
<p>When Kyle Rittenhouse fatally shot two men and maimed a third in August 2020, Facebook&nbsp;<a href="https://twitter.com/brianfishman/status/1299083851596214272" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">took relatively swift action</a>. A day after the incident in Kenosha, Wisconsin, it removed his Facebook and Instagram accounts, started to prohibit posts praising him and blocked his name from the apps’ search function.</p>



<p>The moves came as part of another new Facebook policy around violence and mass shootings that debuted that same week, though it’s unclear whether it dropped before&nbsp;<em>or&nbsp;</em>after Rittenhouse shot those men. And as part of its decision to reduce Rittenhouse’s profile on the platform, the company officially designated Rittenhouse as a “mass shooter.”</p>



<p>But the steps immediately drew criticism from within Facebook. In a post to Facebook’s internal Workplace message board days later, one employee wrote: “If Kyle Rittenhouse had killed 1 person instead of 2, would it still qualify as a mass shooting? Can we really consistently and objectively differentiate between support (not allowed) and discussion of whether he is being treated justly (allowed)?”</p>



<p>The Workplace post went on: “Can we really handle this at scale in an objective way without making critical errors in both under and over enforcement?”</p>



<p>That comment really hits the nail on the head. Facebook has been caught up in a years-long reckoning over what type of content to regulate and how it should do that. It has been roundly criticized by liberals for not doing enough and by conservatives for doing too much. As a result, it is pulled in both directions, more often than not pleasing neither side.</p>



<p>Recently, it has been pressed recently to take a stronger stance against violent content and posts that might lead to violence, which you might think could draw universal support. It hasn’t. And on Friday, it became even more complicated for Facebook: A jury found Rittenhouse <a href="https://www.forbes.com/video/6282826589001/biden-and-politicians-responds-to-kyle-rittenhouse-verdict/">not guilty</a>, reigniting outcries from right-wing pundits that Facebook had unfairly rushed to penalize him. (His lawyer had successfully convinced the jury that he acted in self-defense that August evening in Kenosha, Wisconsin, a city then engulfed in protests over the police shooting of a 29-year-old Black man, Jacob Blake.)</p>



<figure class="wp-block-embed is-type-rich is-provider-twitter wp-block-embed-twitter"><div class="wp-block-embed__wrapper">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">FACEBOOK DECLARED KYLE RITTENHOUSE A MASS MURDERER<br><br>PRESERVE YOUR RECORDS ZUCKERBERG</p>&mdash; Jack Poso 🇺🇸 (@JackPosobiec) <a href="https://twitter.com/JackPosobiec/status/1461764109402316808?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">November 19, 2021</a></blockquote><script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
</div></figure>



<figure class="wp-block-embed is-type-rich is-provider-twitter wp-block-embed-twitter"><div class="wp-block-embed__wrapper">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">.<a href="https://twitter.com/facebook?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@Facebook</a> owes Rittenhouse and its users an apology, to start. <a href="https://t.co/DPGT3PNcHx">https://t.co/DPGT3PNcHx</a></p>&mdash; Tom Fitton (@TomFitton) <a href="https://twitter.com/TomFitton/status/1461781361380016130?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">November 19, 2021</a></blockquote><script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
</div></figure>



<p>Facebook has long been reluctant to make judgment calls about what belongs on its site—and when it has prohibited material such as violent content, it has not always been successful in keeping it from appearing on its platform. One of the most dramatic examples: the March 2019 Christchurch shooting in New Zealand, where the shooter livestreamed his onslaught on Facebook and YouTube. No one reported the video to Facebook until 29 minutes after it went up, and no part of the video triggered Facebook’s automated moderation software, according to a internal Facebook report about the Christchurch shooter. Facebook eventually shut off the feed, but it would spend the next day taking down 1.5 million copies of the video. In response, Facebook changed a number of its policies related to live videos, including speeding up how quickly its software reviews new live videos. (Before Christchruch, a broadcast would typically have lasted for 5 minutes before the program noticed it; subsequent changes lowered it to about 20 seconds.)</p>



<p>As with many Facebook policy changes, these were reactive, and the more recent past has seen more of Facebook trying to keep up with current events unfolding on its platform. In August 2020, shortly after the Rittenhouse shootings, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg acknowledged the company had erred in not taking down a Facebook event page that encouraged a militia to form in the same Wisconsin city where Rittenhouse had shot the three men. Facebook users reported the militia group 455 times before Facebook removed it. And then in January, Facebook took measures against posts related to the U.S. Capitol riots only in the aftermath to the insurrection—even though sentiment delegitimizing the election had blossomed on Facebook in the months after Joe Biden’s victory, another internal Facebook report shows.</p>



<p>The Rittenhouse verdict raises a whole new set of questions. When should a “mass shooter” label get affixed to someone—before or after a trial? Ever? How exactly should Facebook tamp down on posts? Should it scrap the mass shooter policy entirely?</p>



<p>Over the weekend, Facebook, which didn’t return requests to comment, was again sent backtracking. It lifted its block around searching for “Kyle Rittenhouse” on Facebook and Instagram, helping posts about Rittenhouse from right-wing media personalities like Ben Shapiro and Dan Bongino to attract tens of thousands of comments, reshares and reaction emojis, the signals that then boost their posts further up users’ Facebook feeds. One Facebook group, American Patriots Appeal, is advertising a Rittenhouse T-shirt. It costs $27.99 and shows him crouched, G.I. Joe-style, holding a semiautomatic rifle. An emblazoned phrase appears alongside: “Kyle Rittenhouse Did Nothing Wrong.”</p>



<p><em>The internal Facebook documents cited in this story come from the documents that Facebook whistle-blower Frances Haugen turned over to the SEC; redacted versions have gone to Congress and a consortium of news organizations, including </em>Forbes. <em>They’re popularly known as The Facebook Papers.  </em></p>



<p><em><strong>By Abram Brown, Forbes Staff</strong></em></p>


Kyle Rittenhouse Found Not Guilty In Kenosha Protest Shootings

Will The Kyle Rittenhouse Verdict Change How Facebook Treats Gun Violence—Again?


<p id="h-a-federal-district-court-ruled-in-favor-of-facebook-in-two-lawsuits-brought-by-the-federal-trade-commission-ftc-and-state-attorneys-general-monday-thwarting-government-efforts-to-break-up-the-big-tech-behemoth-and-sending-the-company-s-market-value-to-record-heights-though-the-court-said-the-ftc-can-file-their-complaint-again-and-make-another-attempt"><strong>TOPLINE</strong>: A federal district court ruled in favour of Facebook in two <a href="https://www.forbes.com/sites/siladityaray/2020/12/09/48-us-states-ftc-file-antitrust-charges-against-facebook/?sh=24ef02ec7653">lawsuits</a> brought by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and state attorneys general Monday, thwarting government efforts to break up the big tech behemoth and sending the company’s market value to record heights—though the court said the FTC can file their complaint again and make another attempt.</p>



<h3 class="wp-block-heading" id="h-key-facts">KEY FACTS</h3>



<p>The FTC&nbsp;<a href="https://www.ftc.gov/enforcement/cases-proceedings/191-0134/facebook-inc-ftc-v" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">sued</a>&nbsp;Facebook in December 2020, alleging the company had violated antitrust law through practices like buying up competitors like Instagram and WhatsApp.</p>



<p>U.S. District Judge James E. Boasberg&nbsp;<a href="https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.224921/gov.uscourts.dcd.224921.73.0.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">ruled</a>&nbsp;the government agency’s claims about Facebook being a monopoly were “legally insufficient and must therefore be dismissed,” saying the government’s case was “light on specific factual allegations” even as the judge acknowledged the court “does not agree with all of Facebook’s contentions here.”</p>



<p>New York Attorney General Letitia James led 48 states in separately&nbsp;<a href="https://ag.ny.gov/press-release/2020/attorney-general-james-leads-multistate-lawsuit-seeking-end-facebooks-illegal" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">suing</a>&nbsp;Facebook for alleged antitrust violations in December, which Boasberg also&nbsp;<a href="https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.224923/gov.uscourts.dcd.224923.137.0.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">dismissed</a>&nbsp;Monday, saying the states waited too long to bring their case.</p>



<p>The states’ case “is premised on public, high-profile conduct nearly all of which occurred over six years ago,” Boasberg wrote—“when Ebola was the virus dominating headlines”—and granting relief to the states now would result in harm to Facebook and its shareholders given that Instagram and WhatsApp have been fully integrated into the company.</p>



<p>The FTC lawsuit was dismissed “without prejudice,” which means it can be filed again with changes to address the court’s concerns, but the state complaint was dismissed in its entirety.</p>



<p>The favorable ruling&nbsp;<a href="https://www.cnn.com/2021/06/28/tech/facebook-trillion-ftc/index.html" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">led to</a>&nbsp;Facebook’s stock rising by more than 4% Monday and the company hitting a $1 trillion market cap for the first time, and the company said in a&nbsp;<a href="https://twitter.com/andymstone/status/1409611408371859459?s=21" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">statement</a>&nbsp;they were “pleased” the court’s decisions “recognize the defects in the government complaints filed against Facebook.”</p>



<h3 class="wp-block-heading" id="h-crucial-quote">CRUCIAL QUOTE</h3>



<p>“The FTC alleges only that Facebook has ‘maintained a dominant share of the U.S. personal social networking market (in excess of 60%)’ since 2011&#8230;and that ‘no other social network of comparable scale exists in the United States.’ That is it,” Boasberg wrote to explain why he ruled in Facebook’s favor, saying the FTC did “not even provide an estimated actual figure or range for Facebook’s market share at any point over the past ten years” and their allegations “ultimately fall short of plausibly establishing that Facebook holds market power.”</p>



<h3 class="wp-block-heading" id="h-what-to-watch-for">WHAT TO WATCH FOR</h3>



<p>The FTC is likely to submit an amended complaint to get the court to reconsider the issue, particularly considering the agency’s new director,&nbsp;<a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/15/technology/lina-khan-ftc.html#:~:text=Liz%20Cheney-,Biden%20Names%20Lina%20Khan%2C%20a%20Big%2DTech%20Critic%2C%20as,on%20the%20agency%20on%20Tuesday." target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Lina Khan</a>, has a history of being critical of big tech. The new FTC chief, who the Senate just confirmed in mid-June, expressed&nbsp;<a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/21/business/lina-khan-ftc.html" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">concerns</a>&nbsp;about the dominance of big tech companies like Facebook during her confirmation hearing, saying she believed there was a “whole range of potential risks” associated with companies’ growing power.</p>



<h3 class="wp-block-heading" id="h-key-background">KEY BACKGROUND</h3>



<p>The Facebook lawsuits are part of a growing government effort against Facebook and its big tech brethren. Government&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/these-are-the-u-s-antitrust-cases-facing-google-facebook-and-others-11608150564" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">lawsuits</a>&nbsp;have also been brought against Google, the FTC is reportedly&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/amazons-planned-purchase-of-mgm-to-be-reviewed-by-ftc-11624379614" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">preparing</a>&nbsp;to investigate Amazon over its acquisition of&nbsp;<a href="https://www.forbes.com/sites/alisondurkee/2021/05/26/amazon-buys-mgm---but-heres-why-you-still-wont-find-wizard-of-oz-or-gone-with-the-wind-on-there/">MGM</a>&nbsp;and the House Judiciary Antitrust Subcommittee&nbsp;<a href="https://www.forbes.com/sites/rachelsandler/2020/10/06/long-awaited-house-report-recommends-breaking-up-big-tech/?sh=7158f975c831">concluded</a>&nbsp;in October that Congress should consider updating its antitrust laws and breaking up big tech companies, among other efforts. Facebook, for its part, has&nbsp;<a href="https://www.politico.com/news/2020/07/28/tech-ceo-antitrust-hearing-opening-statement-385233" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">maintained</a>&nbsp;it does not practice anticompetitive behavior—even as emails&nbsp;<a href="https://www.theverge.com/2020/7/29/21345723/facebook-instagram-documents-emails-mark-zuckerberg-kevin-systrom-hearing" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">show</a>&nbsp;CEO Mark Zuckerberg said he viewed Instagram as a threat that “can hurt us meaningfully” before Facebook bought the company—and has&nbsp;<a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2020/12/11/facebook-breakup-antitrust/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">integrated</a>&nbsp;the tech behind its platforms like Instagram and WhatsApp reportedly in order to make the company harder to break up.</p>



<h3 class="wp-block-heading" id="h-tangent">TANGENT</h3>



<p>Antitrust legislation that could result in big tech companies like Facebook potentially getting broken up is moving forward in Congress, with the House Judiciary Committee&nbsp;<a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/24/technology/antitrust-overhaul-congress.html" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">advancing</a>&nbsp;<a href="https://www.cnbc.com/2021/06/22/tech-industry-urges-congress-to-slow-down-new-antitrust-bills.html" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">legislation</a>&nbsp;last week that would prohibit companies from owning businesses that present a conflict of interest, stop tech platforms from advantaging their own services over those of competitors and give regulators more of an advantage over the tech companies. Those bills likely face an uphill battle in a closely divided Senate, however, even as both Republicans and Democrats have advocated against tech companies’ growing power.</p>



<h3 class="wp-block-heading" id="h-surprising-fact">SURPRISING FACT</h3>



<p>Among those who have called for Facebook to be broken up is the company’s own co-founder Chris Hughes, who wrote in a 2019 op-ed that the “government must hold Mark accountable.” “Mark’s power is unprecedented and un-American,” Hughes wrote about Zuckerberg. “It is time to break up Facebook.”</p>



<h3 class="wp-block-heading" id="h-further-reading">FURTHER READING</h3>



<p><a href="https://www.forbes.com/sites/siladityaray/2020/12/09/48-us-states-ftc-file-antitrust-charges-against-facebook/?sh=24ef02ec7653">48 Attorneys General, FTC File Antitrust Charges Against Facebook</a>&nbsp;(Forbes)</p>



<p><a href="https://www.forbes.com/sites/rachelsandler/2021/03/10/facebook-seeks-dismissal-of-antitrust-lawsuits/?sh=1458cb054e30">Facebook Seeks Dismissal Of Antitrust Lawsuits</a>&nbsp;(Forbes)</p>



<p><a href="https://www.cnn.com/2021/06/28/tech/facebook-trillion-ftc/index.html" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Facebook hits $1 trillion market cap after federal court dismisses FTC antitrust complaint</a>&nbsp;(CNN)</p>



<p><a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2020/12/11/facebook-breakup-antitrust/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Regulators want to break up Facebook. That’s a technical nightmare, insiders say. </a>(Washington Post)</p>



<p><em><strong>By Alison Durkee, Forbes Staff</strong></em></p>


In this photo illustration, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg

Facebook Wins Antitrust Lawsuits — At Least For Now


<p><strong>TOPLINE</strong> Facebook will no longer recommend political groups to users, CEO Mark Zuckerberg said Wednesday, amid criticism for how the platform was used by pro-Trump extremists to plan the attack on the Capitol earlier this month.</p>



<h4 class="wp-block-heading" id="h-key-facts">KEY FACTS</h4>



<p>Facebook had already halted political and social issue group recommendations leading up to the November election last year, but Zuckerberg said on an earnings call Wednesday that the change will become permanent.</p>



<p>The move is significant because private Facebook groups are rife with misinformation and conspiracy theories, researchers&nbsp;<a href="https://www.npr.org/2020/06/22/881826881/facebook-groups-are-destroying-america-researcher-on-misinformation-spread-onlin" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">say</a>, with some involved in the planning of the Capitol riots, according to a&nbsp;<a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/some-pro-trump-extremsists-used-facebook-plan-capitol-attack-report-n1254794" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">report&nbsp;</a>from the Tech Transparency Project.</p>



<p>The ban comes the day after Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) wrote a scathing letter to Zuckerberg saying, “Facebook’s system of recommending political groups poses grave threats to American democracy and public safety.”</p>



<h4 class="wp-block-heading" id="h-key-background">KEY BACKGROUND</h4>



<p>&nbsp;Critics have long pressured Facebook to crack down on calls for violence, hate speech and misinformation. They argue Facebook is a cesspool of extreme views, and can play a role in&nbsp;<a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/14/opinion/facebook-far-right.html" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">radicalizing&nbsp;</a>normal users. At least in part recognizing Facebook’s divisiveness, Zuckerberg also said Wednesday the social network plans to reduce the amount of political content people see in their feeds. “One of the top pieces of feedback that we’re hearing from our community right now is that people don’t want politics and fighting to take over their experience on our services,” Zuckerberg said.</p>



<h4 class="wp-block-heading" id="h-tangent">TANGENT</h4>



<p>Facebook’s revenue and profit grew in 2020, despite a looming antitrust investigation, privacy mishaps and scrutiny over content moderation. But the company warned in its fourth-quarter earnings report that it would face significant obstacles this year as Apple plans to make it harder for Facebook to track iOS users.</p>



<h4 class="wp-block-heading" id="h-surprising-fact">SURPRISING FACT</h4>



<p>Facebook already <a href="https://www.theverge.com/2020/9/17/21443742/facebook-health-groups-recommendations-new-admin-rules" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">stopped</a> recommending health-related groups in September to address coronavirus and other health misinformation.</p>



<p><em>By Rachel Sandler, Forbes Staff</em></p>


Facebook Will Permanently Stop Promoting Political Groups


<p><strong>TOPLINE</strong>   Dozens of Facebook employees staged a virtual walkout on Monday, in an escalation of protests against CEO Mark Zuckerberg’s failure to act on President Trump’s “When the looting starts, the shooting starts” post.</p>



<p><strong>KEY FACTS</strong></p>



<ul class="wp-block-list"><li>Staff members flocked to rival platform Twitter for a second day, to denounce Zuckerberg’s “do-nothing” approach to Trump’s post that threatened violence toward George Floyd protesters.</li></ul>



<ul class="wp-block-list"><li>One employee, Owen Anderson, announced in a&nbsp;<a rel="noreferrer noopener" href="https://twitter.com/OwenResistor/status/1267568422327447552?s=20" target="_blank">tweet</a>&nbsp;that he had quit the company.</li></ul>



<ul class="wp-block-list"><li>“To be clear, this was in the works for a while.&nbsp;But after last week, I am happy to no longer support policies and values I vehemently disagree with,” he wrote.</li></ul>



<ul class="wp-block-list"><li>Employees have also been circulating messages internally, with one staffer writing on a staff message board: “The hateful rhetoric advocating violence against black demonstrators by the U.S. President does not warrant defense under the guise of freedom of expression,” the&nbsp;<em>New York Times</em>&nbsp;<a rel="noreferrer noopener" href="https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/01/technology/facebook-employee-protest-trump.html" target="_blank">reported</a>. Others urged Zuckerberg to take down Trump’s post.</li></ul>



<ul class="wp-block-list"><li>Facebook spokesman Andy Stone said employees will not have the protest days taken out of their vacation allowance, Reuters&nbsp;<a rel="noreferrer noopener" href="https://uk.reuters.com/article/us-facebook-trump-employee-criticism/facebook-staffers-walk-out-saying-trumps-posts-should-be-reined-in-idUKKBN2382D0" target="_blank">reported</a>.</li></ul>



<ul class="wp-block-list"><li>The walkout, staged virtually as all Facebook employees are working remotely in the pandemic,was triggered by Facebook&#8217;s refusal to take action over Trump&#8217;s inflammatory posts, while Twitter took the unprecedented step of flagging his comment for “glorifying violence.”</li></ul>



<ul class="wp-block-list"><li>Zuckerberg has reportedly pushed the company’s weekly employee Q &amp; A session from Friday to Tuesday.</li></ul>



<p><strong>CRUCIAL COMMENT</strong></p>



<p>In a joint statement, a number of the virtual demonstrators tweeted: “Facebook’s recent decision to not act on posts that incite violence ignores other options to keep our community safe. We implore the Facebook leadership to #TakeAction.”</p>



<figure class="wp-block-embed-twitter wp-block-embed is-type-rich is-provider-twitter"><div class="wp-block-embed__wrapper">
https://twitter.com/dan_abramov/status/1267544361929256966?s=20
</div></figure>



<p><strong>TANGENT</strong></p>



<p>Online therapy company Talkspace has cut ties with Facebook over the issue. CEO Oren Frank&nbsp;<a href="https://twitter.com/orenfrank/status/1267504648275005440?s=20" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">tweeted</a>&nbsp;on Monday: “We at Talkspace discontinued our partnership discussions with Facebook today. We will not support a platform that incites violence, racism, and lies. #BlackLivesMatter.”</p>



<p><strong>NEWS PEG</strong></p>



<p>President Trump has driven a wedge between Facebook staff and the social network&#8217;s founder. Facebook&#8217;s no-leak culture, and the largely united front between management and staff had largely weathered previous storms in its march to &#8220;connect the world.” That accord was shattered in a flood of tweets condemning Zuckerberg&#8217;s decision to keep Trump&#8217;s post on the site. Before the walkout, several senior employees blasted Zuckerberg’s defence of keeping the post on the site. Design manager Jason Stirman tweeted on Monday: “I‘m a FB employee that completely disagrees with Mark’s decision to do nothing about Trump’s recent posts, which clearly incite violence. I’m not alone inside of FB. There isn’t a neutral position on racism.”</p>



<p>In a post on Monday, Zuckerberg said Trump’s post and use of the historically racially charged phrase did not breach Facebook policies. “Our position is that we should enable as much expression as possible unless it will cause imminent risk of specific harms or dangers spelled out in clear policies,” he&nbsp;<a href="https://www.facebook.com/zuck/posts/10111961824369871" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">said</a>.</p>



<p><strong>KEY BACKGROUND</strong></p>



<p>The death of George Floyd after white policeman Derek Chauvin knelt on his neck for nearly nine minutes last Monday sparked outrage across the U.S. and subsequent protests in more than 75 cities. <a href="https://www.forbes.com/sites/isabeltogoh/2020/06/01/corporate-donations-tracker-here-are-the-companies-giving-millions-to-anti-racism-efforts/#701eab0037dc">Companies</a>, facing public pressure to speak out, have released statements pledging support to the black community, including Amazon, Netflix, Twitter and Peloton. On Monday, Zuckerberg<a href="https://www.forbes.com/sites/isabeltogoh/2020/06/01/facebook-pledges-10-million-to-racial-justice-campaigns/#2c2f71374250"> announced</a> Facebook is donating $10 million to groups campaigning for racial justice.</p>



<p><em>&#8211;<a href="https://www.forbes.com/sites/isabeltogoh/">Isabel Togoh</a>, Forbes Staff, <a href="https://www.forbes.com/business">Business</a></em></p>


gettyimages-1176382466-594×594

Facebook Employees Stage Virtual Revolt Against Zuckerberg’s Inaction On Trump’s ‘Shooting’ Post


<p><strong>TOPLINE</strong>     Former Facebook moderators will receive at least $1,000 each after Facebook agreed to pay $52 million to settle a lawsuit over allegedly failing to protect moderators being exposed to harmful content online.</p>



<p><strong>KEY FACTS</strong></p>



<ul class="wp-block-list"><li>Moderators were exposed to the worst types of content online including terrorism, pedophilia and animal abuse. They were hired by Facebook through third-party firms.</li></ul>



<ul class="wp-block-list"><li>The settlement covers more than 11,000 current and former moderators across California, Arizona, Texas and Florida. It was filed at San Mateo County Superior Court on Friday.</li></ul>



<ul class="wp-block-list"><li>Plaintiffs who have been diagnosed with a mental illness, including PTSD, qualify for additional compensation of up to $50,000.</li></ul>



<ul class="wp-block-list"><li>The social media giant says it will change its policies in response to the case, and introduce compulsory group counseling sessions for moderators, while third-party firms will be required to step up support for moderators’ mental health.</li></ul>



<p><strong>CRUCIAL COMMENT</strong></p>



<p>Lawyer Steve Williams, representing the plaintiffs, <a rel="noreferrer noopener" href="https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2020/may/12/facebook-settlement-mental-health-moderators" target="_blank">told</a> <em>The Guardian</em>: “The harm that can be suffered from this work is real and severe. So the fact that we got some real, meaningful relief going forward just feels really good.”</p>



<p><strong>KEY BACKGROUND</strong></p>



<p>Facebook was sued in September 2018 by former content moderator Selena Scola, who developed PTSD after nine months in the job, thanks to regular exposure to images of rape and murder. The scale of the mental toll on moderators was exposed by <em>The Verge</em> last year. The outlet <a rel="noreferrer noopener" href="https://www.theverge.com/2019/2/25/18229714/cognizant-facebook-content-moderator-interviews-trauma-working-conditions-arizona" target="_blank">reported</a> that some Facebook content moderators working for IT firm Cognizant <a rel="noreferrer noopener" href="https://www.forbes.com/companies/cognizant" target="_blank">CTSH</a> in Arizona had developed fringe views after exposure to extreme right-wing and conspiracy theorist content, while some had developed PTSD. To cope, some moderators at the firm smoked weed to numb their emotions, while being paid just $28,800 a year. A <em>Guardian</em> report last year found that moderators for Facebook based in Berlin were becoming <a rel="noreferrer noopener" href="https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/sep/17/revealed-catastrophic-effects-working-facebook-moderator" target="_blank">addicted</a> to extreme content, were overworked and paid little. </p>



<figure class="wp-block-embed-twitter wp-block-embed is-type-rich is-provider-twitter"><div class="wp-block-embed__wrapper">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Thank you and the team for all of your diligent efforts, work, and support on this case for the <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/content?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#content</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/moderators?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#moderators</a> at <a href="https://twitter.com/facebook?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@Facebook</a> and <a href="https://twitter.com/instagram?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@instagram</a>, <a href="https://twitter.com/lydiaannewright?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@lydiaannewright</a>  <a href="https://twitter.com/d_charest_law?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@d_charest_law</a>. <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/MentalHealthMatters?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#MentalHealthMatters</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/MentalHealthAwareness?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#MentalHealthAwareness</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/MentalHealthMonth?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#MentalHealthMonth</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/PTSD?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#PTSD</a> <a href="https://t.co/fXhq7UyS8n">https://t.co/fXhq7UyS8n</a></p>&mdash; Selena Scola (@selena_scola) <a href="https://twitter.com/selena_scola/status/1260321806633721858?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">May 12, 2020</a></blockquote><script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
</div></figure>



<p>&#8211;<em> <a href="https://www.forbes.com/sites/isabeltogoh/">Isabel Togoh</a>, Forbes Staff, <a href="https://www.forbes.com/business">Business</a></em></p>


Tag: Facebook scandal

FORBES AFRICA SOCIAL MEDIA

Will The Kyle Rittenhouse Verdict Change How Facebook Treats Gun Violence—Again?

Facebook Wins Antitrust Lawsuits — At Least For Now

Facebook Will Permanently Stop Promoting Political Groups

Facebook Employees Stage Virtual Revolt Against Zuckerberg’s Inaction On Trump’s ‘Shooting’ Post

Facebook Will Pay Out $52 Million After Failing To Protect Moderators From Dangers Of Extreme Content