Facebook has finally made its moderation guidelines officially available to the public in full and boy is this a fascinating glimpse into a convoluted set of rules that once censored the entire ACLU Facebook page over a post about ... wait for it ... censorship. (The case in question concerned a partially nude statue in Kansas which would likely now fall under an allowed category called “paintings, sculptures, and other art”).

It’s not the first time the public has gotten to see Facebook’s internal logic in action — portions were published from documents leaked to the Guardian last year — but this time, Facebook is posting its Community Standards to gather input from users.

Related The secret lives of Facebook moderators in America

Facebook’s moderation guidelines are notoriously self-defeating! In 2015, artist Micol Hebron posted a photo of a male nipple on Facebook, suggesting facetiously that women evade Facebook’s censorship of the female nipple by covering their nipples with the male nipple. (Since 2015, Facebook has allowed female nipples in a number of exceptions, including breastfeeding photos, photos of protest, and photos of mastectomies).

Today’s published guidelines — a series of vague pronouncements peppered with brief interludes of oddly specific breakdowns — might make you feel sorry for the moderator who’s trying to apply them. Every time a bizarrely detailed exception is tacked on, you can almost imagine the actual case scenario that prompted them to revise the guidelines.

Nudity and sexual intercourse are given incredibly specific definitions involving checklists and various combinations of genitalia, anuses, female nipples, and mouths. Exceptions might include “a sexual health context” or “an advertisement” (what about advertisements for porn or sex work?). A photo with a “visible anus and/or fully nude close-ups of buttocks” is not allowed, with one exception — it’s okay for those to be “photoshopped on a public figure.” Presumably genitalia aren’t allowed to be photoshopped on a public figure, though?

Public figures (it’s not totally clear from the guidelines who counts as a public figure) don’t get the same treatment as private individuals. Under the “Bullying” section, the guidelines state that a picture that “has been photoshopped to target and demean [a private individual]” is not allowed.

Making fun of a private individual in this way is restricted. But on the other hand, even though images depicting an “act of sexual intercourse” are banned, it might fall under the allowable exception of “posted in an attempt at humor or satire.” Very clear!

“Hate speech” is divided in three tiers, with Tier 1 being the most extreme (from “violent speech” to mocking the “concept” of hate crime, whatever that means), and Tier 3 the least extreme. Tier 3 hate speech are mere calls to segregate people according to one of Facebook’s “protected categories” — Facebook enumerates a long list that includes race, ethnicity, religion, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, and so on. “We also provide some protections for immigration status,” say the guidelines, but also, “We do allow criticism of immigration policies and arguments for restricting those policies.”

So where does a pro-Trump post praising the travel ban fit in? Is it a criticism of an over-liberal immigration policy, or a call to segregate people based on religion?

Facebook says it wants to “improve and refine” these guidelines with the input of its users. In May it will launch public events all over the world — which it calls “Facebook Forums: Community Standards” — to solicit feedback.