Facebook

Facebook has public guidelines, but the advice on which content moderators base their decisions is a closely guarded secret. The Guardian, however, has got hold of a copy of the 300-page document. It goes into minute detail, including  dictating which emojis count as “praise” or “condemnation.”

A particular area of contention surrounds what are defined as dangerous individuals and organisations. In the leaked documents dating from December 2020, moderators for Facebook and Instagram are instructed how to define “support” for terrorist groups and other “dangerous individuals”, whether to distinguish between “explaining” and “justifying” the actions of terrorists, and even in what contexts it is acceptable to call for the use of “gas chambers”. While Facebook’s community guidelines – once almost entirely hidden from the view of users – have been public since 2018 when it first laid out in a 27-page document what it does and does not allow on its site, these newly leaked documents are different. They constitute much more detailed guidelines on what the published rules mean in practice. Facebook has long argued that to publish the full documents would be counterproductive since it would let malicious users avoid a ban for deliberately borderline behaviour.

Facebook recently ran a high-profile ad campaign against Apple. The social media giant said changes to iOS privacy rules would hurt small businesses. According to Buzzfeed News, its employees don’t necessarily agree.

While the $750 billion company’s public relations effort has presented a united front with small businesses, some Facebook employees complained about what they called a self-serving campaign that bordered on hypocrisy, according to internal comments and audio of a presentation to workers that were obtained by BuzzFeed News. A change in Apple’s iOS 14 mobile operating system — which requires iPhone owners to opt in to allow companies to track them across other apps and websites — hurts Facebook, some employees argued on the company’s private message boards, and their employer was just using small businesses as a shield. “It feels like we are trying to justify doing a bad thing by hiding behind people with a sympathetic message,” one engineer wrote in response to an internal post about the campaign from Dan Levy, Facebook’s vice president for ads.

Some small advertisers have complained to Bloomberg News that AI has left them locked out and unable to manage campaigns. Given helping small businesses was at the heart of the social media giant’s complaints against Apple, this is somewhat ironic.

“The actual injury, especially for advertisers and marketers, is immense,” said [Chris] Raines, who runs a digital media company called Bullhorn Media. “Had I not had that workaround, my business would have went away.” As he investigated solutions, Raines started hearing about other ad buyers in the same position. Harrison Kugler, an independent digital media manager in New Jersey, was similarly locked out while running ads for his client, a local comedy club. It took him 26 hours to get his account back, during which he estimates he spent $200 in Facebook ads without his usual level of oversight. In New Zealand, marketing consultant Sam Frost was frozen out of his account, and there were no other administrators linked to some of the Facebook Pages running the ads. He spent “a couple hundred dollars” before he was allowed back in.