(Warning: This report contains graphic images of animal abuse and may offend some readers.)

Facebook has chosen to allow graphic images of abused and slaughtered dogs on its site, WND has learned.

Pages such as “I love dogs,” and “Dogs are scum” depict brutal dog killings and advocate violence against dogs.

When WND reported one page, it was taken down, but several more just like it remain. After receiving the reports, Facebook refused to remove the pages and their graphic images.

Photos include dead dogs in trash bags, dogs being dragged behind cars, dozens of purported dead dogs hanging from tree limbs, dog stabbings and dogs being held at gunpoint.

Meanwhile, Facebook has reportedly banned certain breastfeeding images but has allowed videos showing people being decapitated. (Facebook now claims “the vast majority” of breastfeeding photos are compliant with its policies.) In its explosive 2012 series that went viral online, “The secret, dark side of Facebook,” WND exposed an epidemic of child pornography sharing on the social network. Just this month, the New York Post recently reported the social network still contains graphic pages of oral sex, child pornography, mutilation, bondage and bestiality and is slow to remove such photos.

One Facebook group, “Bestiality Rights & Zoophile Rights – EFA,” claims to be “the world’s first bestiality-rights & zoophile-rights organization.”

FB_zoo

In April 2013, London’s Sun reported Facebook refused to remove a 29-second video showing a man grabbing a dog by the tail and hurling it off a roof.

Animal abuse is not merely distasteful to most Americans, it’s considered a serious crime. According to the Animal Legal Defense Fund, all 50 U.S. states have felony animal cruelty provisions. According to the organization, “Abusers of animals are five times as likely to harm humans.”

One comment on the page, “I hate dogs,” stated, “I injected cocaine in a dogs body two days ago, today he’s dead. Haha.”

After WND reported the comment, Facebook reviewed it and deemed it acceptable. It had allowed it to remain on the page since March 24, 2013. However, a day after WND’s report, Facebook reversed its decision and removed the post.

dogs8

The following are just some of the photos posted on several anti-dog pages:

dog1

dogs3

dogs4

dog4

dogs5

A Facebook spokesman told WND, “We remove reported content that includes extreme acts of animal abuse. Certain content, which some may find offensive, can be used to spread awareness and we welcome dialogue about animal abuse, hunting, and other animal rights issues.”

However, after numerous reports to Facebook – including ones regarding the photos posted above – WND received several responses from the social network indicating the images did not violate its community standards. Most were identical to the one below:

dogs7

As WND reported in its series, “The secret, dark side of Facebook,” the social network has divulged very little about its content screening process. However, on Feb. 16, 2012, the news blog Gawker.com reported that it had interviewed Amine Derkaoui, a 21-year-old Moroccan man who claimed to have spent weeks training to screen Facebook content through the California-based outsourcing firm oDesk.

Derkaoui said he was paid $1 an hour.

According to Gawker, Derkaoui provided some internal documents explaining how Facebook censors its content.

He said the content moderation team used a Web-based tool to view photos, videos and wall posts reported by Facebook users. The moderators have a choice between three actions: 1) confirm the flag and delete the content, 2) unconfirm it and let the content stay or 3) escalate the content to a higher level of moderation for examination by Facebook employees.

A copy of Facebook’s cheat sheet he provided is available here.

The images of the abused and slaughtered dogs would appear to violate the standards listed under “Graphic Content,” which included the following:

  • “Content showing Poster’s delight in/involvement in/promoting of/encouraging of violence against humans or animals for sadistic purposes (e.g. torture, staged animal fights, animal starvation, obvious neglect, etc.)
  • “Depicting the mutilation of people or animals …”
  • “Violent speech (Example: ‘I love hearing skulls crack’)”

“After acing a written test and an interview, [Derkaoui] 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,” Gawker explained. “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).”

According to the report, the job posting made no mention of Facebook. Derkaoui also said his oDesk managers never openly said Facebook was the client. However, Gawker noted, a Facebook spokesman confirmed the social network was oDesk’s client.

Other sources claiming to have been Facebook moderators complained about the nature of their work cleaning up the website.

“Think like that there is a sewer channel,” one person said during a Skype chat with the blog, “and all of the mess/dirt/waste/sh-t of the world flow towards you and you have to clean it.”

Another person quit after only three weeks of moderating.

“Pedophelia, necrophelia, beheadings, suicides, etc,” he recalled. “I left [because] I value my mental sanity.”

When WND asked Facebook about the Gawker report, a Facebook spokesman responded with the following statement:

“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. 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. Additionally, no user information beyond the content in question and the source of the report is shared. We have, and will continue, to escalate the most serious reports internally, and all decisions made by contractors are subject to extensive audits.

“We are constantly improving our processes and review our contractors on an ongoing basis. This document provides a snapshot in time of our standards with regards to one of those contractors, for the most up to date information please visit Facebook.com/CommunityStandards.”

Note: Read our discussion guidelines before commenting.