Skip to content
Oct 30 / Cristy Danford

Does Facebook Engage in Information Bias?

Written by Michelle Sawicki

When you think of websites featuring the latest news broadcasts, CNN, BBC and Fox News probably come to mind. However, a recent study found that 30% of Americans get their news stories through Facebook (Pew Research Center, 2013, October 25). While Facebook is certainly a popular website, controversy surrounds its news feeds. Some people disapprove of Facebook news, claiming certain topics are censored. These people believe Facebook news is a biased source of information. In contrast, other groups have fought vehemently to remove particular subjects from Facebook news feeds. The controversy over Facebook’s news feeds has some people questioning if the website is engaging in information bias.

A Community Standards Policy governs the information posted on Facebook. The social networking site does not allow violence and threats, promotions of self-harm, bullying and harassment, hate speech, phishing and spam, graphic content, pornography, certain types of nudity, or breeches of identity, privacy, security or intellectual property (Facebook, 2013). It wasn’t always this way though. Facebook’s Community Standard Policy has gone through some remarkable changes since it was first developed.

“Until recently, Facebook viewed violence against women as a suitable topic for humor. Posts that slammed Jews, gays, or Muslims were classified as “hate speech” and taken down; posts that shamed women were labeled “offensive,” “poor taste,” or “crude attempts at humor” and allowed to remain” (Reynolds, n.d.) Public outrage was expressed in May 2013 after Soraya Chemaly, a media critic and feminist activist, uncovered “videos of girls and women frightened, humiliated, bruised, beaten, raped, gang-raped, bathed in blood, and beheaded. One Facebook page displayed a picture of a woman with a taped mouth and this advice: “Don’t wrap it and tap it. Tape her and rape her” (Reynolds, 2013).


"The Execution of Lady Jane Grey"  (English translation), by Paul Delaroche (1797–1856)

“The Execution of Lady Jane Grey” (English translation), by Paul Delaroche (1797–1856)


When Facebook officials were confronted with the violently abusive material, they originally defended their policy. A representative from Facebook’s Public Policy Communications division reportedly stated in an email, “occasionally, we make a mistake … but this is not a flaw of the policy” (Williams, 2013, May 29).

Facebook officials re-thought their policy though after public outcry led to businesses pulling their advertisements from the social media network, which hit the website where many believe it hurts the most: money and reputation. Under fire, Facebook decided to review and update its guidelines (Williams 2013, May 29).

However, in October 2013 Facebook once again changed its Community Standards Policy. Previous restrictions were lifted, and Facebook now allows videos of re-life beheadings to once again appear in news feeds (Welch, October 21). Facebook asserted that policies were revised because administrators feel users should have the “freedom to view (and hopefully condemn) violent content” (Welch, 2013, October 21). That’s the same stance Facebook administrators originally held on the subject of violence. Surprisingly, Facebook’s return to allowing murders and other violent content occurred shortly after a University of Michigan study found that the more young adults used Facebook, the more their life-satisfaction levels declined (Kross, Verduyn, Demiralp, Park, Lee, Lin, Shablack, Jonides, & Ybarra, 2013). This study may very well be used in an effort to substantiate the arguments of those who believe Facebook’s violent news feeds may have negative effects on viewers.

We will more than likely once again see public opposition to Facebook’s decision to allow violent content. However, those who oppose videos of live beheadings on Facebook may soon be able to block these videos from appearing in their newsfeeds. Facebook officials claim they are working on creating measures to allow users to have more control over the content they see (Kelion, 2013, October 21). In the meantime, people have no fool-proof way to stop violence and real life murders from appearing in their newsfeeds.

I personally feel Facebook does have a history of engaging in Information bias, but I also believe Facebook administrators did so in an attempt to placate their community and avoid losing sponsors. How do you feel about information bias and Facebook’s stance? Is Facebook right to oppose information bias? Do you believe Facebook should censor videos of beheadings for the good of society, or do you think removing videos of beheadings constitutes objectionable information bias?


Facebook. (2013). Facebook community standards. Retrieved October 26, 2013, from

Kelion, L. (2013, October 21). Facebook lets beheading clips return to social network. BBC News: Technology. Retrieved October 25, 2013 from,

Kross, E., Verduyn, P., Demiralp, E., Park, J., Seungjae, D. L., Lin, N., Shablack, H., Jonides, J., & Ybarra, O. (2013). Facebook Use Predicts Declines in Subjective Well-Being in Young Adults. PLoS One, 8(8). Retrieved October 28, 2013, from ne.0069841

Pew Research Center. (2013, October 25). The Facebook news experience. Pew Research Center. Retrieved October 26, 2013, from

Reynolds, J. (n.d.). Facebook cracks down on domestic violence. Law Enforcement Today. Retrieved October 25, 2013, from

Welch, C. (2013, October 23). Facebook decides to allow videos of beheadings in your news feeds. The Verge. Retrieved October 25, 2013, from

Williams, M. E. (2013, May 29). Facebook finally addresses its rape culture. Salon. Retrieved October 28, 2013, from



  1. Kimberly Mason / Nov 11 2013

    It appears that there could be information bias on the part of Facebook. How can it be okay to allow videos of women being raped and ridiculed on your website? Yet in your policy you state that violence and threats will not be allowed. Harming women is violent and should not be allowed on the Facebook website along with other violent acts.

    When it comes to the beheading videos in the news feeds, I think of that like watching TV during the daytime and a commercial for a scary movie comes on. I do not think that is appropriate. Although I am watching something on a public network there is a time and place for everything. People should be able to decide if they want beheadings or any other violent videos in their news feeds. Facebook administrators should not force such media on you. Without Facebook subscribers their memberships could go down if people are forced to watch violent and negative videos.

  2. Kerry Roman / Nov 10 2013

    I personally find it troubling that people are getting their “news” from Facebook. Of course there is bias in Facebook feeds. It all begins though with your “friends” list. I personally have never seen beheadings or violence similar to what you have described on Facebook because the people I choose to have as “friends” aren’t the type to post such a thing. If they did, I would delete them immediately. With Facebook, a user can control from where or whom they receive information. I do believe Facebook has an obligation though to monitor the images on their site and have guidelines outlining appropriate behavior. After all, it is a social media site, not a news media site.

  3. Michelle Sawicki / Nov 8 2013

    I agree that we need to be careful of what we expose ourselves too. I like the idea of Facebook posts being rated by users (similar to how movies are rated). People could subscribe to topics and ratings as they see fit, and this would filter out a lot of unwanted content.

  4. Adam DeWitt / Nov 1 2013

    I do think Facebook practices information bias. I have not heard of posts about violence against women–but the people I have on my Facebook hate that kind of thing. By allowing such a thing to continue while other posts are ignored, the administrators reveal their biases. I do not know if they want to generate discussion on allowed topics; but I think they would be better off allowing discussion on all topics or none. Granted, these comments are based on incomplete information.

    The posting of beheading is troublesome to me. While I do not think observing such videos will make a person want to decapitate another, I do believe we must be careful what we allow ourselves to watch. As the saying goes: “garbage in, garbage out.” Such videos do have the potential to generate discussion about mortal violence. However, there are some who would post them to advance their agendas, or because they think the videos are fascinating or fun to watch. People would have to exercise responsibility when considering posting or watching such videos. Then again, why not post a comment about a video, rather than posting the video itself?

Comments are closed.