Photo 
 
 With 1.39 billion active users worldwide, Facebook’s social network is the closest thing we have to a universal communication platform. And people post — or try to post — just about everything you can imagine. 
 
 On Monday, the company clarified its community standards to give its users more guidance about what types of posts are not allowed on the service. 
 
 Facebook walks a delicate line when it tries to ban violent or offensive content without suppressing the free sharing of information that it says it wants to encourage. Its audience is vast, with a huge variance in age, cultural values and laws across the globe. Yet despite its published guidelines, the reasoning behind Facebook’s decisions to block or allow content are often opaque and inconsistent. 
 
 For example, the company flip-flopped repeatedly on whether to allow beheading videos on the service before recently deciding to ban them. In December, it blocked a page in Russia that was promoting an antigovernment protest, then allowed copycat pages to stay up. And in October, it created an exception to its requirement that people use their real names on the service when it allowed San Francisco’s drag queens to use their stage names while continuing to crack down on others using false names. 
 
 “We’re trying to strike the balance based on the way our community works,” Monika Bickert, Facebook’s head of global policy management, said in an interview. “The landscape is complicated.” 
 
 The company hopes that more specific explanation of its rules will take some of the mystery out of what it will and will not allow. 
 
 Terrorist organizations like the Islamic State have long been banned from the service. But supporting or praising groups involved in “violent, criminal or hateful behavior” is also banned, the updated rules say. 
 
 Threatening people with physical or financial harm, or bullying them by posting items intended to degrade or shame them, is also prohibited. So is anything that encourages suicide or eating disorders. 
 
 Facebook has always banned pornography and most other nudity, but it is now diving into the nuances. “We remove photographs of people displaying genitals or focusing in on fully exposed buttocks,” it says. It also restricts some images of female breasts if the nipple shows, “but we always allow photos of women actively engaged in breast-feeding or showing breasts with post-mastectomy scarring.” Photos of paintings, sculptures and other art that depicts nude figures are also fine. 
 
 The company is for the first time explicitly banning content promoting sexual violence or exploitation, including so-called revenge porn, which it defines as intimate images “shared in revenge or without permission from the people in the images.” (Twitter has also updated its rules to forbid revenge porn.) 
 
 One thing that has not changed: Facebook has no plans to automatically scan for and remove potentially offensive content, Ms. Bickert said. 
 
 Facebook will still rely on users to report violations of the standards. Ms. Bickert said that the company had review teams working at all hours of the day around the globe, and that every report was examined by one of them before a decision was made. 
 
 The process can take time — typically 48 hours on matters of safety, she said. That may not be fast enough for some people in an era where graphic content can go viral in minutes. Twitter, which is a much more public forum, has come under fire from women’s advocates and antiterror groups for not responding quickly enough to reports of abusive or violent tweets. 
 
 But Facebook wants to take into account the full context of a post, Ms. Bickert said. For example, a victim of a violent attack might post images on Facebook as a way of raising public awareness. “Sometimes the best way to share information about atrocities in the world is Facebook,” she said. “We recognize that is a very challenging issue.” 
 
 Facebook’s rulings can also be appealed. “If a person’s account is suspended, those appeals are read by real people who can look into the specifics,” she said. 
 
 Ms. Bickert said that clarifying its rules helped not only Facebook users but also the people who reviewed possible violations to decide what was permissible. “We can only do this if we have objective rules,” she said. 
 
 Governments also ask Facebook to take down posts. In conjunction with the updated community standards, the company published on Monday its latest transparency report, which discloses country-by-country information on government requests for user data and the removal of content. 
 
 In the report, Facebook says that in the second half of 2014, it restricted 9,707 pieces of content for violating local laws, up 11 percent from the first half of the year. Of those, India requested the most takedowns, with 5,832, and Turkey was not far behind with 3,624. No content was restricted in the United States based on government requests. 
 
 The number of government requests for account data increased slightly, to 35,051, compared with 34,946 in the first half. The United States was at the top of the list, making 14,274 requests for information on 21,731 Facebook accounts, with the company agreeing to turn over information in 79 percent of the cases. 
 
 “As difficult questions arise about the limits of what people can share, we have a single guiding principle: We want to give the most voice to the most people,” Mark Zuckerberg, Facebook’s co-founder and chief executive, wrote in a post that accompanied the report. 
 
 “Some people say we should ignore government orders requiring us to restrict people’s voice, even if that means the whole service would be blocked in those countries. I don’t think that’s right,” he said. “I believe we have a responsibility to the millions of people in these countries who rely on Facebook to stay in touch with their friends and family every day. If we ignored a lawful government order and then we were blocked, all of these people’s voices would be muted, and whatever content the government believed was illegal would be blocked anyway.” 
 
 “It’s tempting to think of free expression and having a voice as black and white — either you have it or you don’t,” Mr. Zuckerberg said. “But giving people a voice, like most things in our society, is something that we must make incremental progress towards.” ||||| By Monika Bickert, Head of Global Policy Management, and Chris Sonderby, Deputy General Counsel 
 
 Every day, people around the world use Facebook to connect with family and friends, share information and express themselves. The conversations that happen here mirror the diversity of the more than one billion people who use Facebook, with people discussing everything from pets to politics. Our goal is to give people a place to share and connect freely and openly, in a safe and secure environment. 
 
 We have a set of Community Standards that are designed to help people understand what is acceptable to share on Facebook. These standards are designed to create an environment where people feel motivated and empowered to treat each other with empathy and respect. 
 
 Today we are providing more detail and clarity on what is and is not allowed. For example, what exactly do we mean by nudity, or what do we mean by hate speech? While our policies and standards themselves are not changing, we have heard from people that it would be helpful to provide more clarity and examples, so we are doing so with today’s update. 
 
 There are also times when we may have to remove or restrict access to content because it violates a law in a particular country, even though it doesn’t violate our Community Standards. We report the number of government requests to restrict content for contravening local law in our Global Government Requests Report, which we are also releasing today. We challenge requests that appear to be unreasonable or overbroad. And if a country requests that we remove content because it is illegal in that country, we will not necessarily remove it from Facebook entirely, but may restrict access to it in the country where it is illegal. 
 
 Billions of pieces of content are shared on Facebook every day. We hope these two updates help provide more clarity about the standards we have, whether they are our own Community Standards or those imposed by different laws around the world. 
 
 More Detailed Community Standards 
 
 The updated Community Standards are broken into four sections: 
 
 Helping to keep you safe 
 
 Encouraging respectful behavior 
 
 Keeping your account and personal information secure 
 
 Protecting your intellectual property 
 
 In particular, we’ve provided more guidance on policies related to self-injury, dangerous organizations, bullying and harassment, criminal activity, sexual violence and exploitation, nudity, hate speech, and violence and graphic content. While some of this guidance is new, it is consistent with how we’ve applied our standards in the past. 
 
 It’s a challenge to maintain one set of standards that meets the needs of a diverse global community. For one thing, people from different backgrounds may have different ideas about what’s appropriate to share — a video posted as a joke by one person might be upsetting to someone else, but it may not violate our standards. 
 
 This is particularly challenging for issues such as hate speech. Hate speech has always been banned on Facebook, and in our new Community Standards, we explain our efforts to keep our community free from this kind of abusive language. We understand that many countries have concerns about hate speech in their communities, so we regularly talk to governments, community members, academics and other experts from around the globe to ensure that we are in the best position possible to recognize and remove such speech from our community. We know that our policies won’t perfectly address every piece of content, especially where we have limited context, but we evaluate reported content seriously and do our best to get it right. 
 
 If people believe Pages, profiles or individual pieces of content violate our Community Standards, they can report it to us by clicking the “Report” link at the top, right-hand corner. Our reviewers look to the person reporting the content for information about why they think the content violates our standards. People can also unfollow, block or hide content and people they don’t want to see, or reach out to people who post things that they don’t like or disagree with. 
 
 While the Community Standards outline Facebook’s expectations when it comes to what content is or is not acceptable in our community, countries have local laws that prohibit some forms of content. In some countries, for example, it is against the law to share content regarded as being blasphemous. While blasphemy is not a violation of the Community Standards, we will still evaluate the reported content and restrict it in that country if we conclude it violates local law. 
 
 Countries contact us to let us know when content may be in violation of local laws and we compile these requests into a public report called the Global Government Requests Report. 
 
 Global Government Requests Report 
 
 The Global Government Requests Report, which covers the second half of 2014, includes information about the government requests we received for content removal and account data as well as national security requests under the U.S. Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and through National Security Letters. 
 
 Overall, we continue to see an increase in government requests for data and content restrictions. The amount of content restricted for violating local law increased by 11% over the previous half, to 9,707 pieces of content restricted, up from 8,774. We saw a rise in content restriction requests from countries like Turkey and Russia, and declines in places like Pakistan. 
 
 The number of government requests for account data remained relatively flat, with a slight increase to 35,051 from 34,946. There was an increase in data requests from certain governments such as India, and decline in requests from countries such as the United States and Germany. 
 
 We publish this information because we want people to know the extent and nature of the requests we receive from governments and the policies we have in place to process them. 
 
 Moving forward, we will continue to scrutinize each government request and push back when we find deficiencies. We will also continue to push governments around the world to reform their surveillance practices in a way that maintains the safety and security of their people while ensuring their rights and freedoms are protected. ||||| When it comes to sex and nudity, Facebook is strictly PG-13, according to the guidelines. Obvious sexual activity, even clothed, is deleted, as are "naked ‘private parts' including female nipple bulges and naked butt cracks." But "male nipples are OK." Foreplay is allowed, "even for same sex (man-man/woman-woman)" Even the gays can grope each other on Facebook. 
 
 Facebook is more lenient when it comes to violence. Gory pictures are allowed, as long somebody's guts aren't spilling out. "Crushed heads, limbs etc are OK as long as no insides are showing," reads one guideline. "Deep flesh wounds are ok to show; excessive blood is ok to show." 
 
 Drugs are a mixed bag. Pictures of marijuana are explicitly allowed, though images of other illegal drugs "not in the context of medical, academic or scientific study" are deleted. As long as it doesn't appear you're a dealer, you can post as many pictures of your stash as you want. 
 
 Under "hate content," the guidelines specifically ban "Versus photos... photos comparing two people side by side," which is ironic considering Mark Zuckerberg's first hit, FaceSmash, ranked the attractiveness of female Harvard students. 
 
 Some types of content are judged highly on context. For example, school fight videos are deleted only if "the video has been posted to continue tormenting the person targeted in the video." Hate speech is allowed in the case of a joke, and animal abuse videos can stay only if it's clear the user doesn't approve of it. 
 
 Facebook has struggled with the issue of abortion, as it can encompass both sex and gore. Last month, a post offering DIY abortion instructions was 'accidentally' deleted from the page of a Dutch reproductive rights activist. Anti-abortion advocates sometimes complain that Facebook cenors their graphic pictures of aborted fetuses. 
 
 While the guidelines don't mention abortion, a discussion in a forum used by Facebook content moderators Derkaoui showed us sheds light on Facebook's abortion policy. The lead content moderator writes: 
 
 abortion in all its forms is allowed to be depicted, unless it violates the graphic violence or nudity standards. That means users can show images as well as talk about abortion, have discussions, etc. It's only a violation if graphic content such as dismemberment or decapitation is shown, or if the insides are visible. 
 
 Certain content must be escalated to a higher level of review. This includes credible threats against people or public figures, suicidal content, and encouragements to commit crimes. 
 
 Perhaps most intriguing is the category dedicated to "international compliance." Under this category, any holocaust denial which "focuses on hate speech," all attacks on the founder of Turkey, Ataturk, and burning of Turkish flags must be escalated. This is likely to keep Facebook in line with international laws; in many European countries, holocaust denial is outlawed, as are attacks on Attaturk in Turkey. 
 
 A Facebook spokesman told us in a statement that the document "provides a snapshot in time of our standards with regards to [one of our] contractors, for the most up to date information please visit www.facebook.com/CommunityStandards." 
 
 Derkaoui found his job through the California-based outsourcing firm oDesk, which provides content moderation services to both Google and Facebook. After acing a written test and an interview, he was invited to join an oDesk team of about 50 people from all over the third world—Turkey, the Philippines, Mexico, India—working to moderate Facebook content. They work from home in 4-hour shifts and earn $1 per hour plus commissions (which, according to the job listing, should add up to a "target" rate of around $4 per hour). 
 
 The job posting made no mention of Facebook, and Derkaoui said his managers at oDesk never explicitly said that it was the client. Facebook is secretive about how it moderates content; the company is hesitant to bring attention to the torrent of horrible content it's trying to control. Other former moderators I spoke to mentioned that they had signed strict non-disclosure agreements with oDesk. One even refused to talk to me because she believed I was a disguised Facebook employee trying to test her. 
 
 However, a Facebook spokesman confirmed they were oDesk's client. "In an effort to quickly and efficiently process the millions of reports we receive every day, we have found it helpful to contract third parties to provide precursory classification of a small proportion of reported content," he said in a statement. "These contractors are subject to rigorous quality controls and we have implemented several layers of safeguards to protect the data of those using our service." 
 
 Derkaoui, who now works as a regional content manager for the New York-based tech company Zenoradio, didn't make it out of oDesk's extensive training process. He missed a crucial test because it was Ramadan and never caught up. But Skype interviews with a number of other former members of the team offer a picture of the strange work of a content moderator, the prototypical job of the social media boom. 
 
 The former moderators I spoke to were from countries in Asia, Africa and Central America. They were young and well-educated, which is unsurprising considering their proficiency in English. One is applying to graduate schools to study political science in the U.S. next year; another is currently in an engineering program. For them, Facebook content moderation was a way to make money on the side with a few four-hour shifts a week. Many had done other jobs through oDesk, such as working as a virtual assistant. 
 
 Like Derkaoui, most agreed that the pay sucked, while also acknowledging that it was typical of the sort of work available on oDesk. Derkaoui was the only one who cited money as a reason for quitting. The others seemed more affected by the hours they'd spent wading in the dark side of Facebook. 
 
 "Think like that there is a sewer channel," one moderator explained during a recent Skype chat, "and all of the mess/dirt/ waste/shit of the world flow towards you and you have to clean it." 
 
 Each moderator seemed to find a different genre of offensive content especially jarring. One was shaken by videos of animal abuse. ("A couple a day," he said.) For another, it was the racism: "You had KKK cropping up everywhere." Another complained of violent videos of "bad fights, a man beating another." 
 
 One moderator only lasted three weeks before he had to quit. 
 
 "Pedophelia, Necrophelia, Beheadings, Suicides, etc," he recalled. "I left [because] I value my mental sanity." 
 
 Some firms have recognized the mental toll of content moderation and have begun providing psychological counseling to workers. But former moderators said oDesk just warned them that the job would be graphic. 
 
 "They did mention that the job was not for the light of heart before hiring me," said the moderator who quit after three weeks. "I think it's ultimately my fault for underestimating JUST how disturbing it'd be." 
 
 UPDATE: Facebook Releases New Content Guidelines, Now Allows Bodily Fluids 
 
 Top image by Jim Cooke.
– When it comes to rules about posts on Facebook, there's a fair bit of subtlety. Rather than electronically identifying offensive images, for instance, the company says it has actual human beings assess context, the New York Times reports. Today, the site is posting a more thorough explanation of its policies, which also address matters ranging from hate speech and nudity to issues of intellectual property. It encourages users to flag content that concerns them. Among its examples: Nudity: Genitals are a no-no. But while, for example, some images of breasts won't be tolerated, pictures of breastfeeding or mastectomy scars are allowed, as is artwork showing nudes, a spokeswoman tells the paper. Violence: The site has gone back and forth on beheading videos, finally settling on a ban, the Times reports. But images of violence may be allowed if they're aimed at sharing "information about atrocities in the world." Hate speech: Race-, gender-, and religion-based attacks won't be tolerated, the site says. But "people can use Facebook to challenge ideas, institutions, and practices," the site notes. "Such discussion can promote debate and greater understanding." International differences: The laws of different countries can change what's acceptable where. Facebook points to its Global Government Requests Report as a source of information on how official policies affect content and privacy. In the second half of 2014, the site notes, 9,707 pieces of content were restricted by governments, up 11% from the first half of the year. The site offers a clickable map showing different countries' records. Click for the full policy page.