\n
![\"facebook-censorship\"](\"https:\/\/stateofthenation2012.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/11\/facebook-censorship.jpg\")
<\/a>\nCarol Schaeffer
\nU.S. Uncut<\/p>\n
Facebook enabled \u2018safety check\u2019 after Paris attacks, but not after bombing in Beirut.<\/em><\/h3>\nFacebook has come under fire for selectively implementing its \u201csafety check\u201d feature for Paris, but not for other cities that have also been the target of bomb blasts. The feature was activated shortly after coordinated attacks across Paris late on Friday, which left 129 people dead and 352 wounded, 99 critically.<\/span><\/p>\nThe criticism has caused debate on social media platforms over the presumed value of Western lives over the lives of victims in the Middle East and other non-Western regions.<\/span><\/p>\nThe feature had previously been restricted for use during natural disasters, and was first activated following the Nepal earthquake in April. Unveiled in October, 2014, the feature works by using geolocation data to identify users in the area affected by a \u201cdisaster.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\nAccording to a Facebook statement<\/span><\/a> at the launch of Safety Check, the feature would be used in times of \u201cdisaster or crisis,\u201d but what exactly counts as disaster or crisis is up to the discretion of Facebook\u2019s \u201cSocial Good\u201d team<\/span><\/a>.<\/span><\/p>\nSocial media users took issue with the decision to include Paris but not other major cities that have suffered similar attacks, most notably in Beirut, where suicide bombers had killed at least 43 people just a day before the attacks in Paris.<\/p>\n
A widely-circulated post <\/span><\/a>by francophone Lebanese blogger Joey Ayoub criticized the disparity in reactions to the two attacks, arguing that the deaths in Beirut had not galvanized global support in the same way as Paris.<\/span><\/p>\n\u201cWe don\u2019t get a safe button on Facebook. \u2018We\u2019 don\u2019t get late night statements from the most powerful men and women alive and millions of online users,\u201d he says.<\/span><\/p>\nBoth<\/a><\/span> attacks<\/span><\/a> have been claimed by the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) group.<\/span><\/p>\nSome were not entirely convinced by the claims on social media, arguing that there are other factors at play in determining the value of the Facebook feature in Beirut versus Paris. In an interview with Al Jazeera<\/span><\/a>, journalist Doja Daoud argued that it can be \u201cpractical to a point,\u201d but that mobile connectivity in Lebanon can go out \u201cin the case of bombings, rain, explosions, protests.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\nIn a blog post<\/span><\/a> by Facebook\u2019s vice president of growth, Alex Schultz, the company responded to these criticisms. Safety Check was activated due to observing \u201ca lot of activity on Facebook as the events were unfolding.\u201d Schultz indicates that Beirut numbers among cities in \u201cother parts of the world, where violence is more common and terrible things happen with distressing frequency.\u201d \u00a0<\/span><\/p>\nSchultz notes that \u201cDuring an ongoing crisis, like war or epidemic, Safety Check in its current form is not that useful for people: because there isn\u2019t a clear start or end point and, unfortunately, it\u2019s impossible to know when someone is truly \u2018safe.’\u201d<\/span><\/p>\nIt is unclear whether the Lebanese city would be considered by Facebook as a candidate for Safety Check in light of Schultz\u2019 comments. Yet Beirut is widely recognized as being stable and calm in the region, and many feel that the bombings were equally terrifying<\/span><\/a>\u2013not just routine violence that occurs in \u201cother parts of the world\u201d as Schultz characterized.<\/span><\/p>\n
The criticism has caused debate on social media platforms over the presumed value of Western lives over the lives of victims in the Middle East and other non-Western regions.<\/span><\/p>\n The feature had previously been restricted for use during natural disasters, and was first activated following the Nepal earthquake in April. Unveiled in October, 2014, the feature works by using geolocation data to identify users in the area affected by a \u201cdisaster.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n According to a Facebook statement<\/span><\/a> at the launch of Safety Check, the feature would be used in times of \u201cdisaster or crisis,\u201d but what exactly counts as disaster or crisis is up to the discretion of Facebook\u2019s \u201cSocial Good\u201d team<\/span><\/a>.<\/span><\/p>\n Social media users took issue with the decision to include Paris but not other major cities that have suffered similar attacks, most notably in Beirut, where suicide bombers had killed at least 43 people just a day before the attacks in Paris.<\/p>\n A widely-circulated post <\/span><\/a>by francophone Lebanese blogger Joey Ayoub criticized the disparity in reactions to the two attacks, arguing that the deaths in Beirut had not galvanized global support in the same way as Paris.<\/span><\/p>\n \u201cWe don\u2019t get a safe button on Facebook. \u2018We\u2019 don\u2019t get late night statements from the most powerful men and women alive and millions of online users,\u201d he says.<\/span><\/p>\n Both<\/a><\/span> attacks<\/span><\/a> have been claimed by the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) group.<\/span><\/p>\n Some were not entirely convinced by the claims on social media, arguing that there are other factors at play in determining the value of the Facebook feature in Beirut versus Paris. In an interview with Al Jazeera<\/span><\/a>, journalist Doja Daoud argued that it can be \u201cpractical to a point,\u201d but that mobile connectivity in Lebanon can go out \u201cin the case of bombings, rain, explosions, protests.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n In a blog post<\/span><\/a> by Facebook\u2019s vice president of growth, Alex Schultz, the company responded to these criticisms. Safety Check was activated due to observing \u201ca lot of activity on Facebook as the events were unfolding.\u201d Schultz indicates that Beirut numbers among cities in \u201cother parts of the world, where violence is more common and terrible things happen with distressing frequency.\u201d \u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n Schultz notes that \u201cDuring an ongoing crisis, like war or epidemic, Safety Check in its current form is not that useful for people: because there isn\u2019t a clear start or end point and, unfortunately, it\u2019s impossible to know when someone is truly \u2018safe.’\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n It is unclear whether the Lebanese city would be considered by Facebook as a candidate for Safety Check in light of Schultz\u2019 comments. Yet Beirut is widely recognized as being stable and calm in the region, and many feel that the bombings were equally terrifying<\/span><\/a>\u2013not just routine violence that occurs in \u201cother parts of the world\u201d as Schultz characterized.<\/span><\/p>\n