Why is Facebook accepting money to promote white supremacists in New Zealand?

OPINION: On an objective level, I think we could all agree white supremacy is not great.

That's not really much of an opinion; it certainly isn't a controversial one. 

So it continues to surprise me that companies such as Facebook and Twitter seem less than convinced with this argument. Their response since the Christchurch Call has been abysmal.

Basically, all I want them to do is stop spreading dangerous misinformation, stop promoting white supremacists, and stop live-streaming terrorist activity. These are pretty simple requests.

For instance, I would never shop at a mall plastered with xenophobic propaganda. I wouldn't buy my coffee from a barista who told everyone to stop vaccinating their kids. And I wouldn't watch a television channel that randomly played debunked conspiracies and terror attacks after comedy shows.

All we ask for is basic decency, and yet that seems like a hard task for these companies that are now just as powerful as many nation states.

Earlier in February, a white supremacist group based in New Zealand went on a PR drive to garner some attention. The group of thugs – or, as they like to be called, a "brotherhood of young European New Zealanders" – went and vandalised Nelson MP Nick Smith's office. 

White supremacists love putting posters up, partly because it exaggerates their importance. It is meant to scare us, making us question who in our community could be this crazy. In reality, this group in particular has just a few dozen followers scattered around the country.

They like to talk big – about their rights being eroded by immigration, and how white men make good husbands – but I suspect they know they're loners. This group and others have been trying hard in recent months to grow a bigger support base. They rely on social media, to connect with other young and disenfranchised white men.

Facebook has been a dim-witted accomplice in this quest  for relevance.

The social media giant accepted money from the group to promote its hateful messaging to New Zealand-based men aged 18 to 35. It advertised for them, even after claiming to "ban" white supremacy from its platform.

Being within that age bracket, I got this racist vitriol in the centre of my newsfeed shortly before I quit using Facebook this month.

I flagged the post to Facebook on February 12, but the advert and the page remained live for more than a week.

Facebook was publicised in the wake of the Christchurch terror attacks for promising to make changes. It said white supremacy and ethnic nationalism would be banned from the platform. Yet, almost a year later, I can't see what has changed.

The page and advert were not taken down until Friday, when I contacted Facebook's head of communications in Australia.

"Why was this accepted," I asked. Is Facebook worried about the continued presence of these far-Right movements on its platform? 

"Does Facebook stand by its decision to allow a 'white pride fraternity' to have its own page and pay for ads on the site?"

But her response acknowledged only that she had received my email. She refused to comment. No-one would be interviewed. The page then went offline.

Interestingly, the group remains active on Twitter, where it commented on the fact Facebook had finally booted it. 

"Honestly, it lasted a lot longer than expected. Our movement is a lot more than just some social media pages," the group said.

Twitter and Facebook have not lived up to their promises to curb extremism, despite lapping up photo opportunities with the likes of our prime minister. They have no excuse.

Facebook has annual revenue of more than $110 billion. It can afford to hire moderators and fact-checkers, but it doesn't appear to have any in New Zealand.

The company was praised for addressing the spread of fake news, by hiring dedicated third-party fact-checkers. But BuzzFeed News has recently claimed that Australia has 17 million Facebook users and seven fact-checkers.

Well, it's worse in New Zealand. We have more than 2.5m users and zero Facebook fact-checkers. This country isn't even listed on the page explaining the fact-checking process.

It seems they're taking their role as the world's biggest publisher very seriously.

Offline update

Regular readers will know I've decided to try and live like it's the year 2000. No social media, broadcast TV and radio etc. I said I'd report back on how it's going, and I'll be honest. It's not going well.

I logged on to Facebook to check information for this story, and saw dozens of missed notifications. People literally messaged me congratulating me for logging off. Social media has become so commonplace that it's second nature, often used without a moment's thought. To not use it, then, sometimes feels rather lonely – even though I think these companies are reprehensible.