People are not okay with the leaked Facebook guidelines on sexual, violent content
On Sunday, the Guardianrevealed internal documents from Facebook that uncovered how the social media corporation moderates everything from hate speech to live streams.
The guide—which is filled with examples of how to handle sexual content, animal abuse and violent deaths—has pried open the conversation regarding online ethics, and people have begun to hop on Twitter to share their immediate thoughts, many of which aren't so great for Facebook.
SEE ALSO: Secret Facebook documents reveal how site battles violent content
Folks have expressed their confusion about the subjective rules, and are questioning the logic behind particular parts of the guide.
These Facebook rules and guidelines are problematic. Threats against a head of state even if it sounds generic not okay.
— Montserrat Biedermann (@montserratlj) May 21, 2017
Massive leak of Facebook content moderation policies. Glad to see more transparency, a shame it wasn't voluntary. https://t.co/2tiXONPVgB
— Kevin Bankston (@KevinBankston) May 21, 2017
One section of the guidelines is particularly controversial. It specifies that "aspirational violence" like threatening to "beat up fat kids" is still okay, versus, say, writing "someone shoot Trump."
This is a rather disturbing slide from Facebook's moderation guide. Calls for violence against women, children, redheads: fine. Trump: nope. pic.twitter.com/F7sGEwDcJe
— Sarah Jamie Lewis (@SarahJamieLewis) May 21, 2017
...what in fucking hell, these are ALL violent speech, but ESPECIALLY the personal ones. What the shit. https://t.co/aF7uZJszr2
— Xy, Spooky 👻🦊 Queen (@XylariaVG) May 21, 2017
#Facebook rules on what can be posted - its not OK to incite violence against Trump, but it is OK to incite violence against #gingers
Great pic.twitter.com/23jdyIq9eB— Antony Butcher (@antonybutcher) May 21, 2017
It's safe to say this is a discussion that isn't ending anytime soon.
