Slashdot Mirror
Facebook Nudity Policy Draws Nursing Moms' Ire
HSRD writes "Web-savvy moms who breast-feed are irate that social networking sites like Facebook and MySpace restrict photos of nursing babies. The disputes reveal how the sites' community policing techniques sometimes struggle to keep up with the booming number and diversity of their members."
If you want to post your breastfeeding pics why not do it where it's welcome?
As a private enterprise, they have the right to restrict what they want. And they figure that more people that visit their site than not would not like looking at it. And if they are after traffic numbers for ad providers, they will do whatever gets them the most views. Capitalism at work. And furthermore, I have noticed that a lot of breastfeeding moms just tend to be REALLY sitting on a cactus all the time when it comes to breastfeeding in public, general attitudes about breastfeeding in public, and that doesn't usually get news unless it is a slow news day. Case in point, this story Although slashdot is made of very intelligent people, I know someone will say something about the first amendment in 5,4,3,2...
Do you really need to post pics of your nursing infant on a social website? Does anyone want to share that, really? And are facebook and myspace required to host any picture you send them? I guess nobody read the TOS.
I think boob hysteria is ridiculous. So is the fake "outrage".
Those boobies -- I mean babies -- are just doing what the rest of us are thinking.
In a Puritan society such as the United States where the human body is generally seen as filthy, this is what we get. Besides, THINK OF THE CHILDREN.
If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
Last i heard nudity was legal.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
spoiler tag- images stay on the site and you have to actually click the link to view the photo- moms get to share their breastfeeding photos and nobody gets "offended" unless they go out of their way to do so...
Sigs are too short to say anything truly profound so read the above post instead.
It's a totally nonsexual thing. I think the people that get upset over this are the ones that are disturbed. It's like how often the most vehement anti-gay people are actually trying to suppress their own tendencies.
Legally, female chestal nudity is defined as showing of the nipple and/or the areola.
That is unfair because areolae come in different shapes and sizes. A woman with the nicest nips and smallest, densest areolae wouldn't break this rule because the baby's mouth would nom-nom-nom both the nipple and the areola, obscuring them from the sight of observers in which case the nudity rule wouldn't be broken.
More unfortunate would be the women with really puffy areaolae or the ones with the really big, stretched-out pancake areaolae. There would be no hiding then no matter how big or hungry their baby may be. The puffy areaolae would push the baby's head further away from the teet, increasing the likelihood of passers-by seeing the defiant areola or even the nipple. Big silver-dollar areolae require no explanation as they would be impossible to hide unless the baby is hydrocephalic.
Just my 2 cents as I am not a lawyer, but I hope that more and more brave women step up to fight these sexist, unjust laws.
I bet they aren't concerned about pics of actual moms actually breastfeeding. They're probably more worried about the multitudes of people that would be posting pics of "HOT MILFS WITH RED HOT MILK JUST FOR YOU!" if they thought they could get away with it.
Free the Quark 3 from asymptotic confinement! Bring your charm! Don't get down! All colours and flavours welcome!
I read about this 3 or 4 days ago in the Sydney Morning Herald.
Yet I see dozens of crappy "stories" on slashdot that are not news - some idiot with a blog making a comment on something or other - belongs in idle.
Perhaps it's time to just bite the bullet and move over to Digg since quality here is about the same now.
These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
Just thinking out loud here, but it seems to me that these vocal, nursing mothers have a bit in common with exhibitionists and nudists:
So here's the question: Why should nursing mothers be accommodated by changes in Facebook policies, but exhibitionists / nudists not?
I can see some people arguing against exhibitionists posting their pictures, because many people believe that seeing people bump their uglies is bad for kids.
But nursing mothers and non-prurient nudists seem to me to have a great deal in common in this issue. If nursing mothers get their way, should nudists get to post their pictures as well?
Sorry, but speaking for at least myself and most of my female friends, this kind of thing is really annoying. I'm all for private places for new mothers to nurse their kids at work -- the so-called "lactation rooms". If that fails, many women's restrooms (especially in pre-1980s buildings) have areas to lay or sit down inside. And single-occupancy restrooms are not hard to find. Yay for women's lib, right? O_O You have plenty of options to protect your dignity (and my eyes). If I find you in the bathroom doing your thing, I'm not going to say anything--You and I both have seen worse.
The flip here is there is no excuse for anyone to have to look at your dirty pillows. Save it for the bedroom, or the shower, or the locker, or please god anywhere but online or in public where I can stumble into it. And to all the boys sniggering in back or making the usual comments talking about this entails, kindly STFU. Posting pictures of frontal nudity of any kind is (and rightly should be) banned from websites where people can casually come across it! You want to show your friends that stuff *fine*. Send it in an e-mail or put it in a photo album but for crissakes don't post it on the internet. Most people have the common sense to never let someone take naked pictures of them, but if you're one of the few whose elevators don't go to the top floor, at least think of your decency. Or my eyes.
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
Obviously those infants are being exploited into performing sexual acts in front of a camera. You're damn right those pictures should be removed, think of the children!
Murphey's fighting Occam, and we're in the stands.
For you breastfeeding mothers out there, I really thought you could be much more mature about your pictures and realize that neither Facebook or MySpace is the place for such content.
Oh, and this has nothing to do with "diversity", so lets not even get sidetracked with trying to shoehorn that BS in the justification.
I'm quite certain, even without looking, that there are plenty of websites/blogs that would more than welcome such content and "camaraderie" between mothers.
They can't have it both ways. You ask these women "would you allow nudity on myspace?" They'll probably say "hell no" and go on about the children and all that crap. Guess what -- YOUR BREAST IS OUT, THAT IS NUDITY.
I'm not a prude, I would prefer that myspace just gives it up and allows nudity (it's pretty slutty as it is anyway...), problem solves for these breast-feeders... but myspace is just not going to allow this type of double-standard.
Facebook could handle this in a much more efficient maner, for example.
So. Meh. Ban it.
I'm tired of seeing fugly tittys in public.
Pissing is as natural as breastfeeding. Yet if i piss in public i get put on the sex offender list.
How about this -- allow any nudity and adult content on Facebook and Myspace, no holds barred (pun intended) -- but only for accounts labeled as having "adult content." Others can opt-in if they wish to see this content (and can verify age); if they don't opt-in, it need not bother their sensitive eyes.
As for nursing in public, why not just allow it -- as long as you also allow people to stare, comment, take pictures, whatever. That should put a stop to most of it without the guv'mint encroaching on anyone's liberties, yes?
Paleotechnologist and connoisseur of pretty shiny things.
Its thier website! They can allow/disallow anything they want! You don't HAVE to use them, and there are PLENTY of localities around the world that it IS illegal to breast feed in public so perhaps they just don't want to have problems with those locations.
Really, you have to show your breast feeding to the world? Why? The only people that WANT to see it, don't want to see it because its natural or beautiful, they want to see tits. I highly suspect that most, if not all, of the women who have this overwhelming urge to put pictures of it on the Internet are also slighly voyeristic and want to show thier tits to the world.
If you don't like that they don't allow you to show your tits, don't use their website. This may be hard to believe, but 10 years ago, you didn't have a facebook/myspace/livejournal page. Okay, some of you might have, but the majority of you didn't, so I think you should be able to figure out that you can, in fact, live without posting your tittie shots on the Internet.
If you REALLY want to do it, there are PLENTY of websites that would LOVE to have your tits to show them, they are called porn sites, and there are PLENTY that cater to moms, milfs and nursing so put your pictures where they are welcome and stop thinking everyone else in the world has to confirm to what you want. They don't have to, and if you think they are 'bad' for not allowing it, that pretty much just makes you a spoiled brat.
Finally, as I understand their nudity rules, in order for your picture to get taken down, you would have to show an exposed nipple, which means either you're showing both your breasts or you aren't actually breast feeding since there would be a babies mouth over the breast that is exposed, covering up the very thing that is banned.
Go make a porn if you want to show your tits that bad, hell, I'll probably buy it, but quit with this bullshit if trying to make everyone else in the world do what you want, the entire world really doesn't revolve around you.
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
I'm not puritanical, religious or a prude and I have a healthy taste for porn; but I don't want pictures of nursing women thrust at me. I don't understand why it's necessary to show everyone?
I think many people want to turn their lives and life styles into some sort of political showdown. This smacks of Identity politics to me.
Facebook really isn't about networking, it's about ego stroking and getting your 15min of fame. Congratulations, you've got it. Now you and your sucklings can move on.
I don't care how many "friends" she has. If she doesn't like the policy she can cough up the $4/month and get her own site. Perhaps she could ask those "friends" to contribute.
People ought to realize that nudity and sex are two different things.
This is not hatred. This is retribution. This is not revenge. This is justice.
For some reason I think that the whole nursing the child pics and such are just a form of exhibitionism. YOu can take those pics, but thats what you want to show your friends, why not loving pictures of you holding your child. People saying its natural are right, however the focus of the picture isn't on the child as it is the mother, which makes in a selfish picture and negates the reason you wanted to show the picture, which is the importance of your child. These women obviously get some sort of gratification from showing some skin and the attention.
What do you find disgusting in two pair of breast of a lactating woman ? It is not as if she was enticing people to look at them in a sexual way. But then again since I am old enough to go on the beach, I saw naked breast, so I am quite immunized.
... they're not in CT like I am. The "breastfeeding lobby" here is rabid. There is also a number of laws here that impose criminal penalties. I personally know of restaurants that have been closed down just for saying something to a nursing mother. Personally, I find NOTHING sexual about a nursing baby. And people who do are just... disgusting.
The problem came up over a photo of Anna Nichole Smith breastfeeding her 90 year old husband. At first no one saw a problem with something small and shriveled breastfeeding until some one noticed the big smile.
If you set your Google SafeSearch filter on "strict filtering" and search for clitoris, you get zero returns.
But if you try a Google SafeSearch "strict filtering" search for penis, you get...
33,000,000 returns.
That's because "clitoris" is on Google's list of naughty words which are never, ever "safe." Penis is just fine, however. http://tr.im/2tee (susiebright.blogs.com)
This double standard continues through many body part images. It would seem in today's morality, Men's breasts are totally acceptable, and can be published in photos and videos completely uncovered. Womens breasts however, are dirty and must be covered, even when feeding a child..
Several folks have posted comments to the effect to "take it to the bathroom" for breastfeeding mothers. Don't know about anybody else, but my wife is NOT feeding my son in the bathroom. Do you go to a stall in the bathroom for every meal you eat in public? (please don't tell me if you do). Nobody in my family is being forced to eat in the bathroom, including my nursing son.
If you don't like an infant's method of eating, you have personal problems, and should see someone about it. It is NOT sexual, it is NOT dirty, it is NOT something that needs to be done behind closed doors, it is SIMPLY A BABY EATING. jeesh. Grow up.
Do you realize that for every one of us there are two, count them, TWO nipples? And almost half of us have some serious fatty tissue behind those nipples! I mean we can't have children seeing the things can we? Keep their shirst on! I mean the single best thing for a newborn to suckle on should be shameful and weird. Babies eat from bottles right? And watching a baby nurse ... well I know all kinds of people that it turns on ... OK not even one. Its a bewb - BAN it!
Slashdot, where armchair scientists get shouted down and armchair theologians get modded up.
For a long time, enterprises that depend on large-scale public interaction to succeed have taken the easy way out. They seek to immunize themselves from legal challenges, boycotts, and legislation by hysterical, vote-hungry politicians by adopting the most stringent and unreasonable policies. As a result, some wingnut who is offended by the sight of a bare breast, even when it is being used for its primary purpose, receives more consideration than the rest of us who couldn't care less.
Meanwhile, more cynical and opportunistic people co-opt the state's tools of enforcement and coercion to jam their narrow, constricted social vision down our throats. It's time we grew up a little and quit allowing "social zones" like Facebook and even the local shopping mall be controlled by fruitcakes who believe some weird, Disney-esque version of reality is the only one "suitable for all ages". If you can't explain to your five-year-old why the nice lady has an infant glued to her chest, perhaps you should just stay home and unplug the computer. The rest of us have lives to lead, and we're sick of putting up with you.
I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
I'm asking this, because I'm not one for facebook or myspace or generally most social networking sites. But it would seem to me that if I run a web-site as a business, and I have an anti-nudity policy, and I call exposed breasts a part of that, and I don't want nursing on my web-site, for whatever good or bad reason, then that's my right as teh owner of that business. If customers don't like the policy, they are welcome to go elsewhere. And if non-paying users (not customers if they don't pay) don't like it, well then it's my right to decide whether or not I care.
So why does it seem, to me, that these nursing mothers feel they have a right to change facebook's policies? This isn't a public venue where the debate is an interesting one. This is facebook's business policies -- so isn't it over-stepping the bounds to insist on such a change? Are these nursing mothers even share-holders?
So I'm asking, what am I missing?
For a while I was posting photography work I had done to Facebook. About the time I started working with nude models, I decided it was time to move my collection somewhere else rather than have the art vs. porn fight. It was at that time I also looked closely at the fine print of the terms of service and realized that by posting pictures I had been giving Facebook the unrestricted right to reproduce my pictures without payment or permission.
So I started putting my pictures up on a website whose owner I knew wouldn't care I was taking snaps of naked women: My dad.
This sig is false.
People who have a problem with breastfeeding in public should think about exactly why they have an issue with it.
I think it's pretty clear - they probably have no concept of women's breasts as non-sexual...
Every time there is a big deal made about it - it's basically equating a mother providing sustinance for her child in the most natural way possible with spring break flashing or something....It's just unbeleivable when you really think about it - especially because when breastfeeding (and especially when doing it in public) you can't even see a breast - usually the shirt is open giving the infant access to one breast and the baby's head is up againszt the breast, blocking any view anyway....
RTFA:
False dichotomy; why can't she just carry on using Facebook, and post the damn pictures somewhere else?
They are not, it's Facebook trying to retrospectively "clean up their act"
And they are tw@s for doing it.
If I had an Ass, I'd call it Fanny Bottom, then I could slap my Ass; Fanny Bottom, on the Arse.
Non-nursing breasts are on display in our culture every day as a sexual attraction.
Nursing breasts are very important to babies who must have milk to survive. All milk comes from female breasts. Babies fed on cow milk are more likely to have health problems (such as infections and diabetes) than babies fed on human milk. Babies fed on human breast milk have better brain development. Mothers should be encouraged to nurse their babies as much and as long as possible. This means they will be 'breastfeeding in public' unless we intend to ban nursing mothers from public places. It is a decadent and depraved culture that finds images of nursing breasts "obscene" while elevating the display of non-nursing breasts to the status of idol. Shame. The real problem is that our culture apparently has many infantile adults who find the true function of a female breast to be upsetting.
....they make the rules. If you find it necessary to post pics of yourself breastfeeding, I'm sure you'll find another site that will accept it.
...as long as the root cause - epidemic religious schizophrenia - has not been quenched.
Why else would a group of grown up, educated people make a "dirty" taboo out of one of the two only things that we could not possibly exist without (sex), and everything related,
while not only allowing, but actively promoting to kill non-believers.
But what can you do, when 80%+ of a nation need a therapy to not fall back to the middle ages? We can't leave them to themselves. They're humans too, after all.
Now wonder how many countries you can apply this comment to. ;)
Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
You jest, but I can't count the number of times I heard the rational for continuing to breast feed toddlers as "It feels good". When you have someone suck your nipples because you think it feels good, it IS a sexual act. Since my own child was born, I have met many women that really should be arrested for child molestation.
Don't know what happened, but some of my paragraphs got scrambled. Here's how that was supposed to read:
Two of my three children were breastfed, and I have no problem with boob-food happening. I don't think it's sexual (not that some weird folks can't make it so for themselves). When it happens in public, I think using a blanket/towel/etc. is a good idea, not because there's anything dirty about the breast, but because I don't think it's something that needs the amount and quality of attention it's likely to get in public.
I see no need for pictures of anybody eating on FB/MS, regardless of age or what they're eating. I also don't see a need for pictures of people belching, or blowing their noses. I don't think that needs to be a ToS issue (as of yet). When it comes to babies breastfeeding, I don't see any purpose in showing pictures of that. It's a crappy angle for looking at the baby. I'd rather see the baby sleeping or playing or smiling or being cute or something -- speaking just for me.
The pushing of the boob is getting to be an issue for me. I ran into a guy on an IM network who's an amateur photographer, and he wanted to send me some of his pictures. Since I didn't know him, I was a bit concerned about what the pictures would be, which he picked up on, and assured me that he didn't do nudes. However, he did do some tasteful topless shots of his wife. I told him I didn't want to see those, and he's been so intrigued by that that it comes up every time we chat (every week or three). I'm planning on getting very direct the next time he asks, if he does. Topless isn't all he does, and I don't mind looking at his other shots from time to time.
I do think there's something of militancy in this movement of "accept me, approve of me, or you're a bigot/puritan/pervert." And that I'm totally ready to give the finger to. I don't shove my lifestyle down your throat or demand your acceptance or approval, and I'm not obliged to build your feelings of self-worth.
You never should have been so eager to unleash the beast of [CENSORSHIP] in the first place, now you find first hand what you set upon the Internet and society and you want to cry?
Have a tall cup of STFU baby machine whores and a couple tablespoons of your own medicine.
Maybe next time before you start wanting to force shit on other people you will remember this and grow the fuck up just a little.
I am a woman and I'm not interested in seeing somebody's naked boob. Is this naked boob just on a page where anyone can accidently stumble upon it or do you need a password? If it's just out there then I agree with Facebook & MySpace removing it. Otherwise, if you have to use a password and log in to a certain pre-authorized group then it's probably OK.
Facebook is filled with networks of mothers. A lot of ads cater to them. They make money off of mothers. I cannot believe the number of ignorant comments to this thread -- more so than the average slashdot thread. But then, this is one where women would understand more than men, and parents more than people who are childfree. Still, I'd expect at least a few more enlightened people who understand basic human biology, laws pertaining to breastfeeding, the amount of women (especially mothers) who are are the internet, and other things outside the little slashdot world. I was wrong. I'm used to diversity, I guess. I suggest the mothers contact the people who are paying facebook to reach us. Why should we buy products from companies that support a place like facebook? Mothers are a POWERFUL force as far as consumers are concerned. This might not end the way some of you expect it will.
Why are they posting photos of them breastfeeding on the internet in the first place? What purpose does this serve?
The only people I can imagine who would complain about this are attention whores.
Facebook & MySpace are private systems. They have the right to say what is put on their system same as other sites. If you didnt like it you could go post it on your own site somewhere else. Its not like cheap web hosting is hard to find.
Thanks for playing the strawman game, you nigger faced jew.
It's a bit of a sign of a sick society when the "wardrobe manfunction" resulted in actual legal action against the woman who had her top removed and nothing against the man that removed it - not that I think it deserved legal action there either. Another worrying thing was people that wanted legal action taken against Brittany when a photographer was taking photos up her skirt and she had no knickers on. In some countries it's a crime to take unwanted photos up girls skirts but some in the USA seem to think it's a crime to be the subject of such a photo and it's OK to be the photographer. That is a getting into a Taliban mindset.
If you want a woman to stop breastfeeding where you are in public, asking her politely is sure to fail. Instead, just go stand as close as possible without making contact and stare at her open shirt. Sure you are going to get some nasty remarks... but you have a right to stand in public and view things displayed in public. After some grousing... she will cover up or leave. If not, get out your video camera.
What about places that normally don't allow you to bring in your own food or drink (movie theaters, restaurants)?
...we get to protest and apply political and social pressure to change the rules. If you find it unsettling that rules change from time to time, think deeply about what that says regarding your mental condition.
We know where leadership by an anti-intellectual "strongman" who scapegoats minorities and likes boisterous rallies goes
And that those same chemicals are released during sex, helping to bond the partners together?
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg18925365.500
Ask me about repetitive DNA
How can Facebook display or distribute your photos without "reproducing" them?
It seems to me that when you accepted Faceback's TOS you agreed to license your submissions to Facebook without fees for in exchange for their exposure to a world-wide social network - and for no other purpose.
I see it as an all-or-nothing deal.
Apparently, many think it's okay to show 95 percent of a female's breast as long as her spawn is attached to it. If you show the same amount of skin with no kid, it's said to be indecent. If you happen to whip yours out during, say Superbowl halftime (while covering that five percent with some decoration), concerned mothers everywhere (with kidlets sucking on their tits no doubt) bitch to the FCC for the shocking and unholy exposure of most of a breast in public.
Mmmk...
People need to crawl out from behind their crosses for a moment and consider what ridiculous and contradictory standards they're promoting. If Facebook says "no titties," then quit posting pics of them and acting surprised when the banhammer comes down. That's their decision. If you don't like this policy, then sure, protest. But protest to allow breasts in full view, with no qualifiers. Male breasts, female breasts, kid or no kid. Facebook's policy (and many others) are currently set to 'sexist,' and these dipshits think it's a good idea to change that to 'sexist with an exception for my baby, because he's so CUTE!!1'
Some of these groups are just so fucking LOUD. Damn. Maybe Slashdot users should start taking hormone injections, perhaps this special post-baby balance would be conductive to USEFUL change. I'm sure DRM would be banned via constitutional amendment by the end of the week.
Disclaimer:
I happen to like breasts - a lot, in fact.
"Strangers have the best candy" -Me
If someone is breastfeeding in public, and there is a group of guys standing around staring at her exposed breasts, and talking about it - is that okay? Is that an acceptable consequence of "allowing" breastfeeding in public? Or are we going to have these "perverts" arrested for harassment, or create new laws to punish them? I'm not sure where I stand on this issue, but honestly - while I don't think it's okay for guys to do the described behavior - if we are going to start arresting people for that behavior, or come up with a new crime to charge them with - fuck it. No public breastfeeding for you. Get over it. We don't need more shit to put people away for. There is actually a point where it's responsible behavior to consider the impact of your choices on others. The line on this one is where I am unclear, and where I think the argument is - but we've got a society, right now, that makes it difficult for guys to NOT think about sex when they see a healthy breast in front of them. Either we change the culture, or we deal with the consequences in appropriate ways.
...where just about every natural human act is considered ether porn or perversion.
It's sad how in the United States' culture extreme violence is tolerated as entertainment and nursing babies is obscene.
When will we learn we are just primates? Oh, wait, we're not, because we were made "in God's image."
Main difference between the BSD license and the GPL license: one is from California and the other is from Massachusetts
I'd like to see you use this argument if it was about a restaurant owner refusing to serve a black guy.
When that was socially acceptable, we did.
Quack, quack.
As the article says, Facebook may be a victim of it's own popularity. We live in a society who's emotional and metal health in the area of sex is sadly lacking (read about the Puritans... talk about a bunch of seriously messed up puppies! I mean cutting people's ears off because they listened to music? Pretty dang messed up.) So when you have a public place (real or virtual) with a constituency who's members span the gamut from Nudist, Wiccans dancing sky-clad, and attendees from Burning Man to Religious Fundamentalists of every religion, sect, and parish imaginable coexisting, it's hard not to imagine some pretty impressive head butting happening.
A place the size of Facebook, typically picks the least provocative position. It avoids pissing off the government. It makes the most people happy. It also means that the rights of small groups probably get stepped on. It means that the right thing to do often yields to the expedient thing to do. This is a sticky question. There won't be any simple answers. We all have a vested interest in how the world goes. Sometimes my vested interest smacks right up against yours. It get's even more difficult of that event happens inside some third parties play space. There are legal issues, moral issues, ethical concerns, and social considerations. All framed inside a commercial context where ultimately the final decision is often what helps or hurts the business. Maybe the answer is a million little Facebooks. Maybe Facebook get's tremendously better and honoring the interests of special groups while limiting the impact they can make outside their group.
In the specific case in question. Give people the power to express themselves, pictures they want to use, and can share publically, provided the viewer has the proper association or privilege to see those pictures. Then have a set of pictures that won't cause anybody trouble, and those can be viewed anywhere. Create a grading system for personal images that allows filtering what can be viewed according to the filtering criteria. Give people some control over the process so they can say as long as I comply with the default filtering, I'd like to add custom filters. Inside the family of breast-feeders, the picture of swollen nipple and chubby cheeked babies, should be as normal as pictures of the last vacation, or the new car. We just need to get way more creative in how we deal with one another, and maybe backing the anal retention down a couple notches might not hurt either.
I cannot believe the number of ignorant comments to this thread
Me either. I honestly don't know where to begin rebuking this kind of ignorance...
I don't have a problem with breastfeeding in public, if they don't have a problem with people staring and oggling.
It is a two way street, you can't complain about breastfeeding in public, just as you can't complain about people staring at your breasts when exposed.
Personally I am not a fan on the basis that I generally like my restaurant to be restaurant, my beaches to be beaches and my baby changing to be done privately (as my changing would be)
The ones being breast-fed, I mean. These tiny children are being forced to look at naked breasts! Surely this is child sexual abuse! Those women should be arrested!
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
more boobies are always good :)
Comment removed based on user account deletion
This is bad news, for republicans.
Yes, we all wish that everyone would be a lot more mature so we could show our dicks and tits online without people freaking out. Life is so unfair, isn't it.
It is not unreasonable, by any stretch, for facebook to ban breast feeding pictures. This has no impact on the baby getting its food. That is the only reason why it is legal to breastfeed in public. It may be stupid, it may not be, but you can't realistically draw parallels between online picture sharing and breast feeding in public.
Look at other female mammals. Do they have breasts? Only when they're nursing. Humans, on the other hand, have them all the time. If they were just for feeding, that would not be so.
You are toeing the social construct line where it does not make sense to do so. Not every aspect of human behavior is a product of the media and religion.
but anyone that sexualizes the act of natural feeding of offspring is the one with the problem.....not the mother. i think we're afraid to face the fact that we are actually animals.
Go ahead, put your tits online!! Why do moms that are nursing feel the need to show their junk in public? Now online... I don't really care about said issue, I just don't understand why otherwise normal women want to put their boobs on the web...
Eye for an eye and half of the world will have just one eye!
from your own words "for a lot of people" that doesnt mean everybody.
Who has the right to distinguish between offensive and non-offensive. They have every right to not play the game and avoid drawing a line in the sand where ok and not ok is.
in regards to your profile pic, Then i guess you are SOL and should go somewhere else.
and I will correct you
Its not a problem with the policy; it is an area in which you desire a different policy then the one they employ. There is nothing wrong with the policy other than the fact that you and several breast feeding mothers don't like how it affects them.
What about a porn star? what if a nude model or porn star wanted their profile picture to be a nude photo of themselves? What if they 'posed' artistically. Facebook doesnt and won't have the time energy interest to start scrutinizing the details of what makes one accepable or not until it provides them a financial incentive to do so.
"Jazz isn't dead, it just smells funny" ~Frank Zappa
EdelFactor
I'd suggest to forbid photos of pregnant women, too.
The best is if we keep kids unknowing what happens in the life of a child before two years of age, the point when they start to remember things.
Until they run into a teenage pregnancy. Then we explain them they should marry and give them the book about how to be a good mother.
There are many responses from people here that allege disgust and outrage at the sight of breastfeeding.
My advice is this: go to rotten.com and toughen up your pathetically frail minds a little bit. How can you be that sheltered? It's like a character from a comedy movie or something.
It's baffling that we, collectively, can't get over this whole nudity taboo. There's nothing obscene about chests, crotches, or asses, nor are they traumatizing for children to see, nor are they 'dirty', etc. etc.
I'm so sick of this juvenile mentality, it's like we as a society are stuck psychologically in middle school. As far as I'm concerned it isn't outrageous that they have this sort of content taken down, it's just baffling!
And, since I know this is an issue for SOMEone, even if seeing someone's breasts gives you a stiffy, why is that anyone else's business? As long as you aren't jumping people in dark alleys (and, shocking as this may seem, these are NOT inseperable behaviors), I don't see the issue.
If you aren't angry, you aren't paying attention.
I'm not shocked that her kiddie porn was taken down.
I'm shocked that this incestious pedofile of an exhibitionist thought she could expose herself to an infant and get away with it.
Natural breastfeeding is thousand times more convenient than bottle storage, let alone formula handling. It's free, it's almost always ready, and it's incredibly effective. I fully support a woman's right to breastfeed any age child, anytime, anywhere.
They were right - the revolution did not get televised. It was posted on YouTube instead. All in 120 characters. SLOOSH!
...was used 9 times in this post.
I just get conflicted that I've wanted to see my female friends' breasts for years, but this is "perverted". However suddenly they post pictures of them to Facebook.
I'm sure some of you half-men are leaping to accuse me of being ignorant. Please proceed. I'm not sure that I am though. Frankly to me this all stinks of women being women. To them everything is "different", and men are all just perverts because we find their various bits attractive.
I don't find the act of breast feeding attractive I guess I should disclaim. Much like I'm sure a woman wouldn't find a picture of me flexing, and lifting a fire ladder, while urinating attractive I guess. However this doesn't mean I'd post said picture on Facebook.
Even if I could somehow associate urinating with something meaningful like child rearing.
Which I can't. But still my point is sound. They are breasts. Just because a child is attached doesn't change that fact. It is basically irrelevant if it makes you angry or not or whether you feel the sexualisation of breasts is somehow man's fault (what isn't man's fault nowadays exactly?) Accept it and the consequences are much easier to come to terms with.
We all have the conservative religious morality cop prudes to thank for turning every aspect of the human body into something that must be covered up, only to be seen as a sinful object. Sometimes I wonder what goes through the mind of someone who becomes disturbed at seeing a woman breastfeeding her baby. Are they frustrated because they can't get a sip too?
probably one of the holiest of acts that mankind has ever evolved to have, breastfeeding, is, OBSCENE ?
a HOLISTIC act of unconditional love and giving in between the mother and child, the holiest of all bonds, is OBSCENE ?
i believe in no religion, but there are some stuff way higher and holier than any religion. what you despise as obscene is one of that.
whats obscene are people like you. i wish we could export you and your kind to mars or moon. there you could revel in your backwardness and lack of compassion, and knock each others' brains out.
Read radical news here
...welcome our breast-feeding overlords!
The last thing I need to see is someone injecting their fluids into someone else, be it spit, semen, or breast milk. in public at least.
I hate the multiple page thing, wish submitters would submit the 1 page version that is usually lurking about:
http://www.ibtimes.com/services/pop_print.htm?id=241147&tb=bh
In Canada going topless is legal. Woman have the right to walk around topless wherever and whenever they like .... and very, very occasionally on hot summer days one gets luck, but by and large due to cold weather and the natural shyness of most woman nipples are not exposed (which is a pity given the link between temperature and nipples)
Facebook is exceedingly popular in Canada and it occurs to me that their policy is counter to Canadian law. Presumably a Canadian nipple displayer or even a suckling infant's mother could demand the right of exposure under Canadian law.
The moms need to get over it. There are infinity minus 1 other ways to express yourself in a picture, for Christ's sake.
It's pretty funny reading these comments. My wife breast fed both of our kids until they were about 8 months old. I loved it. Not because I'm a pervert who wants his wife's hooter hanging out with my tax deduction hanging off it, but I loved it because my kids are healthy, well fed, and I don't have to spend fistfuls of cash on formula.
She had a couple of times where someone would ask her not to feed the baby where she was. She would always calmly ask where the individual would like her to feed the baby. Both times, bathroom stalls were suggested. Both times she asked them if they would eat their food in there or give their baby a bottle in there. Both times, they walked away.
The second time, the bitch at the mall called the police. It didn't work out too well, though. I was in the cop's wedding.
Sadly, Americans think they are the only people in the world to use Facebook.
..
Ummm.. perhaps the only people in the world.
And, yes, it was created in the good ol' USA. Including all its hangups about breasts, nudity, (migod, what a land of hypocritical preverts!) and the fact that they think that kids are better off with Gerbers and other chemical substitutes. (Hey! Maybe even melamine! The Chinese love that apparently!)
But most of the planet Earth seems to have other ideas.
America? You are no longer top dog. And the dog's teats are running dry.
Better get used to it.
.
- aqk
F U
Before entering a movie theater, you have to empty
your breasts. You see this all the time around
here. Women usually squeeze and tug at their
breasts to squirt the milk into the gutter or
into a trash can. It's just what you're expected
to do before entering a theater.
Twinkie, beer, london broil, breastmilk... it just
doesn't matter. Food is food. Dump it outside the
theater before you walk in.
This entire thread should be marked -1, offtopic - this isn't about women being allowed to breast-feed their children in public. This is about women choosing to post picture of themselves breastfeeding on a public forum.
This is about facebook's take on public decency and their implementation of those standards. Any argument about the legality of breastfeeding in public is a red herring - If the women in question don't post these pictures, their children don't go hungry.
"Oh no! I can't show my friends my baby sucking on my boobs! I'm going to cry!" Said one woman, later on joined in the struggle by people turning something small into something big. Trying to staple on sexual equality, women's rights, and naturalism pitted against perversion of the human condition. However, in the end, this struggle was believed to be undoubtedly futile with the all-to-obvious ending of people responding to the above quote with, "who gives a fuck?"
But then, something on /. went horribly wrong, and people actually gave a fuck...
-Author's Comments-
When I was writing this scary book, the scariest thing to me was imagining someone using a social network website to show off to their friends something generally private. I mean, that's like if I were in a restaurant and someone was disgruntled because they got in trouble for chewing their food then opening their mouth in front of everyone to show off something. And show off what exactly? What are these mothers trying to show? How pro they are at getting sucked on? When's the last time you felt like making your Facebook profile a picture of you cramming a spoon full of yum down someone's mouth? Or take the baby's side of it, when's the last time you felt like making your face on the internet a picture of you with a mouthful of food?
Is eating something you must do in a dark corner of your home? Last time I checked, no, eating can be social. But if I recall correctly, the polite thing to do when eating in public is making the process as minimally noticeable as possible. For example, you don't chew with your mouth open, and you don't talk with your mouth full.
So that's the scary thing to me, in a world where minimizing the appearance of the digestion process is preferred (from chewed food to gas spewed), that some psychopaths would be offended that they cannot show their friends a process of eating that is considerably more uncomfortable to watch, if only because it is less commonly seen. But every time I think about all the activists sensationalizing the superfluous details of the story like women's rights and equality, that's when I really cringe and wish I had a night-light to chase away that boogieman.
Ever fantasized about boobs in your teen/20s (with/without losing virginity)?
What's the "core" user base of the modern social web sites(esp Facebook)?
Any connections?
Breastfed babies don't suck in as much air as
bottlefed babies. Burping the baby is seldom
needed.
Facebook should follow the goatse trailblazing legal approach. Put a warning on top of the photo "The goatse.cx lawyer has informed us that we need a warning! So.. if you are under the age of 18 or find this photograph offensive, please don't look at it. Thank you!"
You ever notice those random people posting flyers for bands, protests, and religious gatherings on phone/power poles in your town? People seem to think that the internet functions in the same way.
FYI, it does not.
Facebook is a privately held entity, and as such they have free right to refuse business and set regulations on how you use THEIR SERVICES. It's not good business to tell people to go away, but that doesn't mean it isn't outside their power. When you post anything on there, it's akin to going to your local corner store, taping a bulletin to their window. If the clerk tore it down, would you feel compelled to tell him he's violated your first amendment rights? No, because you KNOW that the store is his property.
On the internet, let's pretend that a website is a store and the person who owns and operates it is the clerk. The exact same analogy now applies.
This isn't a case of censorship, nor is it a case of perception of nudity, the website said "we don't want you to do X". If we declared X to be "post pictures of broken furniture" nobody would care because it's not a hot button issue. I hope everyone who feels so affected by this can take a deep breath and remember that just because you don't like rules doesn't mean they don't exist. /thread, go home, worry about something important
Men are distracted by breasts, but that's not really the problem. What makes men really uncomfortable it the idea that some milking mom is going to freak out on them for glancing over and get all postal because she thinks he's leering in a sexual way. Your outburst does not help the issue of acceptance.
Help stamp out iliturcy.
Yea, it's natural. So is taking a shit or piss. But you'd be pretty annoyed if I sat down randomly next to you in public and pitched a loaf next to you. Cover that shit up. I don't want to see it. Just like most people don't want to see me whip out my dong in public.
"A geek like you, but who doesn't get the respect
you do because I wear a skirt and you wear pants."
Riiight...
I'm guessing you are male. I've known a number of
geek women, and I've yet to see an attitude like
yours. Not that it's impossible of course, but
IMHO the chances are rather slim.
(you could be a non-geek one of course, in which
case you've mistaken slashdot for myspace)
How can it be that on the internet there supposedly are a lot of people who do not like breasts.
Rule #1 is that on the internet, the men are men.
Rule #2 is that on the internet, the women are men.
Rule #3 is that on the internet, the girls are FBI agents.
Plus the "training" reference is obvious. It's a term used in S+M stuff. He's the slave. He's being trained to be a girl. His master makes him dress like a girl and do girly things. (probably also some really nasty things too)
...and there was tons of drama there. Anyone recall the outcome...?
The targets of your protests (ie. Facebook) also reserve the right to tell you to fuck off, and opt to ignore your request.
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
Suppose the woman was fully dressed in a very
conservative way. Despite this, a group of guy
stands around staring at her body and talking
about it.
I don't see the difference.
You don't need to f%$k every couple of hours!
If we don't allow women to breastfeed in public pretty much whenever and wherever they (or, really, the baby) please then there are two possible outcomes:
(1) Moms will be forced to formula/bottle feed; which has indisputably negative health effects for the baby.
or
(2) Moms will be unable to leave home for the first year or so of the childs life.
Your comparison to public sex simply makes no sense.
Seriously, breastfeeding should be considered nudity. I understand that sometimes it has to be done because the little worm won't shut it, but it doesn't have to be accepted as a part of everyday life. Most people carry a bottle when they're in public, and I really don't want to see my high school classmates nursing their kids because they tagged somebody in a photo. I think we should put the social stigma back on this issue. (possibly flamebait, but wtf.)
AFAIK it is true they cannot ask you to stop breastfeeding, but they certainly can ask you to leave their premise (private property) for whatever reason they wish.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
Also disallow any full frontal MALE breast nudity. Wanna bet it won#t be the case ?
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
Is it acceptable to you that a twenty year old person (male or female) sucks milk from a womans breast in public. I think I would find such a scene disturbing, although a two year old sucking on the same breast is totally acceptable to me.
So, at what age is breast feeding no longer acceptable ?
Now, If you have no problem with an adult sucking breast milk in public, do you have a problem with an adult sucking semen from a penis in public ? What if it were a 18 month old baby sucking semen from a penis ? What if an adult was licking the shit out of someones ass in public ? I'm trying to decide how we make such arbitrary decisions about what is acceptable and what is not.
Personally I have no issue with public breast feeding. But I certainly would not want to see some of the other activities I described, although I can't say for sure where I draw the line.
Actually, while most people would agree it is 'distasteful' the previous poster has a perfectly valid point, and you are very very wrong.
If someone chooses to breastfeed in a public place, they have no 'expectation of privacy' and should accept someone taking a photo of them, watching them, whatever.
If it is find to do in public, then dont complain about the public taking notice!
Of course it is not NICE to stare/take pictures/whatever, but it is just as 'right' as the breastfeeding itself.
Or perhaps you think your double standards trump the previous posters rights?
Of course what you want to do above is assault at the least, and SHOULD get you arrested, and charged.
If the woman wants her privacy (and the rest of us for whatever we do in public..) then perhaps she should find somewhere where she does have privacy...
I suspect of course in the real world someone WOULD try to stop that photo being taken, or even call some misguided police to cause trouble - this is the world of double standards we live in, but that does not make it right.
These may not be my thoughts (or they maybe) but I dont see why I should have my liberties taken away and be forced to see this sort of thing. I understand babies need to eat but why do that in public view. I need to pee but I tend to do it in a designated, private area.
Many public websites do not allow photographs of people in their underwear, isn't this discriminating against underwear models? should they sue for possible loss of earnings?
I can see there are not many breastfeeding mothers around here :-)
You are all missing the point these women are trying to make.
Facebook is telling them that something they do everyday and which is as normal as breathing to them, is obsceen. They are labelling it as indecent putting the loving act of feeding their baby in the same category as porn or violence. That hurts.
Especialy because it concerns their children. It makes them feel degraded. And that makes them angry.
And in case you haven't noticed. FB has not only banned public pictures, they have also removed photo's that were labeled private and only visible to friends. So it has nothing to do with this being public and everything with an overzealous censor at FB.
I don't understand why people would take a picture of themselves when theyre breastfeeding their baby and actually want to show it to people. just seems like something you do in privacy.
In meatspace you just don't have any choice--there is no more land. {...} The Internet looks infinite, but it's not.
Well in contrary to the meatspace, teh intertubes has an (almost) instantenous ability to jump from one place to another.
If I duplicate Facebook's site and change only the breast policy, do you think that people will switch, even though the new one is better?
Why do you need to *duplicate the whole* Facebook ?
Why not just host your *picture galleries* in some jurisdiction that makes a distinction between feeding a child and sexual assault ?
Then only put a single cover picture and link to your gallery on Facebook ? ("Latest pictures of junior available on this URL")
That should solve so many problem on so many levels :
- picture against Facebook's rules of policy aren't hosted there anymore. no more problem.
- the link is visible in Facebook, so friends are kept in loop without having to track hundreds of separate websites. the "hard to move the whole friend network" problem isn't there.
- thanks to advances like OpenID, there won't even be that much different log-ins to track (the friends will use one single OpenID - from their blog for example - to log into all the various off-site galleries)
- bots are able to follow links and can jump from one domain to another following links. If the target gallery is designed to be bots-friendly, the pictures will nonetheless be accessible to Google and such, and will still be searchable.
- In an indirect way, people will be "voting with their wallets" - the users will spend a little bit more time on off-site galleries and a little less viewing pictures on Facebook, thus depriving them from their lucrative ADS revenue stream. If this get significant enough Facebook might notice it, and might rethink its policy. Otherwise you still have a solution that works anyway.
In short :
The web has always been though as a distributed and interlinked system. Please keep this in mind and keep distributing you content in several places and linking them together as you see it fit.
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
Hey ! I think your onto something there :
I think that just goes to show how stupid and dangerous it is to allow a central authority to gain such control, especially when there are other alternatives. {...} No, the real (but difficult) solution is to convince Facebook's users to start building a truly distributed social network, so that there is no one entity which gets to decide what's acceptable and what isn't
I smell a great business plan !~
We could, you know, imagine a distributed content system. With each content linked to each other.
Doesn't need to be complicated.
Sort of just text documents with pictures in them. But in addition of that with links between them : like some *advanced text*. All connected in all direction like some higher dimensional figure. But I can't find a name for it yet~
But that sure is going to be a lot of complicated data. Maybe we should hire some guys to help us develop this linked-text format. I've heard that the people at the LHC have to deal with lots of data to publish on a regular basis. Maybe they could help us design with format~
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
They should be posting those pics on Breaststory!
As a private enterprise, they have the right to restrict what they want.
And people have the right to complain.
And they figure that more people that visit their site than not would not like looking at it. And if they are after traffic numbers for ad providers, they will do whatever gets them the most views. Capitalism at work.
And how do you think people will hear about what Facebook are doing, in order to decide whether to use it? Perhaps by telling people about it, and maybe some news stories about it too?
Last time I looked, Slashdot often has stories about private organisations, and not the Government. Why is this any different? Is there some reason why stories about Facebook - you know, one of the major websites on the Internet - are not newsworthy all of a sudden?
I take a shit every day and it is perfectly normal activity, as normal as breathing and eating. It is also a loving act because seriously, who wouldn't be proud of a good solid bowel movement? I know I am. Some people might think it's obscene but let's face the fact: everybody poops!
It may be a loving act and it may be as normal as breathing, but that means nothing when you're asking if it is socially acceptable to display in public. Sorry to poop on your parade.
Does that mean that if I post a shirtless pic of myself (I don't, more to save my own modesty) on facebook that it should be considered nudity?
And BTW, I'm a guy...
How about if I'm a guy with gynecomastia?
At this point though, it seems more a case of law (many states/provinces legally permit breastfeeding in public, and in fact rules against such are illegal) than a case of my values or even yours.
While there may be some overlap, the female members of group(s) that are against the display of breasts in public are quite likely to be the same that would bitch about breastfeeding in public.
Seriously, how many guys do you know that would bitch about boobs in public? The only time it's ever bothered me was when I saw a cute baby, went to look closer, and got the dirty look because he was apparently attached to a boob at the time (a bit embarrassing, but it's fairly natural for people to peek at cute babies, especially those planning their own future parenthood).
As the subject says; Why post the pictures? Is it really all that important for people to see?
Now we see the violence inherent in the system.
Depends how hungry I am, I've eaten in the shower, drank beer in the shower, hell I've eaten pizza or a sandwhich while taking a crunch. At the bar, I even drink beer while pissing at a urinal. So yes, I do eat in a bathroom :-)
Am I the only male that is not turned on by breast feeding?? Are men so perverse that a baby feeding turns them on?
In puritan USA, breasts fall under the "evil anatomy" that has to be obsessed over under any circumstances. Perhaps they should require women cover up with a large vale when nursing?
In a free society nude people could walk down the street.
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
The benefits conferred to infants via breast milk are vastly and dangerously overstated. New mothers are so brainwashed by well-meaning people like yourself that they actually endanger their babies by purchasing breast milk from unscreened donors--breast milk that could infect their children with hepatitis or HIV.
The benefits of breastfeeding can only be measured over large populations. If you think your individual child is going to get sick any less, or be any smarter, or even any measurable benefit from breastfeeding, you are crazy.
Perhaps you think that I am crazy. Perhaps you are right. But if I am, please show me the test that can determine even whether or not a 5 year old kid was breastfed (let alone, whether that 5 year old kid got any benefit/detriment from breast milk vs. formula).
They don't grade fathers, but if your daughter's a stripper, you fucked up. --Chris Rock
Gorillas have a dominant male, with a harem of females, and the other males don't get any.
Sounds like humans in high school.
Chimpanzees live in a large group and mate a lot, but there is a hierarchy of males where the more dominant ones get more.
Now that sounds more like grown adult humans.
In "Making Sense of Sex", the authors discuss how a female bonobo will observe a male eating something good, and then go to them to offer sex. While the male is getting busy, the female will take the food.
That sounds like older humans who have been in many relationships.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Thats awesome, claim your used to diversity in the same paragraph where you argue against some other group who feels differently than you do.
'Have an open mind, accept other peoples point of view, but yours has to match mine exactly or you don't have an open mind.'
If you were as politically correct and willing to accept diversity as you'd like to have us think, you wouldn't have posted what you did as you would be willing to accept the other 'unenlightened' points of view. Cut the holier than thou bullshit, you suck at it.
Mothers are a powerful force, no doubt, they make up a rather large percentage of our population. What you are unlikely to find is a large percentage of mothers who actually gives a shit about posting breast feeding photos on Facebook. I'm sure many won't see a problem with it, but most won't see why you would want to in the first place so its likely to end exactly like I expect it to. The same way it always does when a tiny group of vocal people start doing silly crap to get their own agenda accomplished. The end result is that the rest of the world starts to think of them as nutjobs, including those who would otherwise be sympathetic to their cause.
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
One of these days I should really create an account... le sigh.
That said, this is simply about breasts. What is facebook's policy on unobstructed, nipple-visible breasts? Its clearly not pornographic under the traditional definition - plain nudity is never considered porn. Does FB ban nudity as well? If the answer is yes, then it doesn't matter if there's a baby or a large gage barbell hanging off of the nipple, the picture should be removed.
Now, if they don't ban nudity and any woman can post her bare breasts, then breastfeeding should be allowed.
If not, sorry, you're simply violating their no-nudity policy. You are not special because you are breastfeeding your baby - no more special than artist who expresses herself with body paint, tattoos, or piercings that cause her to reveal her nipples.
I'm sick of this "I have children, make an exception for me because I'm special and entitled".
Well I think it is sexy. So if the objective is to reduce arousal... mission accomplished. Then again, the amount of forced cleavage shots from young girls is probably more significant. FYI: there is a vid on youtube with a 8 year old still breast feeding. search for "breastfeeding at 8"
Yes indeed, these concepts are at the core of the web it self (hence my joke).
The sad truth is that :
- except for a few geeks, nobody is going on their own to build their own "small-brick-of-the-great-social-building" (giving "not enough skills" as the main excuse).
- thus people will have to rely on ready-to-use solutions.
- it is not in most companies' interests (at least not in the interest of those companies which managed to get most market share) to be interoperable.
- thus most of the time, the ready-to-use solution that most Joe-6-packs will find is Facebook or another similar system which completely lost and isolated (expect for the much more cheaper connection, there's basically no difference if the service runs on the internet or if it is some direct connected service like back in the BBS-over-modem time). See the Facebook's chat system which had to be reverse engineered to create the plugin for pidgin.
- only very few actors like Google are in a specific niche where interoperating with partners is critical. And even then they don't succeed in all their side project : in addition to their search engine, their e-mail system is incredibly popular and uses an open system including the chat system (conforms to XMPP/Jabber). But on the other hand their Virtual World wasn't the expected success, in web already dominated by other players in the MMO/virtual reality field.
Thus, it is going to be a very difficult uphill battle to convince giants like Facebook to play along with smaller players.
On the other hand, Facebook's API for plugins make it possible, even if the main developers aren't interested in, to try to develop plugins to help inter-operate with open standards.
On a side note, I think that what I'm proposing a couple of post above (host the pictures in an off-site gallery and only publish the URL on facebook) is a nice first step toward the direction.
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
the reason situations like this come up is absolutely not because people are offended by women breastfeeding their children. the reason this is an issue is because women get mad/scared/freaked when they notice that someone is watching them breastfeed their child and the person watching is castigated for being pervert. what's the big deal if you watch some woman breastfeed her child. the percentage of people who would find that erotic is roughly equivalent to the percentage that download softcore porn...not very high.
I found a censoring application on Facebook: http://apps.facebook.com/censorit