Slashdot Mirror


Facebook Lets Beheading Clips Return To Its Site

another random user sends this quote from the BBC: "Facebook is allowing videos showing people being decapitated to be posted and shared on its site once again. The social network had placed a temporary ban on the material in May following complaints that the clips could cause long-term psychological damage. The U.S. firm now believes its users should be free to watch and condemn, but not celebrate, such videos. One suicide prevention charity criticized the move. 'It only takes seconds of exposure to such graphic material to leave a permanent trace — particularly in a young person's mind,' said Dr. Arthur Cassidy, a former psychologist who runs a branch of the Yellow Ribbon Program in Northern Ireland. 'The more graphic and colorful the material is, the more psychologically destructive it becomes.' Decapitation videos are available elsewhere on the net — including on Google's YouTube — but critics have raised concern that Facebook's news feeds and other sharing functions mean it is particularly adept at spreading such material."

33 of 277 comments (clear)

  1. No boobies though. by MightyYar · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Thank God, because that would be obscene!

    --
    W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    1. Re:No boobies though. by couchslug · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I can't wait for easy, lifelike CGI so we can post Wholesome Biblical Anecdotes to Facebook.

      Let's see how parents try to censor these:

      http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/donald_morgan/atrocity.html

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    2. Re:No boobies though. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "Suck a boob, you're an X. Cut it off, you're an R" -- Jack Nicholson on US-Movie-Ratings...

    3. Re:No boobies though. by LoRdTAW · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It is ironic as a pair of tits, hell a dude ramming another guy/girl up the ass like its the end of the world is FAR less traumatizing than a decapitation video. If someone said you child has to watch 10 hours of porn or one brutal decapitation video id let the kid watch the porn.

    4. Re:No boobies though. by tverbeek · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Boobies, dicks, and drawings of imaginary naked people will still get deleted, and the posters put in detention. Photographs that depict actual violent murders are OK, though?

      --
      http://alternatives.rzero.com/
    5. Re:No boobies though. by Aighearach · · Score: 4, Funny

      *pew*pew*pew*pew*pew*

    6. Re:No boobies though. by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Photographs that depict actual violent murders are OK, though?

      Are you trying to train a population to sit around all day and boink or send their children off to die in skirmishes to satisfy some politicians' power lust?

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    7. Re:No boobies though. by Bite+The+Pillow · · Score: 3, Interesting

      So far, this post is the only source for this quote. here is a great place to start for when you want to use it again, correctly.

      Your version loses the essential Jack, but of course the original is not available.

      "If you suck on a tit, the movie gets an X rating," he once told an interviewer.

      "If you hack the tit off with an axe it will be PG."

      I prefer :

      "Shoot, shoot, bang, bang, kill, kill, is fine. But show seven sets of genitals, everyone go crazy!" -Francesca Fiore

    8. Re:No boobies though. by YttriumOxide · · Score: 5, Insightful

      No, one must simply not conflate the religion of the perpetrators with the act, as if they are one and the same thing.

      I agree that one should not conflate the religion of the perpetrators with the act; however it is an important point to make if the act was performed in the name of the religion (regardless of what the majority of believers think).

      If a Christian man kills someone because he was pissed off at work, bringing his religion in to the discussion is irrelevant. If however a Christian man kills someone because "God told him to", then bringing his religion in to the discussion is very relevant.

      It would be wrong to say that "Christianity promotes killing" (based on this event alone), however it would NOT be wrong to say that "Christianity can be used as an excuse or reason to kill", because it quite clearly was so.

      There are a lot of people that are anti-Islam because of the acts of a number of Islamic extremists. The religion itself (from my atheist perspective) is about equally as dangerous and violent as Christianity. There certainly are people that use it to justify violence towards others and there is a strong community ethic bound to the religion that brings other people in to commit the same acts when they previously might not have.

      Christianity is currently going through a 'reasonably quiet' period as far as violence goes (although definitely not completely quiet) but history (even relatively recent history) shows that it's not always so. There's nothing inherent in Islam that makes it any better or worse.

      --
      My book about LSD and Self-Discovery
      Also on facebook as: DroppingAcidDaleBewan
    9. Re:No boobies though. by martin-boundary · · Score: 4, Funny

      I don't know about you, but I'd rather see Saddam being beheaded, than seeing Saddam's boobies :/

    10. Re: No boobies though. by MysteriousPreacher · · Score: 4, Interesting

      And the bible doesn't contain similar statements?

      When the IRA commits some acts of terror, I don't see people blame the Catholic Church as a whole.

      So yeah, Islam is treated differently. And that's wrong.

      Disclaimer: I'm Catholic.

      I agree that Islam shouldn't automatically be blamed whenever a Muslim commits a crime. However, when an Islamist group cites Islamic texts as justification then I don't see how one could not make the connection. It's not wrong to draw valid connections between world-views and actions.

      It's worth considering differences in how scripture is read. Most Christian sects have spent thousands of years arguing over canon and apocrypha. Today there are major sects using different canons - this is not a fringe exercise. Even within a given canon it's rare to have the literalism and inerrancy common to Islam. Based on discussions with Muslims, the general idea is that there is one Koran, and it is free from error and practically untouched by human hand. This leads to a pretty hardline and self-claimed definitive interpretation, which I reflects in the practices of the religion. There are some exceptions, such as the Sufis, who are are more likely to read allegories where others would see literality.

      --
      -- Using the preview button since 2005
  2. Better That Than Tits by rueger · · Score: 5, Informative
    Does Facebook still ban breastfeeding pictures? Just wondering.....

    Yup.

    FB page Bitchin' Parents is the latest to be targeted by FB censors for sharing their members breastfeeding images. As a result they have been asking members to share their BF images here instead. Incredibly sad this is still an issue on FB. http://www.facebook.com/ParentsUncut

    1. Re:Better That Than Tits by jonr · · Score: 4, Insightful

      That makes no sense, we frown upon be-headings too... or what?

  3. Priorities by wiredlogic · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Thank god there won't be any breastfeeding moms to corrupt the mind when one is looking for snuff pictures.

    --
    I am becoming gerund, destroyer of verbs.
    1. Re:Priorities by Opportunist · · Score: 4, Funny

      Boobies ain't for little kids!

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  4. This is not about free speech by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If I walk into just about any decent sized store or public building (large enough to have security) and start shouting political slogans, I'll be escorted out of the building. Facebook and Google own their premises and can and should enforce whatever policies they think is appropriate, above and beyond what the law requires.

    It's common sense that videos glorifying machete violence against humans should be banned. If that doesn't occur to Zuckerberg and Page immediately, they are thinking way too hard.

  5. All for Cash by TranquilVoid · · Score: 3, Interesting

    From the company that removes photos of breastfeeding mothers...

    To be 'fair' I've noticed that, since they went public, they've been a lot more permissive with the soft porn pages. You probably still can't show nipples, but labia outlines through a bikini are apparently fine. It's all a short-term grab for eyeballs and advertising dollars.

    As far as I know Facebook doesn't have an 18+ category like YouTube so this move does a bit blunt.

  6. Facebook should stop banning anything. by pauljlucas · · Score: 3, Insightful
    Facebook should get out of the censorship/banning business. You should only be able to report things that are against the law, e.g., child pornography. If you don't like anything else, don't look.

    If it's on a page you've "liked," unlike the page and stop following it. If a friend posts something you don't like, either learn to accept your friend is his or her entirety, or simply unfollow or unfriend your friend. Facebook shouldn't be your nanny.

    --
    If you reply, do so only to what I explicitly wrote. If I didn't write it, don't assume or infer it.
    1. Re:Facebook should stop banning anything. by foobar+bazbot · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Facebook should get out of the censorship/banning business. You should only be able to report things that are against the law, e.g., child pornography.

      Devil's advocate:
      I'd rather not have Facebook telling people "We only remove illegal content; if you don't wanna see beheading videos, take it up with your Congressman.", because it's all too believable that some congressclown would take up the challenge, and push through legislation making such content illegal.

      The rest of the internet is clearly better off if prominent sites such as Facebook engage in censorship, because this reduces the number of idiots getting riled about it and therefore the odds that the government applies censorship to the whole internet. Now whether this benefit to the rest of the internet is worth the harm of having Facebook censored is ... debatable, at best, but there is a not-absurd argument there.

    2. Re:Facebook should stop banning anything. by __aaltlg1547 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      1. Facebook has to obey local laws in jurisdictions where it operates, thus, no kiddy porn or [em]animal[/em] cruelty in the USA.

      2. Facebook is an advertising company. If their sponsors don't like it, it's verboten.

      3. Facebook sponsors apparently like snuff films, but not sex.

    3. Re:Facebook should stop banning anything. by pauljlucas · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Facebook should be in the business business. If they can make more money by making the site more family friendly, at the cost of kicking out some of the dregs of 4chan, they should do so. Hell, they have an obligation to their shareholders to do so.

      They can accomplish the same thing by allowing people to self-tag posts as "adult." (Or they could even have several tags such as "violence", "sex", etc.) Minors wouldn't be able to see such content (based on what tags their parents allow them to see). At worst, adult content that's not self-tagged as such would simply be tagged as such by Facebook if/when they're alerted to it. Adults who've chosen not to filter their content will get to see everything. It's a win-win and it's certainly better than outright banning.

      --
      If you reply, do so only to what I explicitly wrote. If I didn't write it, don't assume or infer it.
    4. Re:Facebook should stop banning anything. by sI4shd0rk · · Score: 3

      Of course, I think that a world without censorship would be better off, but since I have no proof I'm no better than those who call for censorship.

      I believe that is incorrect. The ones who impose censorship are infringing upon others' freedoms, and without evidence. Since opposing censorship simply means not infringing upon people's right to free speech (a fundamental right), I believe you to be far better than cretins who call for censorship.

      In fact, even if the world is a better place with censorship, freedom is speech is far more important than safety, so censorship shouldn't be allowed either way.

      --
      Ignorance is a choice
  7. About the worst thing to be shared online by Haoie · · Score: 3, Funny

    Just imagine this posted on your timeline:

    "Hey dude, I just saw this guy get his head lopped off and I totally thought of you!"

    --
    If each mistake being made is a new one, then progress is being made.
  8. Re:Why? by LoRdTAW · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Good question. The other night an old coworker I was friends with posted one of those decapitation videos. I have never seen anything more disturbing in my life. A masked thug (presumably a mexican cartel goon) cuts a womans head off ...... with a fucking box cutter or small knife. No quick chop and lights out. No this was a brutal murder in which this guy starts slicing around her neck like she was a side of beef until her head comes off. And she was fully conscious and alive when he started.

    Why did I watch it? I honestly have no idea. Morbid curiosity perhaps? At first I thought it was fake thinking why would someone post something this fucking horrible on FB. I am sorry I did. Damn video has been haunting me for the past few days. Nothing bad but I keep thinking of it every now and then, that poor woman.

    One this it does illustrate though is how the wonderful war on drugs has given those shit stains on the underwear of humanity the ability to do this almost entirely unchecked.

  9. Re:Why? by BenJeremy · · Score: 5, Informative

    Except in this case, it is an Islamist who beheaded his wife for "cheating" on him. ...AND it managed to get 2500 likes on Facebook. Way to go , Facebook, that sure looks like condemnation.

    I guess restricting beheading videos would be considered racist.

    Meanwhile, posting pictures of a girl's head and elbows while she's in a bath, suggesting (only to the lame Facebook censors who have never seen an actual naked woman) boobies will get you banned.

  10. Only (based) In America by hyades1 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    So death porn is fine, but if you try to post a picture of a woman breastfeeding, they'll crap-can it and threaten to close your account faster than a businessman can pick a pocket.

    Must be American.

    --
    I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
  11. Article: Facebook Lets Beheading Clips Return... by klingers48 · · Score: 3, Funny

    ...More on this below the cut.

  12. Re:Why? by LoRdTAW · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Im not the squeamish type either but watching a person who has done nothing wrong cut up like a piece of meat is beyond fucked. The disturbing part isnt the blood or the head coming off but the fact that someone is so apathetic that they can butcher someone and not think twice. Especially if that someone has done no harm to anyone else. Those guys make serial killers like dahmer, bundy and gacy look like mouseketeers. At least they had a drive and motivation. These guys are doing it as if its nothing, just another day on the job.

  13. Apocalypse Now: by Hartree · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Colonel Kurtz: "We train young men to drop fire on people, but their commanders won't allow them to write "fuck" on their airplanes because it's obscene."

    Human psychology is all kinds of weird.

  14. Re:But think of the children! by scott9693 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Serious question, are you a father?

    Are you suggesting I should show my 5 year old son a beheading video? I love my son and want to protect him from harm, both physical and psychological. When he is old enough, and curious enough to view these things he will in his own time.
    Suggesting that because other children experience this is it ok for mine to see it is not a good reason. Why do you think violence transcends generations?

  15. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    I don't think I'd categorize the people executed by the cartels as innocents. If the bonds were on the other set of hands, they'd be just as happy to wield the knife.

    Except for, you know, the journalists who are targetet, executed, and their corpses put on public display because they dared to report on these wastes of flesh.

  16. Re:But think of the children! by artor3 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    In some places, the kids not only see [horrific violence], but they're forced to be a part of it as child soldiers.

    So... what? Since pedophiles exist we should force all children to watch child pornography?

    Just-World thinking contributes to mental health. Forcing people to see all the morbid shit that goes on just depresses them. There is no upside. Just spreading misery. It's not like we could fix the armies of child soldiers just by getting a bit more awareness *coughkony2012cough*.

    If you want a sure way to get kids to not want to behead themselves or anyone else, showing them a real beheading is a pretty good way of doing it.

    You have absolutely no evidence of that. In fact, you have evidence against it: the child soldiers you referenced. They witness lots of horror. It doesn't stop them from participating. If anything, it desensitizes them.

  17. Re:The way I see it is this... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You realize that your kids are your kids even when they reach adulthood. So does your statement still stand throughout time? If so, why did you have kids if you are so intent of erasing your genes from the gene pool?

    Seriously, if you think your kids are going to be teenage parents from seeing some nudity, I can tell you that don't know jack shit. Just as much as you shouldn't believe your kid are to become a serial killer just from seeing a beheading video. But the emotional scarring most kids would get from seeing a beheading video is very real. I dare say most adults would be distrubed from watching something like that. Any emotional scarring they get from watching some non-hardcore nudity is most likely to come from their hypocritical parents, trying to deny the existence of nudity or sex in the misdirected interest to "shield" their kids. (Hint to any kids reading this: How do you think you came into this world? "The stork" is the wrong answer.)