The Facebook files: Leaked documents reveal murky approach to hate speech, child abuse

For two years now, many of us have struggled mightily with the behemoth that is Facebook. We report illegal posts—photographs or videos featuring RD’s children, threats toward the Hampstead community, threats toward anyone who disagrees with the Hoaxtead mobsters—and nine times out of 10, the message we receive back from some anonymous Facebook moderator runs along these lines: “Thank you for letting us know about this. We’ve reviewed the (image/post/video), and although it doesn’t go against any of our specific Community Standards, you did the right thing by letting us know about it. We understand that it may still be offensive or distasteful to you, so we want to help you see less of things such as this in the future”.

We’ve complained to Facebook, via their “How did you find this experience?” comment box, but our complaints vanish into the dark dank void that is the Facebook reporting system.

And yet, every now and then one of us is successful in having a post removed—our intrepid commenter, Sooper Seekrit Facebook Snitch™, is a dab hand at it, for example. So what makes the difference? How does Facebook decide what can stay and what must go?

The Facebook files

On Sunday, The Guardian reported that someone at Facebook had leaked a copy of the secret manuals and flow-charts used by moderators. According to The Guardian,

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.

Currently, Facebook employs 4,500 content moderators and have announced plans to hire 3,000 more, but even that is a rather puny force when one considers the millions of posts, images, and videos per day which are submitted for review.

Each moderator has about 10 seconds in which to decide whether to ignore, “escalate”, or delete a reported item. “Escalation” means that the item is passed to a more senior manager for an action decision. Facebook has acknowledged the high rate of turnover amongst its moderators, who often suffer from anxiety and post-traumatic stress as a result of their jobs:

“People can be highly affected and desensitized. It’s not clear that Facebook is even aware of the long term outcomes, never mind tracking the mental health of the workers,” said Sarah T Roberts, an information studies professor from UCLA who studies large-scale moderation of online platforms. …

In January, moderators in similar roles at Microsoft sued the company, alleging that exposure to images of “indescribable sexual assaults” and “horrible brutality” resulted in severe post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Microsoft disputes the claims.

Repeated exposure to extreme content can lead to “secondary trauma”, which is a condition similar to PTSD, but the witness is looking at images of what happened rather than being traumatized themselves.

How decisions are made

Hoaxtead researchers are constantly watching out for posts, images, and videos which are relevant to the Hampstead SRA hoax, so we were particularly interested in how Facebook makes decisions about material related to child abuse.

According to The Guardian,

Facebook’s policies on graphic violence, non-sexual child abuse and animal abuse reveal its attempts to remain open while trying to ban horrific images. Moderators remove content ‘upon report only’, meaning graphic content could be seen by millions before it is flagged. Facebook says publishing certain images can help children to be rescued.

Facebook’s policy, per their training manual, reads, “We allow ‘evidence’ of child abuse to be shared on the site to allow for the child to be identified and rescued, but we add protections to shield the audience”.

And here’s how they handle graphic violence against children:

So they will only remove evidence of physical non-sexual child abuse if it is “shared with sadism and celebration”. Everything else will either be marked as “disturbing” or ignored.

And of course, as we’ve discovered, Facebook’s reporting options contain no descriptors that come anywhere near the type of child abuse exemplified by sharing images of RD’s children. They don’t fit into Facebook’s algorithm, and so their images, videos, etc. are ignored. Oh, excuse us, “not actioned”.

What about threats of violence?

Things get even more puzzling in the murky area of threats of violence. Facebook draws a distinction between “credible” threats and “aspirational” threats, allowing the latter but not the former. And then there is the sticky question of “protected” versus ordinary people. For example,

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.

So “kick a person with red hair” or “let’s beat up fat kids” would not go against Facebook’s community standards, while “#stab and become the fear of the Zionist” would be deleted.

In a leaked document on moderating threats of violence, Facebook notes that “people use violent language to express frustration on line”, and feel safe doing this on Facebook. Sitting behind a keyboard and monitor, people seem to become disinhibited, and will often make threats they wouldn’t think of saying face to face.

“We should say that violent language is most often not credible until specificity of language gives us a reasonable ground to accept that there is no longer simply an expression of emotion but a transition to a plot or design. From this perspective language such as ‘I’m going to kill you’ or ‘Fuck off and die’ is not credible and is a violent expression of dislike and frustration.”

It adds: “People commonly express disdain or disagreement by threatening or calling for violence in generally facetious and unserious ways.”

Facebook conceded that “not all disagreeable or disturbing content violates our community standards”.

As we read through Facebook’s various leaked guidelines, we couldn’t help but be struck by the murkiness of it all. Why is it all right to talk about murdering a president, but not about murdering a “bitch”? How does Facebook know that a statement like the one about snapping a woman’s neck is not “credible”? Bringing it back to Hoaxtead, how do they know that a statement like Bronwyn Llewellyn’s infamous threat to murder RD was made in an “aspirational” rather than a “credible” manner?

We believe the time has come for Facebook to seriously reconsider its approach to creating a safe community that still values freedom of speech; in our view, freedom of speech ends where terror and abuse begin.

105 thoughts on “The Facebook files: Leaked documents reveal murky approach to hate speech, child abuse

  1. “Each moderator has about 10 seconds in which to decide whether to ignore, “escalate”, or delete a reported item. “Escalation” means that the item is passed to a more senior manager for an action decision. Facebook has acknowledged the high rate of turnover amongst its moderators, who often suffer from anxiety and post-traumatic stress as a result of their jobs:”

    10 seconds is nothing to learn about the context in which the comment has been made. So basically, any link to court documents or Newspaper articles are just going to be ignored as they need to move onto the next one.

    All the big online social media and retail sites seem to act like this, from Ebay, Amazon, PayPal, Youtube, facebook, all tax dodgers and criminal, scammer enablers.
    Laws and regulations across the globe have not caught up with the internet boom.
    Scammers are rife on ebay as much as ever, and Paypal always sides with the buyer.

    Liked by 3 people

    • Yes, absolutely right. In many cases (like Hoaxtead, ahem), context is everything—and this system makes no allowances for that.

      The thing is, Facebook is a corporation, owned by its shareholders. As such, the corporation takes the decision as to whether to clamp down on things like child abuse or death threats. Would you or I sign up to a social media platform that stated from the outset, “We do not tolerate child abuse or threats in any form”? Pretty sure I would.

      Liked by 2 people

  2. Any of the threats or exhortations to commit violence as described above, if written in a letter and sent to a victim or someone else, would result in prosecution under laws in most countries including the USA where people have confused the so-called “freedom of speech” mantra to mean freedom to threaten.

    Politicians have been incredibly slow to re-act to the lawlessness of Facebook, Google etc and what really sticks in the craw is these entities are the biggest scroungers on the planet as they avoid taxes via artificial means while at the same time hoovering up all advertising and decimating the print industry and destroying 100,000s of jobs in the process. While advances in technology cannot be ignored that does not mean it should become a free for all and technology giants allowed total freedom just because they are powerful.

    As for child abuse victims, RD’s kids are abused every time their images are shown over and over by these idiots who are fixated upon their sex talk. I would venture that as they become young adults they would have a huge case to sue FB & others who fragrantly breach their right to privacy. The videos of them discussing sex & murder matters are abuse. How can anyone even see that within 10 seconds? The Facebook guidelines again show Zuckerberg and the directors of Facebook are disingenuous in their claims.

    Liked by 3 people

    • In the past I’ve joined many campaigns often highly signed, for report child abuse buttons, but in the meantime, learnt to report any links, with description to the Internet Watch Foundation, because, even if Facebook removed, they did not pass on any intel to police…… I was also advised that some groups were being watched and evidence collected, so not to comment at all, or report to facebook for at least, a period, that i can’t remember……. Seems like it got even worse….. It’s quite easy to report, I do still think they need to be alerted to this whole plot. And Ceop, as someone else suggested. As well as IICSAUK, the Scottish & Iriish Inquiries.
      It was around the time, of these death threats, that Bronny named me as being RD….. which was when I first reported to the police, that if I rang them saying a baying crowd was outside, it would be real….. As witnessed, various other labels have been levelled at me, but this is exactly how abuse continues too…..
      We’re told to ignore it, block The onus is on victims, but as we can prove, these people are relentlessly, targetting any in their way, switching from various attackers, with new attempts,
      I’ve felt the effects, of being so bullied, smeared, threatened, at risk, for what ?
      Because I will not support their vile evil, crap, nor tolerate it….. Ignoring it, has enabled it.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Fully agree with that and where in the hell is the NSPCC in all this? They receive £ multi-millions but are completely silent on what is a growing problem of on-line abuse and children are being targeted relentlessly. All they seem to do is spend money on ‘stranger-danger’ adverts which like most advertising becomes ineffective after a while.
        The whole “child protection” business has become a self-perpetuating industry staffed with empire builders who scoop up huge amounts of money which is bizarre when millions of British kids really are being abused in so many ways via neglect etc.

        Liked by 3 people

        • Their idea of a fundraiser is a champagne ball, it’s all great fun and games, at the top of the charities, i was really in shock when the NSPCC ignored, the director who bought saviles flat….. and other stuff.
          There are tho signs that younger staff within charities are also sick to death and more aware, perhaps lived some of it, or know someone who has spoken out, locally, in a group, meeting, or have witnessed Social Services treatment, Psychiatrists too, of us….. We have been a massive special need group, en masse of every colour, creed, universally….. the groups across the world that protect themselves from these bs and users, give testimony, and try to support each other as inquiries crawl along, and they get older….. whilst so many have already gotten rich, like Norma Howes, one of the originators of SRA here, unqualified social worker, expert witness in court for SS….and trainer via Survivors Trust

          Liked by 1 person

          • Harshly or otherwise I formed a less than postive view of childrens charities many moons ago.Ex partner and I were invited for a meal by a couple whose daughter attended ex`s dance classes.The father turned out to be in the upper echelons of Barnados.

            The visit was a tad on the dull side as the whole evening seemed consumed by my being told how there is fantastic money/employment terms to be had in the charity sector and he only fell a little way short of implying the whole set up is legalised daylight robbery and that being a charity much slips through the net via “creative” accountancy.

            Certainly the couple had all the trappings of doing very well financially,big house,nice cars blah de blah. More concerning was that the guy seemed to have no interest in discussing child abuse/protection issues or pretty much anything else.He was just hell bent on gloating about how friggin well he was doing out of the sector.The lasagna was alright mind.

            Concerningly deep into Stanley and Pammy terrain by all accounts.

            Liked by 2 people

      • Sheva. The child abuse advocacy thing has been hijacked by a bunch of creepy weirdo’s who have an agenda to push hoaxes and bullshit mind control MK ultra nonsense, these people are making the whole thing a joke and it is very sad that its come to this. I know activism is something you have been involved in for a long time but these assholes are doing there best to co-opt it. Neelu and Deb Madmoo speaking at conferences? what a joke.

        Liked by 3 people

    • “As for child abuse victims, RD’s kids are abused every time their images are shown over and over by these idiots who are fixated upon their sex talk.”

      As a moderator myself on what became the most prolific ‘McCann’ site, I always feared for the future of Madeleine’s siblings who one day will be old enough to read the sordid speculation from so many people as to whether Madeleine’s birth had been ‘genetically modified’ in some weird experiment, or whether her parents had sacrificed her on an alter….how will they feel when they are 21 or 22 and at university and know that all those sitting alongside them in a computer room have read these things? Will they ever be able to live a normal life knowing that such horrible words were written about their sister, their parents?

      I used to feel a slightly different emotion when the Hollie Greig hoax was at its height and she was being dragged round village halls and such venues for her Mother and Robert Green to discuss her genital warts, or precisely which sordid sexual practices she had been subjected to. F
      air enough, you could argue, Hollie didn’t have the mental capacity to understand what was being said or the words she was being encouraged to repeat, but what sort of person forms the audience at such an event?

      “Oh, I’ll be popping out after dinner love, really interesting, there’s this Down’s syndrome girl and we’re going to be able to ask her about her genital warts?”

      Who are these sort of people in real life?

      Liked by 2 people

      • “Oh, I’ll be popping out after dinner love, really interesting, there’s this Down’s syndrome girl and we’re going to be able to ask her about her genital warts?” Who are these sort of people in real life?

        Exactly, Anna. What kind of person thinks that a) a mentally disabled girl’s sexually transmitted infection is anyone else’s bloody business, and b) it’s perfectly fine to discuss this information online, potentially in full view of millions of other people? Oh right, those would be the same people who think that an entire community should drop their pants in public so they can inspect whether or not they have tattoos.

        Liked by 1 person

    • “Any of the threats or exhortations to commit violence as described above, if written in a letter and sent to a victim or someone else, would result in prosecution under laws in most countries including the USA where people have confused the so-called “freedom of speech” mantra to mean freedom to threaten”.

      YES. Using Facebook’s own “community” analogy, if I were to meet someone in my neighbourhood or city who threatened to “burn me alive in the streets”, you can be absolutely certain that I would report that to the police. If I met someone who wanted to show me pictures of children whose identities were protected by a court order, I would tell them to get lost. I see absolutely no reason why Facebook (and Twitter, and YouTube, and Google+, and the rest of them) cannot abide by the same standards.

      Oh, right, I forgot. Profits. That’s the reason. Silly me.

      Liked by 2 people

  3. Pingback: The Facebook files: Leaked documents reveal murky approach to hate speech, child abuse | ShevaBurton. Cross of Change Blog

  4. Thanks for this excellent write-up, EC.

    You hit the nail on the head when you pointed out that many of the posts we report are illegal, be them threats of violence, defamation or race hate speech. So it just smacks of arrogance that Farcebook even thinks it has a choice in the matter. If they have something illegal on their site, they’re legally obligated to take it down. The clue’s in the word ‘illegal’, Zuckerberk. Duh!

    Liked by 3 people

    • Yes, exactly, LR. Facebook has somehow taken the decision to become its own “city-state”, with a bizarre approach to “law enforcement”. It would be as if London or New York were to decide that they wouldn’t bother pursuing most criminals, only the ones who threatened the mayor or city councillors; and they wouldn’t bother prosecuting child abusers, but would simply hide the abuse from view so it didn’t offend anyone.

      Liked by 1 person

  5. Yeah, great report, Your Howlness. Thank you.

    Incidentally, has anyone noticed that there are two different lists of categories that come up for different posts? One of them doesn’t have hate speech as an option, so you have to put it down as something else, which then of course doesn’t get accepted.

    Liked by 2 people

    • The descriptors that Facebook make available to us are just not good enough as a lot of things we report are not adequately covered by the descriptors which sometimes makes it impossible to decide under which category to post a complaint.

      Liked by 2 people

    • I’ve noticed that, and I don’t understand how they make the decision as to which version to use. What I do know is that their existing options allow no room for context or explanation, and as you say, most “something else” complaints are rejected.


      • Yes, it would really help if Facebook provided a dialogue box in which we could explain the reason why we are reporting a certain post.

        Liked by 1 person

        • Very true AP that would help massively but would require actual fleshy beings spending actual time actually reading and heaven forbid actually considering such content.Far too dated,fiddlesome and organic an option for Zuckerberg et al who are just gagging to engage a team of cyber bots with his latest AI tech to digitize the whole shebang(with obligatory over friendly voice interfaces).

          The only factors that modify corporate planning ultimately are financial forecasts,growth and legislation.An outbreak of high profile lawsuits(class actions or individual) and the odd red top “Facebook ate my child” headline might slow proceedings down a bit though 😉

          Opted out of using FB a while back but ever grateful to Liz et al for sharing the scummers shinanigans on that titanic monstrosity of a platform.

          Liked by 2 people

          • I think there are two potential ways to fight back against Facebook’s strange inertia: as you say, high-profile lawsuits could bring them to their senses; and I like the approach of discussing things with the companies that advertise on FB. That has begun to move YouTube/Google towards a more sensible and sensitive approach, after all.

            Liked by 2 people

  6. It’s also worth reiterating that the ‘Fake news’ category isn’t a reporting opportunity. In common with some of the other categories, if you click on it you aren’t given the option to report, just advice on how to deal with it and the option to block the poster.

    Liked by 3 people

    • And don’t Farcebook just love it if you block the poster. Because the way they have it set up, blocking also means making invisible. So not only does this afford you/them the opportunity to just sweep the problem under the carpet but it also means you can’t report any further posts by that person, because…you can’t see the bloody things! Classy, Farcebook. Very classy.
      *Rolls eyes*

      Liked by 3 people

    • Yes noticed that- their only advice after all Facebook’s disingenuous talk about Fake News, is to recommend you block the perp. which defeats the purpose. I won’t block lowlifes like Araya Manna / Soma because I want to monitor her ghastly posts.
      ## also Facebook rejected my claim that either Araya Manna or Araya Soma must be a fake profile which is obvious given both profiles use the same photos.

      ### The mad bint is on a crusade attacking department stores now which she says are a Jewish invention which means it’s safe to shop in Selfidges or Marks & Sparks without having to worry bumping into the piss-drinking nutter.

      Liked by 3 people

    • Yes i also find that ‘Fake News’ category annoying, it’s basically a redundant category in my eyes as like you said Liza it doesn’t actually provide an option to report the post in question. Facebook should be grateful for members of the public reporting posts and bringing them to their attention as it saves their employees the job of finding the offensive material. Facebook say that they are clamping down on fake news but as proved by their fake news reporting option they take no action on the fake news that is reported to them.

      Liked by 3 people

  7. 😡 Angela, you are a vile, disgusting, insensitive, lowlife piece of shit…There, I said it.

    For those who missed it (at the tail end of the last post), here’s Angie’s false flag rant, along with the responses from the unfeeling scum who support her and the backlash from the friends who think she’s barking (including some who are clearly barking themselves):

    Liked by 1 person

      • Angies descent into the lower pits of human sediment has now officially included working her way through every human vice and deadly sin whilst simultaneously managing to wipe her arse with the 10 commandments concluding with a show stopping twisted inverted side roll and double pike.Quite remarkable.Surely one for the McWhirter bros to look at?

        The bad news however is that her new status as “Arch-slime-wallower-in-chief” almost certainly represents the final nail in the coffin (?coughing?)regarding Angies aspirations of inclusion in a rapid rapture any time soon.

        Seems we may stuck with her for the full 3 score years and ten although I have it on good authority that champagne keeps well so at least thats something.

        As for Zuckerbergs miserable,shoddy,cash saving,appeasement,arse covering algorithms they will prove as useful in avoiding future litigation/compensation claims and he would have more success attempting to jump over his own knees(preferably on live TV).

        Bastards the lot of them.Grr.

        Liked by 3 people

      • And people still say I’m extreme because I often want to take some of these vile things out to the town square and horsewhip them followed by tar & feathering ( I was a country squire in mast life)

        I mean that metaphorically of course and it’s not a physical threat. Mind you with Angela Power Disney….a basket of rotten fruit and….

        Liked by 3 people

        • Well, I think it is now time, to get serious….. I really am disabled, housebound, and have needed to reach out for help in my area…. have had some credible death threats as did Australians, due to these horrible hoaxers …… there are i’m sure treaties in place, possibly UN charter based ? …….
          It is not sufficient that only local law enforcement is involved in dealing with this, not sure quite how to word this, but i think a guantlet has been laid down, untouchables they think ?????

          Liked by 3 people

          • Yes, I think it’s time as well, Sheva. As you say, local law enforcement can only do so much; ultimately, the problem lies with those who publish this bilge. And yes, as GoS’s friend in Oz has demonstrated to the courts, the social media platforms really are publishers.

            Liked by 1 person

      • These people are not only nutters, they’re cowards. They cannot face the idea that bad things happen to innocent people, so they hide their heads in the sand and pretend it was all a bad dream, created to scare them.

        And yet these self-same people will happily latch onto the bizarre and logistically impossible Hampstead SRA hoax…because it props up their own beliefs.

        Liked by 4 people

        • So hang on a mo,let me get this straight,real events based on sensory data and calm reflective consideration is apparently false whilst pretty much any old random mish mash derived from smoking excessive quantities of genetically modified weed is “actually” and “literally” real.Hmmm….this may suggest a possible outbreak of topsy-turvyism is compelling certain primates to perceive the world “not-as-it-is” but rather in a manner “conforming-to-what-gains-attention-on-facebook-yet-just-about-avoiding-being-immediately-consigned-to-the-nearest-psychiatric-hospital”.Not good.

          Hopefully this phenomena simply turns out to be merely a passing aberration for humankind as neptune transits Uranus or something.If not were all well fucked and could do far worse that climbing back up the nearest tree before the full spectrum of shit really hits the fan.


    • Typical disgusting behaviour from Angela. I have just spent some time this morning reporting videos on the Lift the Veil YouTube channel as he has released some videos stating that the Manchester terrorist attack was a hoax, a false flag and that certain victims didn’t really die. This sort of thing disgusts me and i dread to think how hurt victims families would be if they were to come across these videos. I hope others also report the videos as there were quite a few comments from folk who think the same way i do.

      Liked by 3 people

      • I’ve been reporting as I can. Yesterday, I looked into Lenny Pozners’ site and began reporting via his twit list, and lo and behold they were already onnit with Manchester…… There were also lists of clear signs of fake news either bots or trolls. Also a list of advertisers twitter accounts are there, and i also retweeted to them, some…. a list is bing formed of companies addies, this is something we could join forces with… ? Encourage others to help …. including these horrible hoaxers…. who use same tactics, motivations etc

        Liked by 2 people

          • Sue ! ooops sorry, it just keeps clanging in my head, must be those bwitches…. Hevver pushing all those buttons…… there’s good reason to, we just need the method, tools, and then see who else feels the same, i guess ? As ever, if i say too much or owt ….remove…in the scheme of things the pathetic dramas created by the criminals & shysters, abusers that are involved, ain’t the point for me… And there probably isn’t anything that hasn’t been said to me, about me or even actually done… doesn’t make me teflon, i’m hurtable, like anyone…just ain’t letting them win.


      • Lift the Veil is accusing two traumatised teenagers (interviewed on TV) of being liars. He does it in the most foul way possible. Disgusting man.

        Best comment from LTV – “She’s too cute to be a witness.”

        Liked by 1 person

    • I should have mentioned that the little “bumper sticker” above emerged about six or eight weeks ago from an unknown source but is free to use… It’s being made up into t-shirts, mugs, car stickers etc.

      For me Facebook falls entirely on a couple of those statements:

      “We do not action photos of child abuse”

      “We allow ‘evidence’ of child abuse to be shared on the site to allow for the child to be identified and rescued, but we add protections to shield the audience”

      …..Not in a million years. The “defence” of accessing child abuse images “for research” or to “allow detection” is entirely discredited as simply an excuse child abusers give when caught. There is never any excuse for sharing an image of abuse and never any abuse for not reporting such a thing.

      To me this is hard evidence of how Facebook facilitates and cynically monetises child abuse and indeed other human miseries. It doesn’t matter how “soft” the images are, or even if the material is simply text. child abuse is child abuse and there is never ever any reason to propagate it. It’s the same with many of the conspiritard sites – that “Fresh Start” thing a few weeks back for instance using a completely sickening image to titilate its audience of perverts. Sick perverted bastards the lot of them!

      Liked by 3 people

      • “The “defence” of accessing child abuse images “for research” or to “allow detection” is entirely discredited as simply an excuse child abusers give when caught. There is never any excuse for sharing an image of abuse and never any abuse for not reporting such a thing”.

        Absolutely right, AA. It’s the worst possible excuse, and it shows how shoddy Facebook’s practices are.

        Liked by 2 people

      • No, they’re not, but Facebook is one of the worst offenders. We’ve had altercations with Twitter and YouTube as well, but so far none of their employees (past or present) has leaked their comment moderation guidelines. Not that we wouldn’t be all ears if they did!


    • Haha, funnily enough I recognise the original from which that little “bumper sticker” was drawn. In fact, I had a few of them until my basement was flooded some years back, and my collection was destroyed. Yes, I really am that old. 🙂

      I fully agree with the idea of not swimming in Facebook’s particular sewage tank…but the problem for those who’ve been targetted by the Hoaxtead mob is that when something is posted about them on Facebook they will feel the impacts, whether they have a profile there or not. I know several people who’ve had to change their names in order to continue working, and some who’ve had to change their children’s names to keep them from being sought out by paedophiles. These people have Facebook profiles, but not for their own enjoyment—it’s simply to keep track of what’s being said about them, so they can do as much damage control as possible.

      Liked by 1 person

      • I do know somebody who has been placed in that sort of position, and as Sheva suggests, it wasn’t all Facebook. They didn’t quite change their name but they had to alter things about a bit which sost them a lot and they have had nutcases at their door, crank phone calls as well as one of their kids targeted to the detriment of their studies……. and of course the fear and alarm they suffered. They do have a Facebook account, as you say for monitoring, but its kept empty and dormant. It’s high time the law was changed to make these companies criminally liable for the damage they do though.

        Liked by 1 person

  8. Sorry, that should read ” never any EXCUSE for not reporting such a thing.” – That pimp Zuckerberg makes my blood boil!

    Liked by 2 people

  9. Great write up EC as always and yes Facebook talk the talk in public but are actually very poor at walking the walk. I know one thing for sure and that is i would not want to live in a community that was run on the same community standards as Facebook is.

    Liked by 4 people

  10. Lift the Veil is a vile creepy pervert and peddler of every sick hoax or tragedy, he makes a living from this whilst recording from his dads garage.
    People are letting him know how sick he is in the comments.
    He needs locking up just like Angela, Mad Moo and the rest of these sick scumbags.

    Liked by 3 people

  11. Correct B.M. Thanks for all the Farcebook info and sample screenshots by these Criminal Nutters. Leave it to APD to claim “hoax AND false flag” She is a despicable POS. The law will catch up to them when Infowhores “W.H. press pass” is Revoked!! Posner should have sued Alex Jones ages ago…ffs They still can but don’t. Why is that? See: Ct. Atty. Irving Pinsky’s law office SHOT up for ASKING Ct. State Claims Commissioner to sue on behalf of Newtown victim. There is far more surrounding the circumstances of SH shooting than meets the eye…the dribs and drabs of more facts appear daily and are reaching “critical mass”. “Hoax” has been allowed to mask and distort the Final Report on the matter.

    Liked by 2 people

    • Sick people. Glad to see at least a few not standing for Angie’s bullshit. These lunatics are all the same, far too excited to jump on every tragedy and label it a government conspiracy. They all want to see dead bodies of children, blood and gore everywhere. Sick people.

      Liked by 3 people

  12. Lawd give me strength. Echo Truths has a video on Manchester, she even rang Manchester Police to confirm the dead and injured, thinks she’s a journalist. She is heavily researching Kevin Annett, rational wiki can tell her all about that.

    Alex Jones has Tommy Robinson at the scene of the Manchester attack, to boot. Lawd save us.

    Liked by 3 people

    • “Allegedly, an 8-year-old girl has died.”
      “There was this lad who was allegedly a witness…He absolutely screamed crisis actor to me.”
      “I’m not great at pulling the false flag stuff apart.”
      Then at 4:59 she mentions the bomb and pisses herself laughing. Yup.

      Seriously, get a fucking life, ET, you vile disgusting heartless bitch.

      Liked by 2 people

      • It’s her trademark to laugh at every tragedy, she is vile. She laughed at the Westminster attack, laughed at the McCanns, laughed at RD and the Hoaxtead case. Truly horrible person. Now she is researching with her buddies things that have been covered years ago. I really cannot say how horrible she is.

        Liked by 3 people

  13. The Hoaxers are like the Cult of $cientology. Once One thinks they have heard the worst, They Ante up Worse B.S.! ALEX JONES FOR PRISON 2017!

    Liked by 2 people

  14. The ShartMeister is Dreaming if he thinks “the Judge believed him” LMAO! “The protection orders mean nothing but I took down the Rough and Terrible vids….blah blah blah….” The Judge gave him plenty of rope to hang himself with for his inevitable next infraction…A copy of that transcript will probably 100% dispute what this inveterate liar is spewing….The lawyer was right telling him NOT to introduce his BS as “evidence” as it will be used to commit him in future, his own paranoid words….Stupid as Heck’s half-acre but perfect evidence for Baker Act!

    Liked by 2 people

  15. Your ending paragraph:-
    “We believe the time has come for Facebook to seriously reconsider its approach to creating a safe community that still values freedom of speech; in our view, freedom of speech ends where terror and abuse begin.”
    Is to simplistic to fully put into words without writing an entire thesis.
    Put simply, a “safe” community is impossible to create whilst keeping the values of free speech.
    The “values” of free speech are…FREE SPEECH. The word “values” is not required. Unless you are attempting to somehow curtail free speech.
    I do not pretend to have the answers, I am not offering a solution. I am just not sure what you are asking for?
    Also you say in that closing sentence, “in our view” who exactly is our?, or we? I am me. You are only qualified to speak on behalf of yourself.
    I do not wish to offend, I do not wish to be controversial. Reason has to prevail and self criticism is absolutely required, as I see myself as part of this “group” for want of a better word. I have no leaders. I am me. It’s just that I see critical thinking sliding here recently.


    • I’ll address your last question first: this blog is run by a loosely affiliated collective of people who oppose the Hampstead SRA hoax. Some of us do mostly research, some make story suggestions, and since August 2015 I’ve been in charge of writing posts for this blog. Most of these posts are discussed with at least a few other “team” members prior to my writing them, and I try to ensure that I accurately represent those discussions. So when I say “we”, I’m talking about the collective that is HR.

      I understand what you’re saying about free speech versus safety. You’re right that it was a simplistic way of expressing it, but I think it’s safe to say that most of us who help put HR together don’t see “free speech” as an absolute. For example, in the UK we have laws which protect us against hate speech and harassment. Those laws are intended to intercede at the juncture between freedom of expression (“I hate that person”, “I wish that person were dead”) and criminal intent (“I want to kill that person”, “I plan to kill that person”). When I refer to safety, I mean safety from the latter kind of speech.

      As we’ve found throughout the Hampstead SRA hoax, death threats and other sorts of threats (threats of having one’s children kidnapped, threats of being hunted down by angry mobs, threats of losing one’s livelihood) have the ability to terrorise individuals and entire communities. So when I write about the importance of both safety and freedom of speech, I am only suggesting that Facebook apply the same rules to its much-vaunted “community standards” that most democratic nations apply to their populations: you can say what you like, so long as you remain within the bounds of the law.

      Liked by 3 people

      • I agree when it comes to the lawful description of free speech. However I still do not understand what you are asking for here. Facebook, twitter and others receive multiple millions, getting on for billions of messages a day. The only way to successfully police that is to employ millions of legal experts who are there 24/7 365. This, as I am sure you are aware is impossible. So what is the solution you are wanting to put into place? There is no point criticizing unless you have a workable solution.
        As for the “we” thing. I see multiple posters saying “we” when they are speaking for themselves. This should be frowned upon.


    • Free speech is a well worn excuse used by Farcebook etc. and frankly it smacks of emotional blackmail to make anyone who complains about inappropriate content feel guilty about doing so. In fact, I think they really devalue the concept of freedom of speech when they make such comments.

      I agree 100% with people’s right to express their views but the fact is that there are several valid exceptions, enshrined in law, as there have been in pretty much every society in history. Examples in the UK include malicious communications, data protection, slander, libel, defamation, official secrets, harassment, incitement to violence, breach of the peace, PACE, threatening behaviour, child protection restrictions, hate speech, public disorder, etc. etc… There’s no such thing as unlimited free speech, anywhere. And as we’ve repeatedly seen from lots of shouty people on YouTube who scream about their right to express themselves (which I don’t disagree with in principle), they’re the first to block and delete anyone who politely disagrees with them or asks uncomfortable questions.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Please see above, my reply to El Coyote. There is no point in repeating myself. Cheers dude for your input.


  16. Oh my God, I am sooo fucking happy 😀 😀 😀

    This is her fourth strike and her last ban was 30 days. This could get interesting…

    Liked by 3 people

Comments are closed.