Facebook has published a 27-page document outlining how the company moderates content on their platform and a new appeals process for users who believe their content was unfairly deleted.

In a surprise attempt at transparency, Facebook has decided to reveal their 27-page community standards document which outlines what content is banned from their platform and why user accounts may be suspended for publishing certain content. This seems to be another push by Facebook to show just how much content they have to moderate on their platform following criticism from Congress recently for the alleged limiting of certain Facebook pages such as that of conservative YouTube stars Diamond and Silk.

“I’ve been wanting to do this for a long time,” said Monika Bickert, Facebook’s Head of Global Policy Management, according to Wired. Facebook’s decision to publish their content guidelines appears to be in an effort to explain to the public that they do have set rules and guidelines for what they allow on their platform. “I have actually had conversations where I talked about our standards and people said, ‘I didn’t actually realize you guys have policies,’” said Bickert.

According to the content policy, Facebook leans towards allowing content to stay on the platform rather than remove it. “We err on the side of allowing content, even when some find it objectionable, unless removing that content prevents a specific harm,” states the community standards guidelines. The document released today clearly explains a number of situations in which content should be removed, for example, videos that show “tossing, rotating, or shaking of an infant too young to stand by their wrists, ankles, arms, legs, or neck,” should be removed from the platform. Similarly, links to psychological resources and help centers must be provided to anyone that posts “images where more than one cut of self mutilation is present on a body part and the primary subject of the image is one or more unhealed cuts.”

A whole section of the community standards document is dedicated to “hate speech,” this section reads:

We do not allow hate speech on Facebook because it creates an environment of intimidation and exclusion and in some cases may promote real-world violence.

We define hate speech as a direct attack on people based on what we call protected characteristics — race, ethnicity, national origin, religious affiliation, sexual orientation, sex, gender, gender identity, and serious disability or disease. We also provide some protections for immigration status. We define attack as violent or dehumanizing speech, statements of inferiority, or calls for exclusion or segregation. We separate attacks into three tiers of severity, as described below.

Sometimes people share content containing someone else’s hate speech for the purpose of raising awareness or educating others. Similarly, in some cases, words or terms that might otherwise violate our standards are used self-referentially or in an empowering way. When this is the case, we allow the content, but we expect people to clearly indicate their intent, which helps us better understand why they shared it. Where the intention is unclear, we may remove the content.

We allow humor and social commentary related to these topics. In addition, we believe that people are more responsible when they share this kind of commentary using their authentic identity.

In another section, Facebook outlines how they’re attempting to fight fake news:

Disrupting economic incentives for people, Pages, and domains that propagate misinformation

Using various signals, including feedback from our community, to inform a machine learning model that predicts which stories may be false

Reducing the distribution of content rated as false by independent third-party fact-checkers

Empowering people to decide for themselves what to read, trust, and share by informing them with more context and promoting news literacy

Collaborating with academics and other organizations to help solve this challenging issue

Facebook’s full community standards can be read here.

Nicolás Maduro’s socialist dictatorship in Venezuela has overseen a 120 percent increase in the number of political prisoners in the past year, according to the legal aid group Foro Penal.

There are currently 233 political prisoners across Venezuela, mainly on crimes of “treason,” instigating anti-government protests, or the alleged use of violence or intimidation against the country’s security forces. This is a 120-percent increase from this time last year, where there were around 100 people imprisoned.

According to Foro Penal director Alfredo Romero, the government has instituted an “open door” prison policy, liberating some group of prisoners while imprisoning even more.

Nearly all of those imprisoned are dissidents against the Maduro regime, which has over the past year transformed the country into a totalitarian dictatorship where political dissent is outlawed.

Venezuelan political prisoners have previously testified to the use of torturous methods by prison authorities, which include the use of electroshock, starvation, and nude humiliation. Last year, a joint report by Foro Penal and Human Rights Watch also accused the government of feeding prisoners dishes such as “pasta with feces.”

As a result, many of the country’s elected politicians and officials—such as the rightful Mayor of Caracas Antonio Ledzema, the former Attorney General Luisa Ortega, and Venezuelan Ambassador to the United Nations Diego Arria—have exiled themselves to avoid political repression or imprisonment.

Attending the UN Human Rights Council last September, Arria testified to the use of “torture, sex crimes, and systematic murder of unarmed civilians” by the government that he said amounted to “crimes against humanity” by a tyranny run by “drug traffickers and criminals.”

Venezuela’s most recognized political prisoner is the opposition leader Leopoldo Lopez, who was imprisoned in 2014 on charges of organizing mass street protests against the government. He is currently living under house arrest.

Meanwhile, hundreds of thousands of ordinary Venezuelans have also fled the country to escape the high levels of political repression, as well as in search of a better life amid the country’s ongoing economic meltdown.

The high numbers political prisoners is inextricably linked to the rise of political activism as Venezuela experiences the worst humanitarian crisis in its history, with millions of people now starving and without living resources such as medicine and toiletries.

The humanitarian crisis is mainly a result of nearly two decades of socialist rule that saw excessive government spending and economic mismanagement that has led to wild levels of inflation close to 8000 percent that has rendered the country’s Bolivar currency effectively worthless.

According to a recent Reuters analysis, hyperinflation has also left the country’s once powerful banks loaded with worthless cash, worth a total of just $40 million.

Follow Ben Kew on Facebook, Twitter at @ben_kew, or email him at bkew@breitbart.com.

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) stressed on Tuesday that the key for Democrats in the 2018 midterms is to focus on the “economic instability for so many people” in the country. But an increasing number of liberals are getting concerned that the media’s and the Democrats’ focus on all things Stormy Daniels will hurt Democrats in the 2018 midterm elections.

When asked on Saturday evening if there is a “concern” or “danger” that Stormy Daniels will overshadow the Democrats’ message on the economy, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) told CNN’s Van Jones, “absolutely.” Sanders also criticized the media, the Democrats’ tag team partner, for overplaying all things Daniels.

The Atlantic’s Ron Browstein also argued that the legacy media’s obsession with Daniels could block the party’s economic message from getting through to critical swing voters.

The left-leaning analyst noted that the “intense media attention” on Stormy Daniels “might not actually move many more voters than they already have, and the economic message pushed by Democrats—one that’s rooted, in part, in the tax bill—is having a hard time breaking through.”

He claimed Democrats would have a much easier path to taking back the House if it could also “capture at least some Republican-held seats that are more blue-collar and non-urban, in places like upstate New York, downstate Illinois, and Iowa.” More importantly, as Brownstein noted, “winning working-class voters is even more essential for Democrats in the Senate,” where the party is defending seats in states Trump won in 2016 like West Virginia, North Dakota, Montana, Missouri, and Indiana.”

But the economic messages that can win Democrats some of these Trump voters “now rarely break through the tabloid maelstrom constantly engulfing Trump,” Brownstein argued, pointing out that is “isn’t clear that the case against Trump’s values is a winning argument in those places.”

“In other words: For a sunny outcome this fall, Democrats probably need more health care and taxes—and less Comey and Stormy,” he concluded.

Though some Democrats still want to double down on Stormy Daniels, recent polling has found that only 23 percent of Americans believe Daniels is an important issue while Trump’s support among white evangelicals has hit an all-time high.