Skip to main contentSkip to navigationSkip to navigation
Facebook interface
Facebook’s moderators have told the Guardian how difficult and confusing their job has become. Composite: Alamy
Facebook’s moderators have told the Guardian how difficult and confusing their job has become. Composite: Alamy

Has Facebook become a forum for misogyny and racism?

This article is more than 6 years old
and in San Francisco

Leaked guides for staff shine light on Facebook’s policies as critics say it needs to clean up its act

Facebook has been making all the wrong headlines in recent weeks. Last month, a Thai man livestreamed himself killing his 11-month-old daughter and then himself. In Cleveland, a 74-year-old man was killed by a stranger who streamed the shooting live on Facebook.

The site has been accused of becoming a playground for misogynists and racists – a forum for fake news, threats, crudity and bad taste.

Its users, who number nearly 2 billion, and its critics are asking: how did it come to this?

And how is Facebook trying to balance valid concerns about reducing harm with the public interest in a free flow of information?

Facebook has come under scrutiny for its approach to violent content. Photograph: Ritchie B Tongo/EPA

Some of the answers lie in Facebook’s “moderation” documents, which can be revealed by the Guardian. They detail what can and cannot exist on the site – and the scale of the challenge faced by moderators, who have spoken out about how difficult and confusing their job has become.

Nobody could have foreseen this. From a standing start in February 2004, the site set up by friends at Harvard University who wanted to connect with other students has grown to have a vast, global reach.

Facebook is the company whose bubble didn’t burst – it just grew. It is still growing. During this expansion, Facebook’s founder, Mark Zuckerberg, has tried to stick to the simple philosophy that underpinned the original idea. In a keynote address in February, Zuckerberg said Facebook, at its core, “stands for bringing us closer together and building a global community”.

In the leaked documents, the company makes clear it wants to do this by “fostering an environment where everyone can openly discuss issues and express their views, while respecting the rights of others.

“When millions of people get together to share things that are important to them, sometimes these discussions and posts include controversial topics and content. We believe this online dialogue mirrors the exchange of ideas and opinions that happens throughout people’s lives offline, in conversations at home, at work, in cafes and in classrooms.”

So far, so commendable. The vast majority of Facebook users would not dream of taking advantage of its open nature. But some do – terrorists and child abusers among them.

Commentators say the platform has morphed into one of the world’s biggest publishers and broadcasters. It has even been accused of unwittingly helping to swing the US presidential election with the proliferation of fake news.

Zuckerberg could not have imagined this 13 years ago, but it is a reality he has to deal with now. And he has to deal with it amid a clamour from critics in the media (some driven by commercial interests) and politicians, particularly in the US, Europe and the UK, who argue the status quo is unsustainable.

They want Facebook to clean up its act – and do not believe this can be done using its mostly self-policing strategy by which users report bad behaviour and moderators decide whether to keep or delete what is reported.

Part of Facebook’s guidelines for moderators. Photograph: Guardian

Facebook gives some details about the rules it expects users to abide by – but shouldn’t they know more about how community standards are interpreted by moderators?

Last year, Facebook temporarily suspended the accounts of many subscribers to the left-leaning Australian website New Matilda when its editor, Chris Graham, published a piece to mark International Women’s Day.

The piece was illustrated with a picture of two bare-breasted Indigenous Australian women. Facebook told Graham the image was unsuitable because of complaints. It said “some audiences within our global community may be sensitive to this type of content”.

However, files seen by the Guardian include examples of far more graphic images that are allowed – including one of a topless woman riding on a giant, erect penis. For some critics, the site has had long enough to sort itself out. They want it to be regulated like other mainstream media companies.

Last year, America’s National Newspaper Publishers Association – the largest African American-owned media resource in the US – demanded the network be regulated, and criticised the company for its lack of transparency. German and British politicians have said Facebook should be forced to pay fines when it fails to deal with some types of extreme content.

In the US, there have been many calls for the company to be more transparent about its moderation decisions.

Facebook insists it is essentially a tech, not a media, company. Yet the question remains: how can it be open to the masses, yet closed to those intent on abusing it? And how is that abuse defined?

Part of Facebook’s problem is wrapped up in its corporate personality.

Facebook insists it is committed to being open.

The Guardian's moderation policy

The Guardian's moderation approach is bound by guidelines, which we have published here, and our moderators are all directly employed by the Guardian and work within our editorial team. The moderation team regularly receives training on issues such as race, gender or religious issues, and applies that training in service of those public guidelines. When making decisions, our moderators consider the community standards, wider context and purpose of discussions, as well as their relationship to the article on which they appear. We post-moderate most discussions, and rely on a mixture of targeted reading, community reports and tools to identify comments that go against our standards. We have an appeals process and anyone wanting to discuss specific moderation decisions can email moderation@theguardian.com. When requested, reasons for removal may be shared with those affected by the decision. 

All discussions on the Guardian site relate to articles we have published; this means we have specific responsibilities as a publisher, and also that we aim to take responsibility for the conversations we host. We make decisions about where to open and close comments based on topic, reader interest, resources and other factors.

But in their report about online hate crime, British MPs noted that “social media companies are highly secretive about the number of staff and the level of resources that they devote to monitoring and removing inappropriate content”. The MPs decried this lack of transparency.

That is why these documents, published in an abridged form, are so important. For the first time, millions of Facebook users will have a chance to assess the rules. The Facebook Files are an insight into the company’s thinking – and the challenges faced by moderators.

Their concerns are significant. They say keeping the site free of extremist content is a “mission impossible” – and that Facebook cannot stop terrorists using it.

The pressure experienced by moderators has been reported before, but according to our sources little has changed. Staff come and go, burned out by regularly reviewing deeply upsetting material – from beheadings to animal abuse and cannibalism.

The British MPs noted that Facebook often deleted certain types of content when reacting to a media outcry. Videos of beheadings, a sexual assault on a child, and a man being stabbed were only removed when journalists asked about them – even though users had flagged the posts.

Facebook is reacting. It said it was using software to stop certain types of material – for example images of child sexual abuse and terrorism – hitting the site. It has said it is developing artificial intelligence to try to remove content more swiftly.

Mark Zuckerberg has conceded there is room for improvement. Photograph: Stephen Lam/Reuters

On top of this, it is hiring 3,000 more moderators. However, one of its executives, the head of policy Simon Milner, has conceded this may not be the solution. “There is not necessarily a linear relationship between the number of people you employ and the effectiveness of the work you do,” he said.

So it would appear Facebook is attempting to service the car on the move, as it gathers speed and without the necessary tools.

These files raise legitimate questions about the content Facebook does not tolerate, and the speed with which it deals with it. But just as importantly they raise questions about the material it does allow – which some people may consider cruel, insulting, offensive, sexist and racist.

Facebook executives accept there are “grey areas” – and Zuckerberg has conceded it “is a work in progress, and we are dedicated to learning and improving. We take our responsibility seriously … we must find a way to do more.”

The Facebook Files should enrich the debate about how this can best be achieved.

More on this story

More on this story

  • Facebook strategist rejects PM's claim over extremist material

  • How Facebook allows users to post footage of children being bullied

  • 'No grey areas': experts urge Facebook to change moderation policies

  • Facebook flooded with 'sextortion' and 'revenge porn', files reveal

  • Revealed: Facebook's internal rulebook on sex, terrorism and violence

  • How social media filter bubbles and algorithms influence the election

  • Facebook will let users livestream self-harm, leaked documents show

  • The Facebook Files: sex, violence and hate speech – video explainer

Most viewed

Most viewed