Facebook has paid 140 publishers a total of $50 million to produce a guaranteed number of Facebook Live video posts, according to the Wall Street Journal.
Advertisement
This power became so much more apparent this week, when Diamond Reynolds, an African-American woman, live-streamed the shooting of her fiancé Philando Castile by a police officer.
There was a stream of baby bald eagles and a guy who went live while he got a haircut.
Apps like Periscope, Meerkat, Facebook Live and Stringwire have made broadcasting and watching live streams easy, compelling and fun. We can confirm it was streaming live on Facebook. Facebook Live has come of age as Poynter’s Al Tompkins, a veteran journalism educator, wrote on Friday. Live streaming technology has gained popularity over the last few years, as smartphones acquired better cameras and faster processors.
Facebook executives may have mixed emotions while reading something like that.
“These companies have done a reasonable job of being accountable to government requests, but not to their own private terms of services”, said Jillian York, director for global freedom of expression at the Electronic Frontier Foundation.
However, Facebook must tread carefully with live content, juggling users’ desire to share video with appropriate handling of disturbing content.
Live Video was introduced as a public feature in early April.
He also shared comments from Mark Zuckerberg from when Facebook first launched its live video offering around the world. While the images of Castile dying “are graphic and heartbreaking”, Zuckerberg wrote, such videos also “shine a light on the fear that millions of members of our community live with every day”.
“While I hope we never have to see another video like Diamond’s, it reminds us why coming together to build a more open and connected world is so important – and how far we still have to go”, he posted.
Although Facebook’s policies appear to be sound enough – there are no unbalanced restrictions, there is a team of live humans to monitor stuff and there is no stupid algorithm to mess things up – it really should ensure that the “Temporary Glitches” should be kept to a minimum.
It is not true to say that the Castile Facebook Live video caused the march that became a target for the Dallas snipers. Videos containing sensitive images will feature a warning message. “Are you sure you want to see this?” the label asks, requiring users to consent before viewing it.
The line is thin, and the instances of live graphic crime are becoming frequent.
Regarding videos that depict violence, Facebook notes that context is key in determining whether or not to remove a post. “This kind of real-time availability of information activated the movement”, said Michelle Gross, president of Communities United Against Police Brutality in Minneapolis.
If not, who’s in charge of halting the stream?
Finally, the company acknowledged that live video is still new territory as far as it is concerned and that it will continue to make improvements as it sees fit.
“We have a team on-call 24 hours a day, seven days a week, dedicated to responding to these reports immediately”, the spokesperson said.
Of course, an unexplained, previously unexperienced technical problem could have randomly removed a video that’s central to a national news story.
Several exchanges of gunfire can be heard in a Facebook Live video recorded by Michael Bautista.
In Wednesday night’s shooting in Falcon Heights, a suburb of St. Paul, the footage was taken offline for about an hour, leading to outrage on social media.
Advertisement
There are also deeper questions about what the access to instant live-streaming means for both producers and consumers of the videos. “We know it’s important to have a responsible approach”.
