Support NeoGAF

[Jackpot]

https://www.theguardian.com/news/20...book-internal-rulebook-sex-terrorism-violence

Facebook’s secret rules and guidelines for deciding what its 2 billion users can post on the site are revealed for the first time in a Guardian investigation that will fuel the global debate about the role and ethics of the social media giant.

The Guardian has seen more than 100 internal training manuals, spreadsheets and flowcharts that give unprecedented insight into the blueprints Facebook has used to moderate issues such as violence, hate speech, terrorism, pornography, racism and self-harm.

There are even guidelines on match-fixing and cannibalism.

The Facebook Files give the first view of the codes and rules formulated by the site, which is under huge political pressure in Europe and the US.

• Remarks such as “Someone shoot Trump” should be deleted, because as a head of state he is in a protected category. But it can be permissible to say: “To snap a bitch’s neck, make sure to apply all your pressure to the middle of her throat”, or “fuck off and die” because they are not regarded as credible threats.
  
• Videos of violent deaths, while marked as disturbing, do not always have to be deleted because they can help create awareness of issues such as mental illness.
  
• Some photos of non-sexual physical abuse and bullying of children do not have to be deleted or “actioned” unless there is a sadistic or celebratory element.
  
• Photos of animal abuse can be shared, with only extremely upsetting imagery to be marked as “disturbing”.
  
• All “handmade” art showing nudity and sexual activity is allowed but digitally made art showing sexual activity is not.
  
• Videos of abortions are allowed, as long as there is no nudity.
  
• Facebook will allow people to livestream attempts to self-harm because it “doesn’t want to censor or punish people in distress”.
  
• Anyone with more than 100,000 followers on a social media platform is designated as a public figure – which denies them the full protections given to private individuals.

https://www.theguardian.com/news/series/facebook-files
Individual rules and manuals^

It gives the impression of incredibly crude and basic rules that try to account for a million different contexts, as well as being very under-staffed with little support, and the whole moderation system motivated solely by the goal of placating external pressure threatening their bottom line. What you'd expect, really.

 

[Drifters]

*grabs popcorn* ohhhhh boy.....

 

[Juicy Bob]

So death-threats against certain political figures are not allowed, but death-threats against members of the general public are fair game?

 

[Alienous]

• Remarks such as ”Someone shoot Trump" should be deleted, because as a head of state he is in a protected category. But it can be permissible to say: ”To snap a bitch's neck, make sure to apply all your pressure to the middle of her throat", or ”fuck off and die" because they are not regarded as credible threats.

Hmm.

• Facebook will allow people to livestream attempts to self-harm because it ”doesn't want to censor or punish people in distress".

Hmm.

I'm a little lost for words.

 

[benicillin]

Hopefully this leads to some meaningful change on their website moderation,

lol just kidding Facebook will never change.

 

[Permanently A]

"Facebook will allow people to livestream attempts to self-harm because it “doesn’t want to censor or punish people in distress”."

????

 

[L Thammy]

How the fuck do you even come up with this stuff? Are their execs whose friends post pictures of them cannibalizing people and go "hey, we should probably have guidelines on this"

 

[Wamb0wneD]

So death-threats against certain political figures are not allowed, but death-threats against members of the general public are fair game?

As long you don't post a nipple while threatening someone, sure.

 

[Transhuman]

I think anyone who considers this crude underestimates the volume of material that has to be sifted through

 

[Breakage]

Damn, those rules are disturbing.

 

[Zach]

Yikes.

 

[Tacitus_]

But it can be permissible to say: “To snap a bitch’s neck, make sure to apply all your pressure to the middle of her throat”,

Yeah, how about no.

 

[HStallion]

What are there rules around Zuckerburg's future presidential bid?

 

[PeakPointMatrix]

"Facebook will allow people to livestream attempts to self-harm because it “doesn’t want to censor or punish people in distress”."

????

Well this one I actually get. Imagine if they took it down instantly, it would also take away any chances that someone notices and is able to stop them.

 

[Machina]

This is beyond fucked up.

 

[Killa Sasa]

So when Zuck or whoever gets to this, it'll be the "we know we can do better, and we will." *rocket raccoon wink*

Kind of incredible that their terrible moderation is still better than Twitter's. Every time I think of it in terms of net value, social media is ass.

 

[markofhavoc]

Are you fucking serious here, damn...

 

[DiipuSurotu]

 

[Alienous]

I think anyone who considers this crude underestimates the volume of material that has to be sifted through

But this wouldn't speed that process up. It means moderators have a scrutinize if a video of child-abuse is really worth deletion, rather than a swift response of "gone".

 

[fastmower]

This disturbed me greatly.

 

[StrangeRoboMemory]

All “handmade” art showing nudity and sexual activity is allowed but digitally made art showing sexual activity is not.

What's the rationale behind this?

In one of the leaked documents, Facebook acknowledges “people use violent language to express frustration online” and feel “safe to do so” on the site.

Wow.

 

[Stumpokapow]

This stuff is a no win. There is no set of rules that will work across all cultures, all age groups, and be easy to fairly apply by staffers with very different sets of personal values. There is no website that is large and has "solved" these kinds of moderation issues. Self-harm and suicidal ideation are especially impossible, there is literally never going to be a right answer on how to deal with them at scale.

 

[HStallion]

This stuff is a no win. There is no set of rules that will work across all cultures, all age groups, and be easy to fairly apply by staffers with very different sets of personal values. There is no website that is large and has "solved" these kinds of moderation issues. Self-harm and suicidal ideation are especially impossible, there is literally never going to be a right answer on how to deal with them at scale.

Hey if an AI can beat us in Go maybe it can manage our social media better. Or worse... or kill us all.

 

[Deadly Cyclone]

This stuff is a no win. There is no set of rules that will work across all cultures, all age groups, and be easy to fairly apply by staffers with very different sets of personal values. There is no website that is large and has "solved" these kinds of moderation issues. Self-harm and suicidal ideation are especially impossible, there is literally never going to be a right answer on how to deal with them at scale.

Basically this. Facebook gets raked over the coals for some of their moderation (as they should, for key issues) but there's never going to be a rule set that makes 100% sense and is fair to everyone.

 

[Earthbound64]

Anyone with more than 100,000 followers on a social media platform is designated as a public figure – which denies them the full protections given to private individuals.

Hilarious.

 

[Transhuman]

There is 1 moderator per 450,000 people

What's the rationale behind this?

Artists use paper, perverts use Photoshop.

 

[PeakPointMatrix]

I feel like leaving these up increases the chances that someone who cares can notice and alert the proper authorities. Deleting them won't hide the fact that they are still a person threatening violence to others. It's like deleting evidence.

 

[phaonaut]

What's the rationale behind this?

One is porn, one is art. There a huge gap between nudity and sex.

 

[Doctor_Thomas]

Being a private platform means they make up the rules as they go, so if they find "snap a bitch's neck" acceptable, then I can only assume the people running Facebook find the term acceptable.

 

[L Thammy]

I feel like I'm of two minds on the self-harm stuff, though, since people might not know a person's condition and realize they need to help out.

With threats, I feel like being strict is better. Even if there's no actual intent to cause physical harm, the threat itself may be intended as a weapon.

 

[justjohn]

You mean butter wouldn't melt in his mouth zuckerberg is actually really not that nice? I'm stunned

 

[Nazgul_Hunter]

What's the rationale behind this?.

Probably that digital art is more likely than not to be photorealistic whereas manual art is not. (Obvi exceptions for both, but in general)

Rather than draw a line on what is realistic or not, they did it by medium.

 

[Kinyou]

So death-threats against certain political figures are not allowed, but death-threats against members of the general public are fair game?

I think it's more about how direct the threat is. The "bitch" quote doesn't cite anyone particular.

 

[Phased]

Some of them are a little weird like the digital art thing, but most of this seems reasonable to me given how many users facebook has and the sheer volume of stuff they have to sift through.

I imagine the more you define something the amount of work required by your moderators increases exponentially.

 

[PopeReal]

I would think threats would be easy to moderate.

 

[MonorailCat]

tl:dr Version:

everyhting from violence, to abuse and threats is a-ok ... but everything with nudity is a strict no-no (except if you use crayons)

makes perfect sense

 

[Servbot24]

I feel like leaving these up increases the chances that someone who cares can notice and alert the proper authorities. Deleting them won't hide the fact that they are still a person threatening violence to others. It's like deleting evidence.

I have to agree. Deleting those comments doesn't help anyone, the person making the comments still exists.

 

[alfredofroylan]

All “handmade” art showing nudity and sexual activity is allowed but digitally made art showing sexual activity is not.

One of my friends posted this painting and got banned, so I doubt this one.

 

[Kill Your Masters]

There is 1 moderator per 450,000 people



Artists use paper, perverts use Photoshop.

That's a insanely low ratio.

 

[Vincent Alexander]

The only one in OP that stands out as being bizarre is the art one. What an odd distinction.

 

[Fades]

Wow.

Eh, it's impossible to create rules that govern all situations, but I kinda get the spirit behind that particular one? Like if someone said "I'm so angry at Sally for breaking my favourite mug I could just kill her!!", that could count as violent speech, but could be considered as hyperbolic and venting and not actually constituting a threat to Sally's life and be marked as passable. Of course, the possibility always remains that said person could actually end up killing Sally for breaking the mug, which is why everything should be dealt with on a case-by-case basis. Maybe they've made other seemingly hyperbolic but abusive statements towards Sally in the past that constitutes an actual pattern of anger and/or violence. Basically it's extremely difficult to have a set of rules that govern all instances, only guidelines, and since guidelines are up to personal interpretation, bad things can happen. Not to excuse them though; all that means is that they need to get their act together and come up with a cohesive strategy lest things spiral even further out of control.

 

[shoelacer]

"Videos of abortions are allowed, as long as there is no nudity."

America is a fuckin weird, weird place to live ya'll

 

[nhlducks35]

That's a insanely low ratio.

What

You realize that's over 4,000 people for all of Facebook, right? How many people do you expect them to hire...

 

[cackhyena]

How the fuck do you even come up with this stuff? Are their execs whose friends post pictures of them cannibalizing people and go "hey, we should probably have guidelines on this"

No potentials left behind!!!

 

[jackal27]

Hentai allowed on Facebook. You heard it here first.

(also I'm fairly certain this one is true because I had to unfriend somebody once for this)

 

[Dierce]

I despise Facebook and Twitter so much. These sites are 100% responsible for the cultivation of the alt-right and their bigotry. Contemporary social media has done way more harm to society than good and they must be held liable.

 

[Nepenthe]

.....

Why the distinction between digital and traditional art when it comes to nudity? Wat?

That follower limit for protection is also bullshit.

 

[Barzul]

What

You realize that's over 4,000 people for all of Facebook, right? How many people do you expect them to hire...

For moderation? I'd say quadruple that. No doubt Facebook has automated tools and algorithms that help but you still can't effectively replace the human eye so yeah that ratio is too low.

 

[Shadow Puppetry]

Remarks such as “Someone shoot Trump” should be deleted, because as a head of state he is in a protected category. But it can be permissible to say: “To snap a bitch’s neck, make sure to apply all your pressure to the middle of her throat”, or “fuck off and die” because they are not regarded as credible threats.

Oh, some Trump supporter wished someone would shoot and kill me for being a smart Mexican. That explains why Facebook deemed it appropriate.

Facebook will allow people to livestream attempts to self-harm because it “doesn’t want to censor or punish people in distress”.

Oh, okay.

 

[Fancolors]

'All “handmade” art showing nudity and sexual activity is allowed but digitally made art showing sexual activity is not.'

What? You mean if I want to post people fucking I just need to make it with my acrylics and not photoshop?