Facebook moderation guidelines leaked

Originally published at: https://boingboing.net/2018/05/25/facebook-moderation-guidelines.html


I’m always glad to see some of the details about how companies monitor material from hate groups, but I’d really be keen to hear how Twitter does it, seeing as how the main criteria seems to be “Let Nazis do whatever they want.”


As far as I can tell, Twitter’s policy is very simple: your account will be suspended if you call someone a Nazi, oppose Nazi ideology, disagree with a Nazi, or fail to throw a heil when requested.


This if f’ing crazy - they make nonsensical distinctions that, outside of their incredibly simple-minded examples, could never actually be seen even if they existed. For moderators, many of whom are from outside the US, this would be extra baffling, I would imagine.
It seems like they consulted with the alt-right to create some fake distinctions that would provide plausible cover to any sort of racists that might be on Facebook.



So everyone will start speaking in “dog whistle” rather than being explicit.

1 Like

Unpopular opinion warning:

What kind of moderation policy would need to be leaked for Boing Boing to headline it “Facebook censorship guidelines leaked”?

I don’t want to defend white nationalists. But facebook has an effective monopoly in this space, so there are free speech implications once we start banning some words or topics of discussions.

Given that BoingBoing has its own guidelines that allow a wide range of discussion while still prohibiting hate speech, I’d assume accusations of censorship on FB’s part would involve a one-sided prohibition of discussion on a particular controversial issue where no-one is calling for violence or eliminationism.

[since you’re so curious and concerned about this issue I’ll invite @orenwolf to present the view of the site owners if he so wishes]

But facebook has an effective monopoly in this space, so there are free speech implications once we start banning some words or topics of discussions.

Then let the fascist bigots help demonstrate that it is a monopoly. Until that happens, FB is under no special common-carrier obligation to give a platform to their long-discredited and hateful ideas (unless, as it seems from these guidelines, FB values white nationalists as members). As it is there are plenty of other ways for them to spew their rubbish without using social networks.


I would ban all ethnic and ethno-religious nationalism.

“White supremacy” is forbidden on Facebook, but “white nationalism”

So beef is allowed but cow is forbidden, also no pork but swine is okay; no pasta but noodles get a pass…

P.S. Not saying I’m hungry but that gave me a huge appetite right now.


Reminder that Facebook is legally required to ban Nazis in Germany, and does so with little trouble.

This isn’t a case of Facebook incompetence, it is a case of Facebook deliberately servicing fascism.


unfortunately that would ban the talk of a jewish state, of native american sovereignty, and potentially even things like pan-africanism. or heck: wakanda.

the difference between these things and white nationalism is simple. it’s an ideology of hate vs. discussions of survial in a racist world.

not all discussions of ethnic homelands are equal. you have to consider the source and it’s reason for being.


Facebook has no legal or ethical obligation to protect free speech.

And if you wish to explore this topic further, I recommend taking that discussion here:


This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.