> A video of a toddler being beaten by an adult would prompt hundreds of calls by Facebook users for its removal. But as the documentary reveals, a video showin

> A video of a toddler being beaten by an adult would prompt hundreds of calls by Facebook users for its removal. But as the documentary reveals, a video showing just that is being used by CPL to train moderators on the type of content that should remain on the platform. > In this case, the video was left to circulate online for six years after being flagged by online child abuse campaigners. > The decision to ignore or delete extreme content appears to rely on how it’s being positioned. In one instance, the undercover moderator asks the advice of his colleague regarding a video that shows two underage girls, one of them being beaten by the other. “Unless it has a condemning caption, it’s a delete,” says the colleague, referring to the text accompanying the video. > In other words, if the caption were promoting the violence or poking fun, it would come down. But in this case, since the caption condemns the fighting, the moderator is told to leave it up with a “mark as disturbing” warning. As the colleague notes, “If you start censoring too much, then people lose interest in the platform. It’s all about making money at the end of the day.” (emphasis mine) > The undercover reporter inquires about a far-right page that touts anti-Muslim and anti-immigrant content. He is told that these pages, though they have exceeded Facebook’s “allowed content” violations, remain active and are “shielded,” preventing the CPL moderators from deleting them. “Obviously, they have a lot of followers, so they’re generating a lot of revenue for Facebook,” says one moderator. (emphasis mine) That's all the substantive material from the article. I find it noteworthy that at least two of the damning quotes come from co-moderators, not any sort of official material. Whether that's an intended culture on facebook's part or not is up to the reader to infer.