Facebook moderators identified more than 1,300 posts on the site as “credible terrorist threats” in a single month and face a “mission impossible” to control the amount of content proliferated by extremists, according to internal documents and testimony provided to the Guardian.

A document circulated to the teams tasked with policing the site says there were 1,340 “credible terrorist threat escalations” last August.

This means that potentially worrying extremist content or propaganda was passed to senior Facebook managers who then deleted or disabled 311 posts and accounts.

Eight of the most serious reports were evaluated by the service’s internal counter-terrorism team, the document adds. It also says the information gleaned from moderators had been “a massive help on identifying new terrorist organisations/leaders”.

The figures are the first insight into the number of terrorist-related reports dealt with by Facebook, which rarely reveals details about the scale of the problems it deals with every day.

Asked about the documents, Facebook contested the figures but did not elaborate. It also declined to give figures for other months.

Other files show Facebook has designated the western-backed Free Syrian Army, which is fighting to depose the president, Bashar al-Assad, as a terrorist group.

Tackling terrorist-related content is one of Facebook’s priority areas. The Guardian has been told it is attempting to help control the problem by using software to intercept extremist content before it gets on the site.

This involves monitoring activity from “known bad accounts” and “fanning out” to others related to them. More than half the terrorist-related content removed by Facebook is now identified in this way.

A Facebook document on counter-terrorism. Photograph: Guardian

But one source familiar with Facebook’s counter-terrorism policies said extremist groups such as Islamic State could easily circumvent moderators to distribute content across the site.

The source said the volume of material often meant moderators had “less than 10 seconds” to make a decision that might require intimate knowledge of a terrorist organisation and its leaders. “It’s a mission impossible,” the source said.

The figures for last August are included in the scores of documents seen by the Guardian that make up the Facebook Files.



They set out in unprecedented detail the way the social media company has tried to balance its commitment to free speech with growing demands for it to more aggressively challenge abuse and violence on the platform.

The documents show guidelines provided to moderators, who review content flagged by Facebook users. The manuals appear to lay out a strict code of what is tolerated and what should be deleted.

One slide explains: “People must not praise, support or represent a member … of a terrorist organization, or any organization that is primarily dedicated to intimidate a population, government or use violence to resist occupation of an internationally recognized state.”

Moderators have been provided with a 44-page document that features 646 names and faces of terrorist leaders and their groups. They use this to help them make assessments about whether to allow or delete content.

While most of the terrorist organisations are internationally recognised, the Facebook manuals include the western-backed Free Syrian Army. The FSA has been recognised by a number of western powers – including the US and the UK – as the legitimate armed opposition to Assad. The FSA has also received backing from Turkey and Saudi Arabia.

Facebook has also labelled the “First Division Coastal Group” a terrorist organisation. The group has received weapons from Qatar and the US, and is linked to the FSA.

The documents show how graphic images are more likely to remain on the site if the caption or commentary beneath them is “neutral”.

One example shows a man who appears to have been shot in the head lying in a pool of blood. This photo would have to be removed if a caption mocks the victim but can remain if the commentary appears neutral or critical of war.

The source said: “We only remove content that praises or represents terrorism. The problem is, the terrorists now spread their content like news. Careful use of words can make a difference.”

The Facebook manual’s page on the Free Syrian Army. Photograph: Guardian

Another tactic is to proliferate links on Facebook. The Guardian has been told this made moderation extremely difficult and the content “very resistant to censorship”.

Other potentially controversial rules are set out in a three-page document on Facebook’s policies on breaking news. This tells moderators not to delete photos of mutilated or dead bodies, or of videos depicting death, once reported. Instead, they are to be marked as “disturbing”.

Facebook has designed a “single review tool” screen that allows moderators to compartmentalise the content they review into categories. But the source said moderators often felt they were organising information for Facebook, rather than having time to properly assess the content for potentially threatening material.

Facebook said: “We have no tolerance for the promotion or celebration of terrorism on Facebook. In cases of imminent harm, we escalate to law enforcement.” It declined to explain why the FSA is regarded as a terrorist organisation.

“If someone shares something that they think shouldn’t be on Facebook, we make it very easy for people to report content to us for review,” the company said. “When we become aware of an emergency involving imminent harm to someone’s safety, we notify law enforcement.”

Nevertheless, the social media giant has faced criticism for doing too little to prevent or purge extremist content, with some critics arguing the company should be fined if it cannot clean up its act.



The EU has become exasperated by the amount of extremist content on social media sites, including Facebook, with Germany planning new laws to bring social media companies into line or face fines of up to €50m (£42m).

A report by British MPs published on 1 May said it was “shameful” that social media sites had “failed to use the same ingenuity to protect public safety and abide by the law as they have to protect their own income”.