Facebook Is Sorry for Taking Down a Photo of a Nude Neptune Statue (fortune.com) 159
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.
Remember this when they decide fake news... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
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)
Re:Remember this when they decide fake news... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I dunno, my own algorithms detect a 90% likelihood of pelvic thrust.
Reading that put me in a time warp back to 1975
Re: (Score:3)
It's just a step to the left. -PCP
Jump to the left, then a step to the right is how it goes. Or should I say "went"?
Re: (Score:2)
Jump to the left, then a step to the right is how it goes. Or should I say "went"?
No, it still goes. ;-) And if you ever have a chance to see "Saucy Jack and the Space Vixens", take it.
Re:Remember this when they decide fake news... (Score:4, Informative)
There's 100% chance that their "junk detection algorithm" tagged this as something that would offend uptight pricks in the suburbs. Those kind of people will insist on junk being covered on renaissance masterpieces.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
But it's not even real people, it's ink on paper or some flickering LEDs on a computer monitor! Have you ever heard about old National Geographics?
But it's just some ink on paper!
Relevant [xkcd.com] XKCD [xkcd.com] panels.
I hope that you understand how your reductionist scoffing is defeated. You are being deliberately obtuse and ignoring the actual objections of those "uptight pricks in the suburbs".
Re:Remember this when they decide fake news... (Score:5, Insightful)
I think letting kids believe the world is some kind of Disney-fied wonderland can ultimately prove harmful when they suddenly become aware that THEY have genitals. And they will become aware of that.
Should kids be sat down and made to watch hentai? Of course not.
Should kids be shielded from ever seeing that there is anything sexual anywhere ever? Of course not.
Should kids be given an explanation about what sex is? Definitely.
Are kids going to be traumatically scarred by seeing an anatomically correct statue on Facebook? Only if you have utterly and miserably failed in preparing them for the Real World.
Re: (Score:2)
Should kids be sat down and made to watch hentai? Of course not.
Yeah, I totally agree. Kids, and probably young adults, should stick to ecchi.
Re: (Score:2)
I do agree with much of what you said.
I just wanted to put an end to the fallacy of reducing everything to the point that everything is nonsense.
Re: (Score:2)
But I'm glad that you understand and agree with my argument against reductionism.
Re: (Score:2)
You know that sculptors use models... and the model for that particular sculpture is a "long dead dude".
Re: (Score:2)
Neptune is a "long dead dude"? Neptune?
Well said, brother. Neptune is alive and well and will deal with all you fucking heathens soon enough. With his trident.
Re: (Score:2)
There's 100% chance that their "junk detection algorithm" tagged this as something that would offend uptight pricks in the suburbs. Those kind of people will insist on junk being covered on renaissance masterpieces.
Reminds me of the guy who lost an election to a dead man, but was still appointed Attorney General. Let the Eagle Soar! [usatoday.com] Just don't let any nipples show.
Re: (Score:3)
The narrative is that Ashcroft lost to Mel Carnahan, but Ashcroft was really running against Jean Carnahan, Mel's wife (who the governor announced would be appointed in the event that Carnahan won). There's really no effective campaign strategy against a recent widow whose name isn't even on the ballot.
Not that I think Ashcroft should have won, or that he was a good AG, but the "haha, he lost to a dead guy" bit really irritates me given that the actual situation was much more complicated than that. When i
Re: (Score:2)
Give it a real test. Run an article about the statue of Hermaphroditus in the Louvre.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If you don't know the name of the bit you just pointed at - that was hurt enough.
Re:Remember this when they decide fake news... (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes, the image detection algorithm that flagged that, automatically, is clearly a conspiracy to control "fake news".
You are kinda dumb aren't you?
The "controlling fake news" conspiracy literally is this. You now have the option when flagging a story, to mark it as fake news. That's it. It's not even an automated process (yet) it's literally giving YOU the ability to alert THEM to fake stories.
So, unless you are an asshole spreading bullshit fake news, you should be happy. But going from your tone, I think we all know you are all up in that pizzagate... Right?
"Fake news" only became a big deal when Democrats and the media that said Hillary! would win had to excuse her loss instead.
Want to talk about "fake news"? Now half of all Democrat voters actually believe that the Russian government directly affected vote counts to allow Trump to win [yougov.com].
Now there's some "fake, narrative-driven news" for you - all for the Democrat's and partisan media's goal to delegitimize Trump's win.
And it's brought to you by the same folks at CBS, ABC, NBC, The New York Times, and of course the "Russians-also-hacked-the-electricity-grid-ooops-forget-we-published-that" Washington Post:
'Fake News' And How The Washington Post Rewrote Its Story On Russian Hacking Of The Power Grid [forbes.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Also, it wouldn't particularly surprise me to find that Russia had hacked vote counts, although I've seen no evidence of it. It's something that could happen, and that Russia might well do.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That's why you twats have the biggest cunt of an incoming president since fuck-knows-who.
No...Hillary lost... /joke
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
That flag is about as good as the 'troll' flag is on slashdot at identifying intent. It's just as likely that the flagger is the one attempting to bias output...
Re: (Score:2)
-1 troll, I don't agree with your assessment!
This is an automatic process (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Automatically plunging necklines (Score:2, Insightful)
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!
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Facebook is the standard for social media just as Google is the search engine of choice.
There are alternatives in tandem, but "avoid" != "abandon."
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
However, I can use Twitter instead of Facebook whenever I want.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
nothing better to do than find reasons to be offended.
lol, like for instance losing your life because you saw some tits? Muricans... cool with someone getting their head hacked off on the timeline, less keen on bare midriff on the timeline. You're more like the Victorians than the bloody Brits are.
Re:This is an automatic process (Score:5, Insightful)
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)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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)
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)
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
Re: (Score:2)
I don't care for Facebook's censorship, but then I don't care for Facebook, either.
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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!
Re: (Score:2)
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)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
> 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
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:3)
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)
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 Problem (Score:1)
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)
A picture of a guy with his wang out is only ok on Facebook if it's rock hard?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Re:Plunging necklines? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
Some people aren't trying to protect the children, they actually don't find human larva and all things related to them beautiful
Minor nit: Nymphs, not larvae. Humans metamorphose incompletely [asu.edu].
Re: (Score:2)
Nymphs doesn't have the same insulting connotations as larvae, and as someone who works around children professionally I want to give them all the insulting connotations I can achieve.
Re: (Score:2)
You're not talking about a universally appropriate place, but a personally approved place. Your opinions are not universal.
Re: (Score:2)
Do you eat YOUR lunch in the shitter ?
Then you don't get to ask my kid to do that either.
Thank god I live in a country where you expressing that TO a breatfeeding mother in public is a crime and you will get fined for it. She has a right to feed her child whenever, where-ever she needs to. You do NOT have a right to object to it. If you're a public business (like a shopping mall) you can't even complain if you OWN the place she's doing it in. It's considered harassment to ask her to cover up, or in fact to
Re: (Score:2)
Sure. My wife is a nude model. Her nips, ass, pussy whatever you want to look at is all over the web if you know where to look.
She started after we met - and I encouraged her, it made her happy, she enjoyed it, it turned her on - and I got the benefits of her coming back from shoots all revved up.
Not everybody thinks nudity is a big deal or sex is something shameful or private.
However, no, you can't have any of my mother's pix (if such exist, I've never asked) because - and here is the clincher - unlike my
Re: (Score:2)
Most probably after we sent a pic of ours, you will have plucked your own eye out of their orbit, and ran away screaming off.
The goggles. They do nothing.
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks for the link -- I enjoyed it. To say that Christians are against breast feeding is simply nonsense. It is not even unusual to see mothers doing it discreetly in church.
Possibly NSFW link: 31 Beautiful Paintings of Mary Nursing the Baby Jesus" [churchpop.com].
Is nudity allowed or not? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I agree with you. However, I don't know what a zook is...
Re: (Score:2)
I don't get the double standard (Score:4, Insightful)
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)
They meant to block a statue of Uranus. They just got the wrong god.
Re: (Score:2)
In Facebook's defense (Score:4, Funny)
When Lena Dunham saw how thin Neptune was, she reported it for fat-shaming.
Facebook Is Sorry (Score:2)
"even if the use is for artistic or education" (Score:2)
So why did they unban the image then?
Re: (Score:2)
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
Mission Creep? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
If you don't think providing biased news to a billion people that matters, log the fuck off.
Re: (Score:2)