Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

PM Calls Facebook Irresponsible For Allowing Beheading Clips

Posted by timothy on from the please-don't-do-that dept.

An anonymous reader writes with this excerpt: "David Cameron has attacked Facebook as irresponsible for lifting a ban on videos of beheadings being posted on its site. The prime minister said the social network must explain its decision to allow images showing decapitations to worried parents. Facebook has said users should be free to view such videos and then condemn the content. Cameron wrote on Twitter: 'It's irresponsible of Facebook to post beheading videos, especially without a warning. They must explain their actions to worried parents.' Facebook introduced a temporary ban on such videos in May but has since decided to remove the block on the grounds that the site is used to share information about world events, such as acts of terrorism and human rights abuses."

14 of 201 comments (clear)

  1. Helping him censor the web for him now by alexkaskasoli · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Unfortunately this will likely help him in his quest for web censorship...

  2. Excellent by AmiMoJo · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This is wonderful news. Facebook will now be blocked by default in the government porn filters, and thus far more people will opt out of them. Turns out Facebook is actually useful for something.

    --
    const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
    SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
  3. Won't somebody think of the children... by Martz · · Score: 4, Insightful

    'It's irresponsible of Facebook to post beheading videos, especially without a warning. They must explain their actions to worried parents.'

    So much fail...

    Facebook doesn't post any beheading videos. It's users do.
    I thought we were allowed to be irresponsible as long as it's legal?
    If my Facebook friends don't like the content that I may or may not post, then they can hide it or unfriend me.

    Looks like he's trying to win Family Votes, and slashdot is helping to peddle this crap.

    Shame on you timothy. Shame on you.

    1. Re:Won't somebody think of the children... by Barsteward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I think banning porn videos, bare breasts etc but not beheading videos shows a complete hypocrisy especially with this statement from the dick heads.

      "Facebook has long been a place where people turn to share their experiences, particularly when they're connected to controversial events on the ground, such as human rights abuses, acts of terrorism and other violent events. People are sharing this video on Facebook to condemn it. If the video were being celebrated, or the actions in it encouraged, our approach would be different," Facebook said in a statement.

      --
      "The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
    2. Re:Won't somebody think of the children... by daem0n1x · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Then allow people to post nudity and sex. I can't see how naked people can be considered worse than a guy getting his head cut off. American puritanism in its worse.

      And before all the jingos start telling me "if you don't like American puritanism, then don't use Facebook", I declare: I don't use it.

    3. Re:Won't somebody think of the children... by gstoddart · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Facebook doesn't post any beheading videos. It's users do.

      You're right. But Facebook chooses if that's what they're willing to allow on their site.

      Somehow I doubt this is some noble thing about freedom of expression like they're saying -- I strongly suspect it's more about the advertising revenue generated.

      Zuckerberg and Facebook can claim some principled stand, but from what I've seen, it's likely just plain old greed.

      I'm not convinced they're actually capable of being principled on these things -- they want to do two things, make as much money as possible, and collect as much of your personal information as they can (so they can make as much money as possible). But lets' not pretend that Zuckerfuck is, or ever has been, a principled actor in all of this.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    4. Re:Won't somebody think of the children... by drinkypoo · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I thought we were allowed to be irresponsible as long as it's legal?
      If my Facebook friends don't like the content that I may or may not post, then they can hide it or unfriend me.

      Facebook is not a common carrier because they already censor content. For example, they censor stills of breastfeeding in which you can barely see a breast. They are the only and ultimate arbiter of what content is permissible on their site, and therefore they should be legally responsible for all of it.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  4. Re:PM? Which country by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    There's a bunch of countries in the world with PMs. I have no fucking idea which one David Cameron runs. How bout throwing us a bone and just telling us which country we're talking about?

    Why not do what everyone else who lives outside the USA is expected to do (when they see the name of some US-based politician) and just Google it?

  5. Re:Think of the worried parents by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

    The Taliban doing the beheadings are the tea party of the muslims. The majority aren't like that and prefer to get on with their lives in peace.

  6. Re:PM? Which country by cbope · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Nah, he's just a 'Murican!

    Seriously, this is a MAJOR problem with the so-called "news" in the US. It's so US-centric (and crime and entertainment-centric) that even the prime minister of the UK is not known by name.

  7. Re:PM? Which country by 91degrees · · Score: 5, Insightful

    He's criticising Slashdot. Whether he googles or not, Slashdot should still have provided this information. There's no reason not to say "British PM".

    Perhaps he should know. Perhaps everyone should, but for any snippet of information, there will be a non trivial number of people who are not aware of it. Good journalists provide the information concisely withut forcing the reader to get key details elsewhere.

  8. Damn... by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Is there any part of the internet (aside from its utility for dystopian surveillance) that hasn't caused David Cameron to open his horrible, gormless, marshmallow-face and drone on about 'the children' and 'irresponsibility'? It's as though his government has entirely run out of substantive policy or something...

  9. Re:Independence..... by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 4, Insightful

    so what happened last time the British tried to enforce their morality across the pond....

    I don't remember the American Revolution having much of a moral element.... In fact, while we've done a great deal to get over it, the US was substantially stocked by a mixture of moralizing assholes too moralistic to get along in Britain (ye olde puritans) and would-be feudal lords who couldn't compete with the incumbents at home and therefore went abroad (ye olde slave plantation regions).

    Some political discontent, some economic interests; but King George wasn't exactly getting all up in our right to own filthy erotic lithographs...

  10. Headless breasts? by bradley13 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    As pointed out elsewhere, Facebook has the same odd puritanical streak as found throughout the USA. You can watch people being beheaded, but they still firmly forbid pictures of breastfeeding moms. The sight of a female breast might excite prurient passions, whereas watching a murder is just spiffy.

    --
    Enjoy life! This is not a dress rehearsal.