Advertisement

We need your help now

Support from readers like you keeps The Journal open.

You are visiting us because we have something you value. Independent, unbiased news that tells the truth. Advertising revenue goes some way to support our mission, but this year it has not been enough.

If you've seen value in our reporting, please contribute what you can, so we can continue to produce accurate and meaningful journalism. For everyone who needs it.

Niall Carson/PA Images

Leaked documents 'show Facebook's secret censorship rules'

The Guardian has published documents which claim to reveal what posts are and aren’t allowed on Facebook.

REPORTERS IN THE UK say they’ve gained access to Facebook’s rules that decide what is and isn’t allowed on the social media site.

Yesterday, the Guardian published slides and documents allegedly circulated to Facebook staff members which give guidance on what posts are allowed on the site.

The documents also give the reasons as to why employees should or shouldn’t delete posts that contain nudity, bullying, violence, hatred, terrorism, racism or mental health issues.

Some of the comments that aren’t permitted include:

  • “Someone shoot Trump” (because he’s a head of state)
  • “#Stab and become the fear of the Zionist”

While comments that are permitted include:

  • “Kick a person with red hair”
  • “Let’s beat up fat kids”
  • “Little girl needs to keep to herself before daddy breaks her face” (because it’s considered ‘not credible’)

According to the Guardian:

  • Imagery of animal abuse can be shared on the site in general
  • Facebook will allow users to livestream attempts to self-harm because it “doesn’t want to censor or punish people in distress who are attempting suicide”
  • Facebook had to assess over 50,000 potential cases of revenge porn and ‘sextortion’ on the site in January.

The social media giant has previously been criticised for its censorship of posts, in particular when it removed an iconic shot of a naked girl escaping a napalm bombing during the Vietnam War.

That incident among others raised questions about how the site determines what posts are allowed, but have up until now remained secret.

Monika Bickert, ‎Facebook’s head of global policy management, told the Guardian that Facebook had over two billion users and that it was difficult to decide what to allow.

“We have a really diverse global community and people are going to have very different ideas about what is ok to share. No matter where you draw the line there are always going to be some grey areas. For instance, the line between satire and humour and inappropriate content is sometimes very grey. It is very difficult to decide whether some things belong on the site or not,” she said.

But she maintained that Facebook did have a responsibility to keep their users safe: “It’s absolutely our responsibility to keep on top of it. It’s a company commitment.”

Last October, Facebook said that they would allow more graphic newsworthy posts to be shared on the social network if they were of ‘public interest’.

“We’re going to begin allowing more items that people find newsworthy, significant, or important to public interest – even if they might otherwise violate our standards,” Facebook vice presidents Joel Kaplan and Justin Osofsky said.

Read: Facebook apologises for another censorship slip, as it promises more graphic news

Read: Facebook does u-turn on censoring ‘napalm girl’ photo

Readers like you are keeping these stories free for everyone...
A mix of advertising and supporting contributions helps keep paywalls away from valuable information like this article. Over 5,000 readers like you have already stepped up and support us with a monthly payment or a once-off donation.

Close
26 Comments
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute in_zane_burger
    Favourite in_zane_burger
    Report
    Apr 2nd 2014, 3:06 PM

    Can I have my money back now

    32
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute padser123
    Favourite padser123
    Report
    Apr 2nd 2014, 3:33 PM

    It’s like’…..burning your furniture – to keep warm!

    23
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute Paul Roche
    Favourite Paul Roche
    Report
    Apr 2nd 2014, 4:52 PM

    Why are PwC saying this instead of IBRC and NAMA?

    11
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute Philip
    Favourite Philip
    Report
    Apr 2nd 2014, 5:20 PM

    As property prices start to rise nama , ibrc start to dump property

    Can someone explain why?

    9
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute Dara O'Brien
    Favourite Dara O'Brien
    Report
    Apr 2nd 2014, 5:56 PM

    Dumping loans philip, not property. They’re Dumping the loans as they’re non-performing and want to get them off the balance sheet.

    If they had the patience, they’d put arrangements in place to allow the properties to return to positive equity and then seek a sale, this recouping more of the tax payers money.

    Unfortunately, they’ll sell the loans for a discount and allow the new purchasers to do this and net a tidy profit.

    10
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute Garry Coll
    Favourite Garry Coll
    Report
    Apr 2nd 2014, 5:02 PM

    The article outlines that IBRC (IBROKE would probably be a better name) will offload € 15 billion in loans.
    Yet the linked article tells us that IBROKE have already offloaded 90% of its loanbook, € 19.8 billion out of € 21.7 billion leaving just € 1.9 billion on hand.
    This can only mean, if the previous article is correct, that it is NAMA that is offloading the majority of the loans.
    Why the subterfuge?
    Why make people think that this is some kind of joint enterprise when it is NAMA that is leading the charge?
    Have the shiny suit brigade from the canal something to hide?
    Given their obsession with secrecy it would not surprise me if they have, perhaps selling the loans to some preferred customer with an inside track at a serious discount.
    The way things go it will all be wrapped up before we know anything, plus ça change.

    9
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute Irish Revolution
    Favourite Irish Revolution
    Report
    Apr 2nd 2014, 2:58 PM

    Who in their right mind would buy this junk?

    3
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute Padraig McHale
    Favourite Padraig McHale
    Report
    Apr 2nd 2014, 3:01 PM

    It might only be worth 30% of face value but if you buy it for 20% it’s a good deal. For the buyer anyway.

    32
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute Tony
    Favourite Tony
    Report
    Apr 2nd 2014, 3:06 PM

    @ Irish Revolution

    The Banks?

    14
    See 1 more reply ▾
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute Deirdre McDonnell
    Favourite Deirdre McDonnell
    Report
    Apr 3rd 2014, 2:42 AM

    Hedge funds bought it. They will now sell off all the ghost estates etc at a lower price so people that have houses for sale at the min will eventually have to sell for half or take them off the market.
    Fab house here in drogheda asking price €325. Hilarious. You could now nearly get a house for that on raglan road or ailsbury road!! So that house is realistically worth less than €150 really.
    People and notions ha

    1
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute Vanessa Doyle
    Favourite Vanessa Doyle
    Report
    Apr 2nd 2014, 7:04 PM

    What about Bank of Scotland selling on my mortgage & others in their Irish portfolio to a company called Tanager Ltd.
    I’m in a tizzy all day because I don’t know what it means for us.

    3
Submit a report
Please help us understand how this comment violates our community guidelines.
Thank you for the feedback
Your feedback has been sent to our team for review.
JournalTv
News in 60 seconds