous setback for all of the policies that attempt to ban voter suppression on Facebook.
” Trump ’ s “ looting ... shooting ” post represents a similar pattern of self-justified inaction .
In that post , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Black Lives Matter protesters , using language that echoed Civil Rights-era white segregationists .
Though Facebook executives called the White House requesting that Trump change or delete the post , the company ultimately did nothing about it .
By contrast , Twitter chose to label an identical post by President Trump on its platform for violating its rules about glorifying violence .
Facebook defended its decision by arguing that threats of state action are allowed on the platform .
The auditors say that logic ignored “ how such statements , especially when made @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an identifiable , minority community , condone vigilantism and legitimize violence against that community.
“ They added , “ Random shooting is not a legitimate state use of force.
” Again , the auditors say they were not included in the decision-making process in time .
Facebook ’ s decision about the “ looting … shooting ” post , which Mark Zuckerberg later defended on a call with employees , prompted criticism from company executives and a virtual employee walkout .
It was one of the incidents that inspired the Stop Hate for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ announced it will label posts that violate its community guidelines but are left up because they ’ re deemed newsworthy ( and if their public interest value eclipses the harm they cause ) , but that doesn ’ t seem to happen very often .
The audit revealed that over the last year , the company only applied the newsworthy exception to politicians 15 times , and only once in the United States , and it was not immediately clear what those instances were .
Meanwhile , the company still hasn ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ past posts , and the auditors concluded that for many civil rights advocates , “ the damage has already been done.
” Even if Facebook has policies supporting civil rights , the auditors concluded , the refusal to enforce them against Trump has eroded trust in the company and leaves room for other politicians to follow in Trump ’ s footsteps .
2 ) Valuing free speech above all else creates problems While Facebook ’ s leadership has repeatedly emphasized the company ’ s commitment to free expression , the auditors found that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ systematically chooses to prioritize the speech of politicians over clamping down on harmful and hateful rhetoric , which hurts its users overall .
Several times in the report , the auditors cite Mark Zuckerberg ’ s 2019 speech at Georgetown as a “ turning point , ” where Facebook doubled down on its commitment to free expression as “ a governing principle of the platform.
” Facebook ’ s choice not to fact-check politicians — and to allow them to sometimes break Facebook ’ s own rules against posting harmful content because what @ @ @ @ @ @ @ represents another problem .
Both steps have significantly hurt the company ’ s civil rights efforts , the auditors said .
Allowing politicians to spread misinformation about voting , which Mark Zuckerberg in his Georgetown speech argued was a form of free expression , particularly undermines Facebook ’ s commitment to its own values .
The auditors said they found Facebook ’ s prioritization of free speech over other values , like non-discrimination and equality , “ deeply troubling.
” The auditors said they found Facebook ’ s prioritization of free speech over @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , “ deeply troubling ” By forming exemptions for politicians ’ content , they argue , a “ hierarchy of speech is created that privileges certain voices over less powerful voices.
” The report , however , acknowledges that Facebook is failing to address the tension between its civil rights promises and its monolithic commitment to free expression .
Instead , the company should work to develop a more comprehensive understanding of free speech that acknowledges how typical users actually experience the platform .
“ For a 21st century American corporation , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that has so much influence over our daily lives , the lack of clarity about the relationship between those two values is devastating , ” lead auditor Laura W. Murphy wrote in the report ’ s introduction .
“ It will require hard balancing , but that kind of balancing of rights and interests has been part of the American dialogue since its founding and there is no reason that Facebook can not harmonize those values , if it really wants to do so.
” 3 ) Hate speech is still a problem @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t know how bad it really is Facebook has long struggled with hateful and violent speech on its platform , including from white nationalists streaming talk shows on Facebook Watch and members of the “ boogaloo movement ” that promote anti-government ideology and has instigated violence at recent racial justice protests .
Facebook ’ s audit highlights that the company has a long way to go in combating hate speech , particularly around white nationalism .
Despite improvements Facebook has made some progress : It says it ’ s gotten better at identifying @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a team of 350 people who work exclusively on combating dangerous groups on Facebook .
But the auditors say hateful content often stays on the platform for longer than it should or doesn ’ t get removed in the first place .
This is an “ especially acute ” problem with content targeting African Americans , Jews , and Muslims , according to the audit .
For example , the auditors asked Facebook to ban all content that promotes white nationalist or white separatist ideology , something Facebook has so far failed to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ phrases like “ white nationalism ” or “ white separatism , ” but that simplistic approach still allows racist content to continue to spread on the platform , the auditors said .
The audit also criticized Facebook for not taking down hateful events fast enough .
The report highlights how in 2019 , it took Facebook over 24 hours to remove an event intended to physically intimidate attendees at the Islamic Society of North America ’ s annual meeting in Houston , Texas .
Facebook has acknowledged its misstep with that incident , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fundamentally revise its review process to expedite the removal of such events .
Properly moderating events , the report says , is essential “ to ensure that people can not use Facebook to organize calls to arms to harm or intimidate specific groups ” during the current nationwide protests .
One thing complicating Facebook ’ s hate speech problem is the fact that there ’ s not enough hard data to know how bad it is or how it impacts different groups .
The report says “ the absence of data for analysis @ @ @ @ @ @ @ document and define the problem , identify its source , and explore potential mitigation.
” While the audit focused on issues of hate speech , it also touched on a related and even more complex issue that has dogged Facebook for years : whether or not its platform politically polarizes its users and how this might be connected to the hate speech that spreads on Facebook .
A recent Wall Street Journal report found that Facebook ’ s leadership shut down efforts to make the site less divisive by shelving internal research on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and Zuckerberg in particular , have denied these claims and criticized the Journal ’ s reporting .
Zuckerberg has vehemently disputed the notion that Facebook is polarizing its users , arguing that on the whole the platform brings people together .
The auditors questioned that conclusion , saying they “ do not believe that Facebook is sufficiently attuned to the depth of concern on the issue of polarization and the way that the algorithms used by Facebook inadvertently fuel extreme and polarizing content.
” Under public pressure after the 2016 election , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ algorithm so that it promotes posts from friends and family over news articles .
Still , the auditors believe this wasn ’ t sufficient action and that “ Facebook should do everything in its power to prevent its tools and algorithms from driving people toward self-reinforcing echo chambers of extremism , and that the company must recognize that failure to do so can have dangerous ( and life-threatening ) real-world consequences.
” Facebook can do this , the auditors say , not just by removing hateful content but also redirecting users “ away @ @ @ @ @ @ @ organizations ” in the types of recommendations it makes .
4 ) Covid-19 showed Facebook can effectively police harmful content when it wants to The Covid-19 pandemic raised the stakes for how the company handles harmful content .
Notably , in response to the pandemic , Facebook began to aggressively take down misinformation related to Covid-19 , removing hundreds of thousands of false posts that Facebook identified as having the potential to cause imminent physical harm .
This new approach contrasts starkly with how the company combats other types of misinformation , which @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on .
The report says that “ Facebook has no qualms about reining in speech by the proponents of the anti-vaccination movement , or limiting misinformation about COVID-19 , but when it comes to voting , Facebook has been far too reluctant to adopt strong rules to limit misinformation and voter suppression.
” Moderating pandemic-related content is also getting more complicated for the platform : As Recode ’ s Peter Kafka explained in late May , the discussion around Covid-19 has evolved from a public health concern into a rancorous and partisan political @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reopening plans , and the politics of wearing ( or not wearing ) masks .
The report notes the majority of the 100,000 pieces of content between March and May taken down for violating its voter inference policies were related to Covid-19 .
5 ) The person Facebook hires to be its new civil rights executive needs real decision-making power For years , civil rights leaders have pressured Facebook to create a role that would ensure that the company is thinking about whether its products and policies are treating people fairly .
With @ @ @ @ @ @ @ announced that it is creating a senior vice president on civil rights leadership role .
But auditors say that isn ’ t enough .
They want Facebook to create a “ civil rights infrastructure.
” The audit recommends that the new vice president of civil rights should manage a team rather than work in a standalone position ; they should have a mandatory say in key “ decisions with civil rights implications , ” such as whether or not to remove controversial posts from a politician .
The auditors specifically said that the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ must be ‘ in the room ’ ( meaning in direct dialogue with decision-makers ) when decisions are being made and have direct conversations with leadership.
” Fewer than 10 people weighed in on Zuckerberg ’ s controversial final decision not to take down Trump ’ s post referencing “ shooting ” at protests , according to a transcript of an internal Facebook all-hands meeting Recode reported on in June .
Of the people Zuckerberg cited in the meeting , only one was Black , and none had roles dedicated exclusively to civil @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Rashad Robertson , the president of Color of Change , said the newly announced position was “ an important step ” but added that “ their office needs to be provided with full resources to be effective.
” “ Without this , there is no reason to believe that Facebook will prioritize civil rights protections moving forward , ” Robertson said .
“ All we can count on is Zuckerberg pontificating about free expression , while giving a free pass to politicians to lie , sow discord , and thrive off of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rights leaders who have been waiting on the results of this report for two years , the big question is what comes next .
Will Facebook enact the many changes in this audit it has said it ’ s “ considering ” or “ piloting ” ?
Facebook COO Sheryl Sandberg , in her blog post announcing the audit ’ s release on Wednesday , called it the “ beginning of the journey — not the end ” for Facebook ’ s handling of hate speech and related issues .
But some civil @ @ @ @ @ @ @ according to the audit , some are considering stopping their work with Facebook altogether .
This is an alarming sign , considering how close the November election is .
“ I ’ m not looking only for what the audit recommends , but what Facebook is going to do about it , ” Jessica Gonzáles , president of civil rights organization Free Press , which has been one of the organizations leading an advertising boycott of Facebook , told Recode .
“ I know that we can ’ t snap our fingers and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ day , but [ Facebook has ] been way too lethargic about this ” Advertisers are continuing to sign on to the boycott , with around 125 new ones signing up so far this week alone , Gonzáles told Recode on Wednesday .
Congress is also likely to press Facebook on these issues at an upcoming congressional hearing on antitrust issues in July , during which Zuckerberg and other major tech executives are set to testify .
“ I know that we can ’ t snap our fingers and transform a social media @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Facebook has ] been way too lethargic about this , ” said Gonzáles .
“ The actions don ’ t meet the words.
” Every day at Vox , we aim to answer your most important questions and provide you , and our audience around the world , with information that has the power to save lives .
Our mission has never been more vital than it is in this moment : to empower you through understanding .
Vox ’ s work is reaching more people than ever , but our distinctive brand @ @ @ @ @ @ @ during a pandemic and an economic downturn .
Your financial contribution will not constitute a donation , but it will enable our staff to continue to offer free articles , videos , and podcasts at the quality and volume that this moment requires .
Please consider making a contribution to Vox today .

Facebook has failed on civil rights.
On Wednesday, after two years of work, the social media giant finally released the results of its independent audit, a wide-ranging report on the state of civil rights on Facebook, from hate speech to advertising to algorithmic bias. The auditors found that the company simply hasn’t done enough to combat hate and abuse on its platform.
Following up on two previous updates in December 2018 and June 2019, the audit concludes that the company’s handling of civil rights issues is “too reactive and piecemeal,” and ultimately raises doubts about whether Facebook is actually committed to addressing its myriad problems.
That’s especially concerning given that the November 2020 election is just months away.
Former ACLU director Laura W. Murphy, who led the report along with civil rights attorney Megan Cacace, compared Facebook’s work to climbing Mount Everest. She noted that though the social media company had made some progress, Facebook still hadn’t invested enough resources or moved quickly enough to address its many civil rights challenges, creating “legitimate questions about Facebook’s full-throated commitment to reaching the summit.”
The audit, which was commissioned by Facebook at the urging of civil rights leaders and politicians, comes amid a growing advertiser boycott of the platform called Stop Hate for Profit, which is led by civil rights groups including the NAACP, the Anti-Defamation League, and Color of Change, none of which seem to have any plans to halt their campaign. More than 1,000 companies have now signed on, despite CEO Mark Zuckerberg dismissing its impact.
For these leaders of the boycott, who have long tried to work alongside Facebook, the findings of the audit confirm much of what they’ve previously said about the company: that it isn’t taking issues around hate speech, bias, polarization, and diversity seriously enough.
“Ridding the platform of hate and misinformation against Black people only became a priority when there was a PR crisis to endure,” said Rashad Robinson, the president of Color of Change, who hinted that Congress may have a role in protecting civil rights on the ever-embattled platform.
The report is an important one for Facebook’s reputation, but it isn’t binding. Facebook can choose to implement the recommendations in the report or to dismiss them — which is what some advocates like Robinson fear. In a blog post announcing the report’s release on Wednesday, Facebook COO Sheryl Sandberg said that the company “won’t make every change they [auditors] call for,” but that it “will put more of their proposals into practice.”
Regardless of what the company ends up doing, the audit serves as a thorough examination of Facebook’s longstanding struggle to reconcile its stated values around free speech with the history of harm caused by unchecked vitriol and discrimination on its platform. With that overarching theme in mind, here are five key takeaways about Facebook and civil rights from the 89-page report.
1) Holding Trump to a different standard sets a troubling precedent
Facebook has failed to penalize Trump for violating its community guidelines, the auditors say, which stands “to gut policies” that had represented progress for civil rights on the platform. The report specifically highlights a group of Trump’s posts that made misleading claims about voting and the president’s infamous “looting … shooting” post about protesters. Echoing previous concerns from civil rights groups, the auditors say these posts clearly violate Facebook’s community guidelines and that not removing them establishes a concerning precedent for Trump and other politicians.
The voting-related posts by Trump referenced in the report include false claims about mail-in ballots in California, Michigan, and Nevada. Facebook ultimately decided that these posts did not violate its guidelines, arguing in the case of Michigan and Nevada that the language in the posts was merely “challenging the legality of officials.” The auditors explain that they “vehemently expressed” their view that the posts violated policy but were “not afforded an opportunity to speak directly to decision-makers” until after the final decision was made.
Facebook’s decisions, they said, constitute a “tremendous setback for all of the policies that attempt to ban voter suppression on Facebook.”
Trump’s “looting ... shooting” post represents a similar pattern of self-justified inaction. In that post, the president appeared to threaten violence against Black Lives Matter protesters, using language that echoed civil rights-era white segregationists. Though Facebook executives called the White House requesting that Trump change or delete the post, the company ultimately did nothing about it. By contrast, Twitter chose to label an identical post by President Trump on its platform for violating its rules about glorifying violence.
Facebook defended its decision by arguing that threats of state action are allowed on the platform. The auditors say that logic ignored “how such statements, especially when made by those in power and targeted toward an identifiable, minority community, condone vigilantism and legitimize violence against that community.“ They added, “Random shooting is not a legitimate state use of force.” Again, the auditors say they were not included in the decision-making process in time. Facebook’s decision about the “looting … shooting” post, which Mark Zuckerberg later defended on a call with employees, prompted criticism from company executives and a virtual employee walkout. It was one of the incidents that inspired the Stop Hate for Profit boycott.
In June, Facebook announced it will label posts that violate its community guidelines but are left up because they’re deemed newsworthy (and if their public interest value eclipses the harm they cause), but that doesn’t seem to happen very often. The audit revealed that over the past year, the company only applied the newsworthy exception to politicians 15 times, and only once in the United States, and it was not immediately clear what those instances were.
Meanwhile, the company still hasn’t taken any action against Trump’s past posts, and the auditors concluded that for many civil rights advocates, “the damage has already been done.” Even if Facebook has policies supporting civil rights, the auditors concluded, the refusal to enforce them against Trump has eroded trust in the company and leaves room for other politicians to follow in Trump’s footsteps.
2) Valuing free speech above all else creates problems
While Facebook’s leadership has repeatedly emphasized the company’s commitment to free expression, the auditors found that this comes at a cost. Facebook systematically chooses to prioritize the speech of politicians over clamping down on harmful and hateful rhetoric, which hurts its users overall. Several times in the report, the auditors cite Zuckerberg’s 2019 speech at Georgetown as a “turning point,” where Facebook reiterated its commitment to free expression as “a governing principle of the platform.”
Facebook’s choice not to fact-check politicians — and to allow them to sometimes break Facebook’s own rules against posting harmful content because what politicians say is inherently newsworthy — represents another problem. Both steps have significantly hurt the company’s civil rights efforts, the auditors said. Allowing politicians to spread misinformation about voting, which Zuckerberg in his Georgetown speech argued was a form of free expression, particularly undermines Facebook’s commitment to its values. The auditors said they found Facebook’s prioritization of free speech over other values, like nondiscrimination and equality, “deeply troubling.”
The auditors said they found Facebook’s prioritization of free speech over other values, like nondiscrimination and equality, “deeply troubling”
By forming exemptions for politicians’ content, they argue, a “hierarchy of speech is created that privileges certain voices over less powerful voices.”
The report, however, acknowledges that Facebook is failing to address the tension between its civil rights promises and its monolithic commitment to free expression. Instead, the company should work to develop a more comprehensive understanding of free speech that acknowledges how typical users actually experience the platform.
“For a 21st century American corporation, and for Facebook, a social media company that has so much influence over our daily lives, the lack of clarity about the relationship between those two values is devastating,” lead auditor Laura W. Murphy wrote in the report’s introduction. “It will require hard balancing, but that kind of balancing of rights and interests has been part of the American dialogue since its founding and there is no reason that Facebook cannot harmonize those values, if it really wants to do so.”
3) Hate speech is still a problem for Facebook, and we don’t know how bad it really is
Facebook has long struggled with hateful and violent speech on its platform, including from white nationalists streaming talk shows on Facebook Watch and members of the “boogaloo movement” that promote anti-government ideology and has instigated violence at recent racial justice protests.
Facebook’s audit highlights that the company has a long way to go in combating hate speech, particularly around white nationalism. Facebook has made some progress: It says it’s gotten better at identifying hate speech, and it now has a team of 350 people who work exclusively on combating dangerous groups on Facebook. But the auditors say hateful content often stays on the platform for longer than it should or doesn’t get removed in the first place. This is an “especially acute” problem with content targeting African Americans, Jews, and Muslims, according to the audit.
For example, the auditors asked Facebook to ban all content that promotes white nationalist or white separatist ideology, something it has so far failed to do. The company has explicitly banned phrases like “white nationalism” or “white separatism,” but that simplistic approach still allows racist content to continue to spread on the platform, the auditors said.
The audit also criticized Facebook for not taking down hateful events fast enough. The report highlights how in 2019, it took Facebook more than 24 hours to remove an event intended to physically intimidate attendees at the Islamic Society of North America’s annual meeting in Houston, Texas. Facebook has acknowledged its misstep with that incident, but auditors called for the company to fundamentally revise its review process to expedite the removal of such events. Properly moderating events, the report says, is essential “to ensure that people cannot use Facebook to organize calls to arms to harm or intimidate specific groups” during the current nationwide protests.
One thing complicating Facebook’s hate speech problem is the fact that there’s not enough hard data to know how bad it is or how it impacts different groups. The report says “the absence of data for analysis and study seems to undercut efforts to document and define the problem, identify its source, and explore potential mitigation.”
While the audit focused on issues of hate speech, it also touched on a related and even more complex issue that has dogged Facebook for years: whether its platform politically polarizes its users and how this might be connected to the hate speech that spreads on Facebook. A recent Wall Street Journal report found that Facebook’s leadership shut down efforts to make the site less divisive by shelving internal research on whether social media increases polarization. Facebook, and Zuckerberg in particular, has denied these claims and criticized the Journal’s reporting.
Zuckerberg has vehemently disputed the notion that Facebook is polarizing its users, arguing that on the whole the platform brings people together. The auditors questioned that conclusion, saying they “do not believe that Facebook is sufficiently attuned to the depth of concern on the issue of polarization and the way that the algorithms used by Facebook inadvertently fuel extreme and polarizing content.”
Under public pressure after the 2016 election, Facebook adjusted its News Feed’s algorithm so that it promotes posts from friends and family over news articles. Still, the auditors believe this wasn’t sufficient action and that “Facebook should do everything in its power to prevent its tools and algorithms from driving people toward self-reinforcing echo chambers of extremism, and that the company must recognize that failure to do so can have dangerous (and life-threatening) real-world consequences.”
Facebook can do this, the auditors say, not just by removing hateful content but also by redirecting users “away from (rather than toward) extremist organizations” in the types of recommendations it makes.
4) Covid-19 showed Facebook can effectively police harmful content when it wants to
The Covid-19 pandemic raised the stakes for how the company handles harmful content. Notably, in response to the pandemic, Facebook began to aggressively take down misinformation related to Covid-19, removing hundreds of thousands of false posts that Facebook identified as having the potential to cause imminent physical harm.
This new approach contrasts starkly with how the company combats other types of misinformation, which Facebook has historically chosen not to act on. The report says that “Facebook has no qualms about reining in speech by the proponents of the anti-vaccination movement, or limiting misinformation about COVID-19, but when it comes to voting, Facebook has been far too reluctant to adopt strong rules to limit misinformation and voter suppression.”
Moderating pandemic-related content is also getting more complicated for the platform: As Recode’s Peter Kafka explained in late May, the discussion around Covid-19 has evolved from a public health concern into a rancorous and partisan political debate that encompasses voting rights, state reopening plans, and the politics of wearing (or not wearing) masks. The report notes the majority of the 100,000 pieces of content between March and May taken down for violating its voter inference policies were related to Covid-19.
5) The person Facebook hires to be its new civil rights executive needs real decision-making power
For years, civil rights leaders have pressured Facebook to create a role that would ensure that the company is thinking about whether its products and policies are treating people fairly. With the publication of this report, Facebook announced that it is creating a senior vice president on civil rights leadership role. But auditors say that isn’t enough. They want Facebook to create a “civil rights infrastructure.”
The audit recommends that the new vice president of civil rights should manage a team rather than work in a standalone position; they should have a mandatory say in key “decisions with civil rights implications,” such as whether or not to remove controversial posts from a politician. The auditors specifically said the new vice president of civil rights “must be ‘in the room’ (meaning in direct dialogue with decision-makers) when decisions are being made and have direct conversations with leadership.”
Fewer than 10 people weighed in on Zuckerberg’s controversial final decision not to take down Trump’s post referencing “shooting” at protests, according to a transcript of an internal Facebook all-hands meeting Recode reported on in June. Of the people Zuckerberg cited in the meeting, only one was Black, and none had roles dedicated exclusively to civil rights.
In a statement to Recode, Rashad Robinson, the president of Color of Change, said the newly announced position was “an important step” but added that “their office needs to be provided with full resources to be effective.”
“Without this, there is no reason to believe that Facebook will prioritize civil rights protections moving forward,” Robinson said. “All we can count on is Zuckerberg pontificating about free expression, while giving a free pass to politicians to lie, sow discord, and thrive off of hate and political chaos.”
What’s next
For civil rights leaders who have been waiting on the results of this report for two years, the big question is what comes next. Will Facebook enact the many changes in this audit it has said it’s “considering” or “piloting”?
Facebook COO Sheryl Sandberg, in her blog post announcing the audit’s release on Wednesday, called it the “beginning of the journey — not the end” for Facebook’s handling of hate speech and related issues. But some civil rights organizations are losing patience, and according to the audit, some are considering stopping their work with Facebook altogether. This is an alarming sign, considering how close the November election is.
“I’m not looking only for what the audit recommends, but what Facebook is going to do about it,” Jessica González, president of the civil rights organization Free Press, which has been one of the organizations leading an advertising boycott of Facebook, told Recode.
“I know that we can’t snap our fingers and transform a social media network in a day, but [Facebook has] been way too lethargic about this”
Advertisers are continuing to sign on to the boycott, with around 125 new ones signing up so far this week alone, González told Recode on Wednesday. Congress is also likely to press Facebook on these issues at an upcoming congressional hearing on antitrust issues in July, during which Zuckerberg and other major tech executives are set to testify.
“I know that we can’t snap our fingers and transform a social media network in a day, but [Facebook has] been way too lethargic about this,” said González. “The actions don’t meet the words.”