Nipples, Terrorism, and Sexual Descriptions - Facebook's List of Banned Content 134
Mark Wilson writes Facebook has updated its Community Standards document, outlining the type of content that is not permitted on the social network. When it's not forcing people to reveal their real names, blocking 'offensive' content, or encouraging users to vote, Facebook is often to be found removing content that has been reported for one reason or another. But what's acceptable, and what's not? A little while back, the site revealed a simplified version of its privacy policy, and now the Community Standards document has received the same treatment. Facebook has set out the types of pictures that are permissible, along with specifying guidelines for other content.
Nipples and terrorism? (Score:5, Insightful)
Americans...
Re:Nipples and terrorism? (Score:5, Funny)
You must admit, my platform is compelling.
Re: (Score:1)
Your ideas intrigue me, and I would like to subscribe to your newsletter.
Re: (Score:1)
...and online video service...
Re: (Score:2)
You're just sucking up to the American people.
Re:Nipples and terrorism? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Companies have much bigger, um, teats... You can say that, right?
Re: (Score:2)
Sexual description? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Sure you can. You just need to keep it like your real life and make it devoid of sexualized body parts.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, you've perked my interest.
Re: (Score:2)
You're such a boob.....
Facebook helps solve a personal problem. (Score:2)
Facebook has an answer. Read Facebook use predicts declines in happiness, new study finds. [sciencedaily.com] Or download the scientific paper. [plosone.org]
Re: (Score:3)
Tell you what though - do you have any rubber walrus protectors?
.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The future -- deal with it.
Re: (Score:3)
I predict you will have to remain stiff in the face of strong opposition; support is key, as it raises your points in the face of the electorate, and helps to project your main tips as to how your new political stance will affect us. I hope your platform will also incorporate a significant transparency component, so that instead of relying on Internet searches, we can directly view the issues at hand. With careful planning, I'm sure you can
Re: (Score:2)
All hail the mother land.
Re:Nipples and terrorism? (Score:4, Interesting)
In general Americans have problems with moderation.
If you say you went out to drink, then you will drink until you're drunk. While in many other countries a drink is just a drink, not even enough to get legally buzzed.
If the person smoke then they smoke at least a pack a day. While in other countries it may be 1 or 2 cigarette a day.
Culturally nudity is equated with sex. So if facebook allowed nudity that is past the FCC standard, then it would go downhill fast. As desperate young adults showing the goods that they got, or the would be models giving a full preview.
Now if you want to change this, then you need to change the culture. Right now facebook (a non-government, corporation) needs to balance its ideals with free speech, and maintaining the optimal number of users.
The first amendment states that the Government cannot stop free speech (Where I still question the constitutionality of the FCC rules), however that doesn't mean non-government groups need to allow free speech, they can choose what they want or not want to show or say.
Re:Nipples and terrorism? (Score:5, Informative)
Funny, I looked for that phrase, "political speech", in the text of the 1st...didn't find it.
Re: (Score:2)
It's right next to the one about corporations are people too. Courts just love to make stuff up.
Re: (Score:1)
To be fair, the part about corporations being "people" is in the actual statute. The court simply held that it was constitutional (the statute). Want to change the statute, change congress. And good luck getting rid of the Republicrats that support the Corporate States of America
Re: (Score:3)
It's right next to the one about corporations are people too. Courts just love to make stuff up.
What the courts stated was that corporations are just groups of people, and that they should not lose rights for simply being in a group. If a person can donate to a political campaign then a group of people should be able to pool their money and do the same. The corporations are people is just rhetoric designed to make you emotional and stop thinking critically so you will blindly support it's cause.
Re: (Score:2)
What the courts stated was that corporations are just groups of people, and that they should not lose rights for simply being in a group.
I have no problem with that. I just don't like the idea of extending the limited financial liability of a corporation to other activities (possibly illegal) that groups of people might engage in.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
People shouldn't lose their rights for simply being in a group, of course. But that does not translate to a "legal person" of a corporation - which is in practice distinct from all the people that form it - acquiring rights of its own, independent of those of its members. Which is the case in practice under the current interpretation.
I'll grant you that certain rights and freedoms should be accorded to groups, and among them is the freedom of speech, but that is a separate discussion and shouldn't be mixed
Re: (Score:2)
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech ...
Re: (Score:1)
I admit that I have never thought of organizations like the EFF, the NRA, and PETA when thinking about corporations being people.
However I want to restrict even these organizations from donating to political candidates. I want political contributions be be limited to human beings. If PETA likes Regan, then all of the individual members of PETA can donate as much as they want. With the added restriction that all of the contributions are made public immediately after the donation is made. Full and immedia
Re: (Score:2)
As it was closing an era in this part of North America in which unpopular political speech was greeted with torture, imprisonment and death, it was understood to apply to political speech being restricted by the politicians.
Of course, at the time. speech in general was a tad more civil - norms and mores more closely observed in public rather than flouted for attention-seeking effect.
Not necessarily in that order... (Score:5, Funny)
So if facebook allowed nudity that is past the FCC standard, then it would go downhill fast.
Heaven forbid we might find nudity on the internet.
Re: (Score:2)
Heaven forbid that Facebook go downhill fast.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
While in many other countries a drink is just a drink, not even enough to get legally buzzed.
And in yet other countries, there's an even greater tendency towards alcoholism than in the USA.
Culturally nudity is equated with sex.
Right, and in some cultures, not being in a bad is equated with harlotry.
It's not that I don't think that we can improve in these areas, I think there's lots of room for improvement in fact, but you opened with "In general Americans have problems with moderation" and that seems a bit inflammatory.
Drinking (Score:1)
Never been to the UK or Russia? Binge drinking is a way of life there. Check out the late night pictures of Cardiff for "moderation".
Re:Nipples and terrorism? (Score:5, Insightful)
That's the almost funny thing here.
The average American poster thinks of their "Free Speech" (other examples that follow the same pattern could be found too) right as a Holy Cow that is invincible, because it is protected by the constitution.
I had some posters here looking down on, say, Germany as an "undemocratic" country, because there are laws in place that actually limit free speech. (Which is protected by the constitution there, too)
But, at the bottom line, free speech in the US is even more limited, be it FCC rules, sue-trigger-happy lawyers, facebook EULAs, general politeness - anything down to school district regulations.
Re: (Score:3)
Freedom of speech is not the only right there is, and it is not some sort of 'super right' that trumps all others.
FCC rules - an argument could be made that this is a restriction of speech. However, an argument could also be made that the public should have the freedom to decide how a scare public resource (airwaves) can be used. Does Germany have no such freedom for the public to influence use of public resources? If not, score one more freedom for the US.
Lawyers - I guess you mean libel/slander laws.
Re: (Score:2)
Even more so. How to handle conflicting rights granted by the constitution is also part of the constitution. (And I met people here who consider that as limitation) but it's more straight forward than this absolut sounding "shall pass no law to restrict" while the restrictions are there anyway.
Re: (Score:3)
Well now I am very confused. Above I thought you were doing good old America bashing about how we were 'more restricted' than Germany, but here you are admitting that other people also have rights which may be in conflict with yours. So which is it? Is America really 'more restricted', or are we in fact freer? Frankly, I do not see any way that a country which has no actual laws against free speech, but which does respect the rights that others may have is 'more restricted' than a country which has act
Re: (Score:2)
So which is it? Is America really 'more restricted', or are we in fact freer?
It probably depends on the meaning of free, particularly "free to" and "free from". I'm free to wear my gold chain for a stroll in Somalia, but the odds of being free from crime is probably better at home. Recently we had a court case about a guy who was openly applauding the IS atrocities and calling them heroes and martyrs and true followers of Islam, but stopped just short of encouraging others to commit terrorism. On the one hand it would be silly to criminalize approval of illegal actions - it would ma
Re: (Score:2)
I didn't want to actually 'bash' anyone except those people oversimplifying the matter by putting Germany next to a socialist dictatorship because the limits of free speech are already codified by laws and at the same time falling for the illusion of unlimited free speech in the US just because the limits there aren't actual laws.
But in the end, the restrictions are more or less the same (With a few well known exceptions like the use of symbols of historical fascist groups), so we're talking about details h
Re: (Score:2)
Freedom of speech is not the only right there is, and it is not some sort of 'super right' that trumps all others.
FCC rules - an argument could be made that this is a restriction of speech. However, an argument could also be made that the public should have the freedom to decide how a scare public resource (airwaves) can be used. Does Germany have no such freedom for the public to influence use of public resources? If not, score one more freedom for the US.
Lawyers - I guess you mean libel/slander laws. Does Germany have no right of a person to seek redress for being lied about? If not, score one more freedom for the US
Facebook - Does Germany have no freedom of the press, that is, the right to decide what you will and will not publish using your private property? If not, score one more freedom for the US
General politeness - wtf? Is there some kind of law in Germany that says I must still associate with you and not think ill of you just because you make repugnant or just stupid speeches? If so, score another freedom for the US
School district rules - should the public have no say in the environment that is created, using its tax money, in the place where its children must attend each day by law?
Are you being sarcastic, and pointing out how little freedom the US has?
Re: (Score:2)
OK, I'll bite. Which of those shows a lack of freedom?
Re: (Score:2)
That is because in the real world there are no absolutes. Can I use your house to display a giant hate-filled diatribe? Why not, what gives you the right? It can't be property rights, because that would be abridging my right of free speech. The exact same is true for ever one of his supposed 'restrictions of free speech'.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, that is exactly my point. I was responding to the idiot complaining that 'politicians do not understand clear language'. There can be no such thing as 'absolutes', as I demonstrated. You DO have property rights, and you CAN use them to stop me from using your property to make a speech, even though that may APPEAR to be a violation of free speech. Similarly, Facebook DOES have freedom of the press, and CAN decide what to publish, even if that removes a venue for you to make a speech.
Re:Nipples and terrorism? (Score:5, Informative)
In general Americans have problems with moderation.
If you say you went out to drink, then you will drink until you're drunk. While in many other countries a drink is just a drink, not even enough to get legally buzzed.
Really... really? You're gonna pull the "America is the only place without moderation" card?
How about we throw some facts into the deck:
Smoking problems? 51st place.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Drinking problems? 22nd place.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Notice those are the consumption RATES, meaning people in those countries smoke and drink more.
So unless I see you also make the same argument against the 71 cases of countries with higher rates than the USA, I'm going to tell you to sit down and shut up. Because you're talking like an idiot.
Stop misappropriating the fact that people care enough to change things in the USA, with actual rates of those things occurring. Because if that's all you do, you'd think the USA was a racist hellhole. But you'd be wrong: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new... [dailymail.co.uk]
Re: (Score:3)
Generalised rates have very little to do with what the GP was talking about. There's a big difference between a person who has a shot of Whiskey every night as a nightcap, and a person who drinks half the bottle once a week. The rate however is the same.
Take France for instance. Big old number 1 on the drinking "problems" list. I spent a good few months in Paris. Every single day at lunch or dinner you can walk past any restaurant and see someone drinking a glass of wine. But even when I went to university
Re: (Score:2)
According to the WHO [who.int], what you are describing is 'heavy episodic drinking', which is defiined as '60 or more grams of pure alcohol consumed on one occasion in the last 30 days'.
In France (by your accounting nobody there does heavy episodic drinking), 43.7% of male drinkers (or 42.2% of the entire male population) engage in heavy episodic drinking. France has the lowest (worst) score for years life shortened by alcohol.
In the US (by your account, all drinkers are heavy episodic drinkers), 30.9% of male dri
Nice try (Score:2)
Drinking is drinking. It is physically and psychologically addictive, whether from regular "light" embibing or binge drinking.
Those "wonderfully reasonable" French are probably ALL addicted. They would suffer, especially physically, if they tried to stop.
My father was a "reasonable" drinker. Glass of wine at dinner, and nothing else. I lived with the guy for 17 years, then (after moving out) would visit for summer holidays each year.
I got a chance to watch the problem develop. The man
Re: (Score:2)
Now this is interesting
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
We Swiss drink the same amount as the British. But funny enough, Britain does have a kind of a "drunk" problem; because people go out, drink as much as they can, then the pubs close. In Switzerland however, restaurants and bars stay open rather longish, which leads to people spreading their drinking through the evening into the morning, and NOT get drunk.
Similarly, in France and Austria, people might drink a lot, but usually don't go binge drinking.
Re:Nipples and terrorism? (Score:4, Interesting)
In general Americans have problems with moderation. If you say you went out to drink, then you will drink until you're drunk. While in many other countries a drink is just a drink, not even enough to get legally buzzed. If the person smoke then they smoke at least a pack a day. While in other countries it may be 1 or 2 cigarette a day.
Anecdotes are anecdotes, but as an American with a bit a world travel under my belt, this contrasts with my observations. Europeans tend to be better at the "just one drink" (and when they do over-do it, there is much better public transit, or their homes are nearby). East Asians seem to enjoy having a few drinks at a time, and Mexicans as well. There was no legal alcohol in Kuwait, and my visit to Afghanistan was before the wine "industry" started up again (so no observations there). However, the pub culture and local breweries have been taking off here in the western U.S., and we frequently go and have just one beer around here.
As to smokers: in every other country I visit, the local nationals are always surprised at how few Americans smoke. In many states in the U.S., public indoors smoking is illegal, which really cuts down on the number of chain smokers, and forces them to limit their smoking to about one cigarette per hour. I'm always surprised when I go elsewhere, as to how many people will finish a cigarette, then immediately light up another.
Re: (Score:2)
You have to account for the effect of the hysterical telling people their "lives are ruined" because X happened. That's the real driver for the vast majority of the sexual neurosis in the USA: backwards, puritanical pinheads who value harmful rhetoric over people's sense of self under any circumstance tha
Re: (Score:2)
How can I talk about over 300 million people without a mass generalization?
Re: (Score:2)
What in hooting hollering name is wrong with noodie nipples? And why such a sexist approach - guys nipples are ok to show but not womens?
Re: (Score:1)
The chocolate powerup in candy crush looks like a black boob covered in colourful nipples.
ban this game now and save me and hundreds of thousands from the addiction.
Other than that I'm not sure what they mean? does facebook have other content other than candy crush?
Re: (Score:2)
As an American, let me say this about that: you got that right. Freakin' winner in the "Most Hypocritical Country In The History Of The World" contest, more Victorian than Queen Victoria (who was known to run around the Palace in the altogether).
mark
I have nipples... (Score:5, Funny)
Pam Byrnes: I had no idea you could milk a cat!
Greg Focker: Oh, you can milk just about anything with nipples.
Jack Byrnes: [He reacts] I have nipples, Greg, could you milk me?
Re: (Score:2)
The answer should actually have been "Yes, but you probably wouldn't enjoy what's required."
Time to start tripping those automatic filters? (Score:2)
beware... (Score:2, Informative)
the Attack of the killer terrorist nipples...
stupid false prude US IDIOTS, prime purveyors of hard p0rn all over the world
"Better safe than sorry" right?? (Score:5, Insightful)
The point of all this is that anything sufficiently sufficiently controversial is getting censored in the name of protecting our fragile little minds with a very real, very strong chilling effect. It will be a sad day when I have to make my own website mirrored on Tor to proactively report on anything that might get censored but I can see that day coming.
Re: (Score:2)
This video was banned from Youtube for "encouraging bullying". When you're claiming presentation of evidence is encouraging the crime you've gone one step too far.
I agree that it isn't specifically "encouraging", but if it's evidence, it belongs onto a police or court file, not youtube.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Is your point that this video did not encourage bullying or that every website should allow videos that encourage bullying?
If you can find a website to post this video where it will be treated as a pure news story and people have a reasonable conversation about bullying, racism, etc. then great. However, I'm guessing that this video on youtube did not meet that criteria and therefore they have every right, perhaps even an obligation, to take it down. That's not censorship.
Facebook (Score:1)
Oh, wow, people still use Stasibook?
Re:Facebook (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Facebook (Score:5, Insightful)
Why are any of you still using Failbook!? Do you enjoy pain?
Because it's handy to keep up with what my friends and family are doing.
Do you like being treated like children or inmates?
I don't experience this. My friends on Facebook and I engage in wide-ranging debates on subjects as diverse as Putin, gun control and trans issues, with nary a peep from the prison guards & parents that you seem to think run Facebook.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't worry citizen, we are tracking you. Any worrying signs of Thoughtcrime will be noted.
Hey Anonymous Coward, you really need to get out more. It's an nice day. Leave your basement and go for a walk.
Re: (Score:2)
So what would you suggest? No seriously, tell me the alternative. The key requirement is that the 200+ friends of mine use it too. Tell me which service fits the bill and I'll happily jump ship right now.
Facebook? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Facebook? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Why not? Give me an alternative.
Why the difference? (Score:1)
Religious wingnuts (Score:1, Interesting)
"Terrorism" (Score:4, Insightful)
So, no outright bans, despite what the clickbait title would like you to believe:
Many of my friends regularly post pictures of some nation state having blown the shit out of some children or some wedding party, and those don't get taken down. If they did, they'd probably all leave, and really what these guidelines are about is maximizing ad sales.
I'm more concerned with Facebook's choice to impose Puritanism's soft-ban on depictions of the human body, which is a religious preference (one absent of logic, IMO) straight out of the Victorian era. More people would be upset if they were imposing other religious filters.
Why not ban depictions of Muhammad? That'll offend more people than boobs.
Re: (Score:3)
Why not ban depictions of Muhammad? That'll offend more people than boobs.
Yes, I am fairly certain no boobs would be offended at all.
Re: (Score:2)
I disagree, people who want to ban depictions of Muhammad are pretty big boobs. (Though they're also still people, so it would offend exactly the same number of both, by definition.)
Re: (Score:2)
Many of my friends regularly post pictures of some nation state having blown the shit out of some children or some wedding party,(...)
What you mean by "some nation state" is often the US, isn't it [rt.com]?
Re: (Score:3)
"straight out of the Victorian era"
What really amazes me is when people are even more uptight than the historical culture was. One of my siblings always gets up in arms when people start talking about breast feeding in public without a nipple shield for his comfort. When he started trying to use religous dogma one of my other siblings gleefully posted pictures, related to his religion of choice. Those pictures were of wood block carving pictures published in public news papers during the victorian era depic
Re: (Score:2)
I reported a posted video showing torture to an animal, facebook replied it met their acceptable use policy.
But... was the pictured animal naked, or the torture in a sexually arousing context? Seems like those are the only things Facebook staffers care about.
Nipples and Terrorism and Sexual Descriptions (Score:2)
Hillary Clinton in Gold Nipple Rings
These are some of my favorite things!
Re: (Score:3)
Hillary Clinton in Gold Nipple Rings
Look, I'm all for a pretty liberal interpretation of free speech, but some things really should be banned.
I don't care ... (Score:5, Funny)
... if Facebook wants to support the nipple deniers.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
When nipples are outlawed, only outlaws will have nipples.
Beheadings still allowed (Score:1)
Terrorist Nipples (Score:2)
We may have just discovered an un-capitalized niche market for porn.
This leaves questions unanswered... (Score:2)
Ban sunglasses with prices (Score:2)
I keep seeing spam, and it's always for sunglasses. What's the deal with that? Are people really buying sunglasses from spammers? More interestingly, if it's working for sunglasses, why am I not seeing spam for anything else?
Equality? (Score:2, Interesting)
So, will this be handled equally between men and women?
Can men still post shirtless pics of themselves while women cannot?
Sounds like an invitation to a discrimination suit.
Makes no sense, American puritanism (Score:1)
From TFA:
Campaigners will be pleased to learn that Facebook will "always allow photos of women actively engaged in breastfeeding or showing breasts with post-mastectomy scarring".
So it's ok to jack off to those.
Other depictions of breasts that show the nipple are likely to come in for scrutiny.
But not ok to jack of to these. Huh?
It's a hard problem (Score:2)
I don't think Facebook is competent to decide whether or not a church's refusal to recognize the legitimacy of homosexual couples is hate speech, or whether or not the state of Israel is a terrorist organization, etc.
I'd rather them stick to standards that are not so subject to interpretation, like no depictions of one person's genitalia in contact with another person where either person is not of the age of majority. Let the nation states decide what those ages of majority are. Those sorts of standards are
Re: (Score:2)
I predict a surge in band-aid sales.