What constitutes "blatant hate speech"? (Score 1)

What constitutes "blatant hate speech" in Facebook's analysis? More importantly, is that really what this issue is really about? Note we have constitutional doctrine in the US on what defines hate speech (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_in_the_United_States), but this does not apply here because this is not before a court in the US, doesn't involve US persons, and is really more about how people generally feel about Facebook boosting propaganda that contributed to violence against the Rohingya. Cynthia Wong in the Social Dilemma cites Myanmar as an example of where Facebook led to "real offline harm" by giving "the military and other bad actors a new way to manipulate public opinion and incite violence against the Rohingya Muslims." The implication here is that Facebook was boosting the signal of propaganda because it increased engagement on the platform, thus serving their business model by ignoring the real life implications of that engagement. That's different than finding "blatant hate speech" in posts, which sounds like Facebook came up with an evaluation that skirted the perhaps more subtle speech, the frequency the posts were displayed and the correlation of those posts with violence. When Facebook puts out these piecemeal findings, it comes off as if they're trying to narrowly frame their findings so as to skirt the central issue and exonerate themselves in the court of public opinion.