Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Facebook Social Networks

Facebook Is Sorry for Taking Down a Photo of a Nude Neptune Statue (fortune.com) 159

Posted by msmash from the handling-1.5-billion-people dept.
Facebook has apologized for mistakenly blocking a photo of a famous statue for being "sexually explicit." From a report on Fortune: The social media giant flagged a photograph of a 16th-century statue of the sea god Neptune in the Italian city of Bologna. The picture of the sculpture -- which was created in the 1560s -- was featured on the Facebook page of local writer and art historian Elisa Barbari called "Stories, curiosities and view of Bologna." Facebook told Barbari that the picture violated the company's privacy policies. "It shows an image with content that is explicitly sexual and which excessively shows the body or unnecessarily concentrates on body parts," the company said in a statement. The company added: "The usage of images or video of nude bodies or plunging necklines is not allowed, even if the use is for artistic or educational reasons." Facebook later said that blocking the photo was a mistake.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Facebook Is Sorry for Taking Down a Photo of a Nude Neptune Statue More

Facebook Is Sorry for Taking Down a Photo of a Nude Neptune Statue

Comments Filter:

  • Remember this when they decide fake news... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by aicrules ( 819392 ) on Tuesday January 03, 2017 @01:02PM (#53598871)
    oops we accidentally removed your verified news article that just happened to conflict with our corporate interests or political views....

    • If one side disproportionately supports fake news, then Facebook's algorithms will disproportionately identify one side as the source of all of it. And I won't be a bit surprised when that one side complains about it. Cry me a river.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Maritz ( 1829006 )
      Aw diddums, your bullshit that everyone was taking at face value will now be questioned. Poor guy.

  • This is an automatic process (Score:5, Informative)

    by JcMorin ( 930466 ) on Tuesday January 03, 2017 @01:05PM (#53598891)
    As they said in the article they are processing million of images and that's expected to have some false positive. There is no way in the world a human can review every single photo posted. I think it's a story out of nothing special.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by xxxJonBoyxxx ( 565205 )
      Ditto. This crap belongs on Yahoo "News", not Slashdot. "OMG - view this one weird picture Facebook banned"

      • Automatically plunging necklines (Score:2, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward

        So, you're good with "plunging necklines" being something that must be hidden from your poor, frightened eyes?

        Facebook is your basic double-padded room for hysterical body-shamed twerps.

        You be safe, now. And remember: if you're anywhere but on SafeBook, For Dog's Sake, CLOSE YOUR TENDER LITTLE EYES!

        • Ultimately this is why young people will avoid Facebook if they are not doing it already. It will become an echo chamber for the old.

          • Facebook is the standard for social media just as Google is the search engine of choice.

            There are alternatives in tandem, but "avoid" != "abandon."

            • However, I can use Bing instead of Google whenever I want. Facebook is where my friends and family are. It would do me little good to join another social network.

              • However, I can use Twitter instead of Facebook whenever I want.

                • Sure, I can use Twitter. However, I have friends, and I have relatives I like, and a large number of them are on Facebook. I use social media to connect with people I want to stay social with, and dropping Facebook would lose the social advantage of social media.

          • Ultimately this is why young people will avoid Facebook if they are not doing it already. It will become an echo chamber for the old.

            This is already happening. Facebook is what mom and dad or grandma and grandpa use to share recipes and pictures of their dog. My daughter deleted her account after the election because of all the post election bickering. My younger kids have mostly abandoned theirs. Most of the still-in-school crowd has moved on to Instagram and Snapchat.

            • The funny part is, I avoided Facebook until a group that I participate in, and the band my son was in, exclusively used a Facebook page instead of creating their own web page. I tried convincing both publicity people that they were going backwards, like to the Compuserve walled garden days, and of course they didn't understand the "archaic" reference - after all, isn't everybody on Facebook? So now I know a handful of young people who use Facebook only to read announcements.

    • Re:This is an automatic process (Score:5, Insightful)

      by omnichad ( 1198475 ) on Tuesday January 03, 2017 @01:07PM (#53598909) Homepage

      A false positive that hasn't been seen by a human should be reversible by the poster and restored immediately. It can be added to a queue for human review in the meantime.

      Facebook has so many options for getting this right.

      • Re: (Score:1, Flamebait)

        by jedidiah ( 1196 )

        What you just described would be so easy to abuse it's not even funny. If you seriously trust every single random pervert that posts to Facebook, there's no point in having a filter to begin with.

        People like you are as bad as the morons that get their panties bent out of shape over the fact that David has all of his parts.

        • How do you "abuse" it? I said it should only happen to automated flags. If it gets flagged for human review, it could even jump to the front of the queue and go back down again very quickly. That doesn't mean you have to stay eligible for that reversal capability if you've shown a repeated failure to understand the content guidelines.

          If you don't get notified when your post is taken down, then the response priority goes to the people who are paying attention and are aware that their post was flagged - a

          • You forget that Facebook has more -- far more -- users posting pictures than it has staff to review them. Allowing users to override an image filter invites the users to abuse the override whenever they get flagged. They'll treat the override as just another step to perform in order to post the picture.

            The current system allows flagged photos to be reviewed. The content can be restored if the flag is a false positive. And a user can be sanctioned if they trigger too many true positives.

            Facebook has a legiti

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by tepples ( 727027 )

              That doesn't mean you have to stay eligible for that reversal capability if you've shown a repeated failure to understand the content guidelines.

              They'll treat the override as just another step to perform in order to post the picture.

              Read again: Repeat troublemakers would lose the override.

              • That doesn't mean you have to stay eligible for that reversal capability if you've shown a repeated failure to understand the content guidelines.

                They'll treat the override as just another step to perform in order to post the picture.

                Read again: Repeat troublemakers would lose the override.

                That's not good enough. Read my post again for the reasons.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by lgw ( 121541 )

          It's not about trusting, it's about limiting the scope of what humans must review. Auto-flag everything that looks sketchy. If the person who posted the image takes not further action, the image is blocked. If the person who posted the image is willing to take a minute to justify the image, put it in the queue for human review - obviously posters who abuse this get banned promptly.

      • Also, Facebook can just put an age/regional requirement on the picture (in addition to adding the functionality you describe). After all, they have that information on their users. There is no reason to block it outright.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by isj ( 453011 )

      It isn't the first time that facebook censored photos of statues, eg. The Little Mermaid http://www.independent.co.uk/l... [independent.co.uk]
      Or the famous Vietnam war photo: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09... [nytimes.com]

      So they clearly need to improve the system, whether that is fine-tuning image recognition algorithm or educating ignorant reviewers.

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by DarkOx ( 621550 )

        According to FB's own rules that photo probably should be censored.

        Unless you subscribe to the SCOTUS "you know it when you see it standard" its pretty explicit.

        I am torn over this issue. As a conservative, I do think the prevalence of pornography and the accessibility of these images is harmful to society on the whole. The image in question is certainly an example of something that makes a profound and worth while statement, which I am not sure it could be made as effectively without the explicit cont

        • Yeah, in Facebook's defense, the statue is, in fact, sexually explicit.

          I don't care for Facebook's censorship, but then I don't care for Facebook, either.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by isj ( 453011 )

          The crux of the matter is the intent of presenting the photo. I don't think an algorithm will be able to tell anytime soon.

          Facebook's other problem is their global reach. What is perfectly natural in one region can cause offense in another. So they go for the lowest common denominator so they won't get blocked in conservative countries. But that causes liberals as myself to see it as censorship. I think instead they should filter content based on the viewer so people who get offended can chose to not see it

        • Unless you subscribe to the SCOTUS "you know it when you see it standard" its pretty explicit.

          The facebook lawyer told us we need some sort of warning, so if you feel offended by the following picture don't look at it. Thanks!

        • I am torn over this issue. As a conservative, I do think the prevalence of pornography and the accessibility of these images is harmful to society on the whole.

          As a conservative myself, I yearn for the good-old-days back in the seventies when you could buy Playboy at the magazine rack of your local supermarket, streakers would crash sporting events, and you didn't get put on sexual predator registries for life and banned from ever living near schools or parks just for taking a piss in public.

          Generation

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by Askmum ( 1038780 )

            I am torn over this issue. As a conservative, I do think the prevalence of pornography and the accessibility of these images is harmful to society on the whole.

            As a conservative myself, I yearn for the good-old-days back in the seventies when you could buy Playboy at the magazine rack of your local supermarket, streakers would crash sporting events, and you didn't get put on sexual predator registries for life and banned from ever living near schools or parks just for taking a piss in public.

            I guess there are 1970's conservatives and 1940's conservatives. :D

            • I guess there are 1970's conservatives and 1940's conservatives.

              1940's or 1880's? When we question the fitness for display of a public statue of a Greek god, I think the common sense of the people has jumped the shark. In twenty years, will we be calling for Victorian morals and demand public displays of pianos and tables have their legs covered for modesty?

              • Re: (Score:2)

                by Askmum ( 1038780 )
                I do see a general trend in that direction, and that worries me also. Forget about puritan America (that is a lost cause anyway), I see similar trends in Europe. Morals were definitely a lot looser in the 70's, both in Europe and the US. A number of countries in the Middle East have already suffered this trend.
              • Maybe the artist was laughing all the way to the bank about having gotten porn displayed in public by calling it "Neptune" instead of calling it "My boyfriend Fred".

                • Maybe the artist was laughing all the way to the bank about having gotten porn displayed in public by calling it "Neptune" instead of calling it "My boyfriend Fred".

                  Does it matter? Does being Fred make it evil while "Neptune" or "David" is artistic? Is the human body so filthy that it automatically becomes pornography when viewed? If so, why do we put up with all of these other animals running around in nature without a stitch of clothing hiding their indecency, where children can see? Put 'em all in jail. Make 'em register as tier 3 sex offenders for life.

                  • No, being Fred doesn't make it evil; but somehow being Neptune makes it high art. Even more so for female nymphs and goddesses being an excuse to display the female form divine from the Renaissance through Victorian times.

        • > As a conservative, I do think the prevalence of pornography and the accessibility of these images is harmful to society on the whole.

          What a wonderful sentence. In one sentence you summed up everything wrong with America today. You hold that porn is harmful - but offer no evidence whatsoever to counteract the overwhelming scientific evidence that, not only is it harmless, it's actually HEALTHY.

          Your basis for this claim is "As a conservative" - you believe this, not because of any rational reason, simply

          • After all we already believe that unemployment went up and the stock market went down under Obama - reality has no place in our decision making process.

            This right here is why Trump was elected. Unemployment HAS gone up under Obama, regardless of what all the official statistics would have you believe. The problem is that the "official" numbers don't separate by region or locality. In the rural areas, unemployment has indeed gone up, badly. In the big liberal cities, it hasn't. Red-state dwellers and ot

            • When you're asked a question and you get it wrong saying "It is only wrong because of things I don't care about" makes you MORE of an idiot, not LESS.

              Your "explanation" also fails to account for the false belief that the stock market has gone down. It's not like Bummsville, Idaho has it's own stock market so the people there can pretend that the one in New York doesn't matter.

              Now -there's a lot of truth to the claim that the decline of rural economics had a lot to do with the anger that drove Trump into the

    • But was it really a false positive?

      Reading their own criteria, it doesn't look like it was a mistake.

      The usage of images or video of nude bodies or plunging necklines is not allowed, even if the use is for artistic or educational reasons.

      The only mistake here is that this particularly well-known statue generated enough outrage with the public, that it became an issue.

      Had the statue be a lesser known piece? I'll bet we wouldn't even be having this discussion.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by DRJlaw ( 946416 )

      As they said in the article they are processing million of images and that's expected to have some false positive. There is no way in the world a human can review every single photo posted. I think it's a story out of nothing special.

      The fact that they use an automated process that might make mistakes does not excuse a human-generated policy that wholeheartedly embraces such "mistakes":

      The company added: "The usage of images or video of nude bodies or plunging necklines is not allowed, even if the use is fo

  • The Problem (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward

    The problem isn't with Facebook. The problem is with society's inconsistent and contradictory values. In fact, I'd bet a significant percent of the United States would object to the Neptune statue while another significant percentage would not object to nude women. It is impossible to please both sides on this titillating issue.

  • So, lemme get that straight... (Score:5, Funny)

    by Opportunist ( 166417 ) on Tuesday January 03, 2017 @01:09PM (#53598915)

    A picture of a guy with his wang out is only ok on Facebook if it's rock hard?

    • But Bronze hard is ok...
    • well according to their TOS neither is allowed. so theirs that..

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by fermion ( 181285 )
      If you want to test this theory, you could try posting this [telegraph.co.uk].[nsfw, but not goatse, but is a goat.)

    • You joke, but I really wonder about the double standard. They would have us believe that pictures or statues featuring full frontal nudity are for whatever reason inappropriate. OK, I can live with that. I know what it's like to be a parent waiting to have "the talk" with my kids on my timetable, not when some random social media site decides it's time.

      And yet... it's somehow magically inoffensive if that giant schlong is centuries old? Allow nude art or don't allow it, but don't try to have it bo

      • That's the way it's been for a great many years. It can't be porn if it's by someone really famous. Even though the exact same work, if made by someone not so well-known, would be restricted.

      • A giant schlong? Pffft. Child porn isn't offensive if hanging in a church. Just paint some wings on the naked kids and call them Putti [wikipedia.org] and you're fine.

        Not to mention the infamous blowjob window [wordpress.com]. SFW? You decide, it's a church window, how NSFW could that possibly be?

  • Don't Worry (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Comboman ( 895500 ) on Tuesday January 03, 2017 @01:29PM (#53599065)
    "The usage of images or video of nude bodies or plunging necklines is not allowed, even if the use is for artistic or educational reasons."

    But don't worry, hate-filled racist "jokes" and biased fake news stories are still A-OK. Facebook has it's priorities straight.

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by Anonymous Coward

      As long as it brings in the page hits they don't care.
      Carry on. Not news.

  • Know it when they see it? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward

    If "the usage of images or video of nude bodies or plunging necklines is not allowed, even if the use is for artistic or educational reasons", then how was taking down that photo a mistake? That's exactly what it is.

    But hey, wouldn't want people to see censorship for what it is, so better make an exception real quick!

  • Plunging necklines? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by shaitand ( 626655 ) on Tuesday January 03, 2017 @01:33PM (#53599089) Journal
    Seriously? Puritanbook.

    • Re:Plunging necklines? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 03, 2017 @01:41PM (#53599153)

      Yes. And nipples. That's why religious folks don't breastfeed or they cover the infant's eyes to that it can't see those filthy disgusting *gasp* NIPPLES!

      Because the child will be irreparably harmed if it should see a *whispering* N-I-P-P-L-E.

      It's better to distract them with a nice wholesome video game where they can blow fake people's heads off.

  • Is nudity allowed or not? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Stan92057 ( 737634 ) on Tuesday January 03, 2017 @01:35PM (#53599115)
    what they should be sorry for is the continued confusion of their very confusing nudity TOS rules. They say no nudity for any reason,then say sorry for removing a nude image....Is nudity allowed or not. Have the balls to enforce the rules you create zook or change them. Any problems FB has in this matter are of their own making by being balless cowards. I would hate to be working on thier abuse team.

  • I don't get the double standard (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 03, 2017 @01:36PM (#53599121)

    Logic tells me a schlong is a schlong.
     
    Sculpture or real, it should either be ok to post it or not okay to post it.
     
    Personally, I think the over-reactive attitude we here in America have about human body parts is annoyingly illogical.
     
    They have ads and movies with (omg, quick, cover your eyes!!!) bare breasts for everyone to see in parts of Europe, and the people in those countries seem to do just fine.

  • An understandable mistake (Score:5, Funny)

    by Cro Magnon ( 467622 ) on Tuesday January 03, 2017 @01:45PM (#53599175) Homepage Journal

    They meant to block a statue of Uranus. They just got the wrong god.

  • In Facebook's defense (Score:4, Funny)

    by elrous0 ( 869638 ) on Tuesday January 03, 2017 @02:16PM (#53599409)

    When Lena Dunham saw how thin Neptune was, she reported it for fat-shaming.

  • So why did they unban the image then?

    • Facebook's process is actually quite simple:
      1. Users flag images.
      2. If enough users flag an image, it goes to a drone - a human employee who works according to a very strict checklist that is designed to avoid all subjective judgements, so that drones are interchangeable. Picture shows exposed genitalia or female nipples? Check, banned.
      3. If enough outrage results, the decision gets reviewed by someone higher up the chain, or has the authority to authorise exceptions. This is where the decision is made that

  • Look, Facebook is not a media or news outlet. It simply allows users to share content. True, different countries have different rules to what is legal. But once Facebook thinks that it should control content, it is on a downward spiral.

    • Facebook doesn't want to be a media outlet, but they have little choice in the matter now: They don't write the stories, but they decide which stories get read, and they have to deal with the issue of keeping their service free of inappropriate content when the definition of inappropriate varies wildly.

    • If Facebook didn't control content, it would be dead. Even excluding illegal content, there's stuff that would offend so many people as to make Facebook commercially unviable. Given a public forum with sufficiently many people, someone's going to try to post stuff that will offend lots and lots of people, and unless that person is stopped somehow the forum will be abandoned. I've seen it happen in Usenet, back in the 90s.

      In this case, the offending content wouldn't have bothered me, but nudity does bo

Slashdot Top Deals

"If the code and the comments disagree, then both are probably wrong." -- Norm Schryer

Close