Nipples, Terrorism, and Sexual Descriptions - Facebook's List of Banned Content

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Nipples, Terrorism, and Sexual Descriptions - Facebook's List of Banned Content

Posted by samzenpus on Monday March 16, 2015 @01:51AM from the standards-and-practices dept.

Mark Wilson writes Facebook has updated its Community Standards document, outlining the type of content that is not permitted on the social network. When it's not forcing people to reveal their real names, blocking 'offensive' content, or encouraging users to vote, Facebook is often to be found removing content that has been reported for one reason or another. But what's acceptable, and what's not? A little while back, the site revealed a simplified version of its privacy policy, and now the Community Standards document has received the same treatment. Facebook has set out the types of pictures that are permissible, along with specifying guidelines for other content.

134 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Nipples and terrorism? by Carewolf · 2015-03-16 01:58 · Score: 5, Insightful

Americans...
1. Re:Nipples and terrorism? by ThatsDrDangerToYou · 2015-03-16 02:01 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  Hi, I'm from the More Nipples Party and I'm running for president.
  You must admit, my platform is compelling.
2. Re:Nipples and terrorism? by jellomizer · 2015-03-16 02:08 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  In general Americans have problems with moderation.
  If you say you went out to drink, then you will drink until you're drunk. While in many other countries a drink is just a drink, not even enough to get legally buzzed.
  If the person smoke then they smoke at least a pack a day. While in other countries it may be 1 or 2 cigarette a day.
  Culturally nudity is equated with sex. So if facebook allowed nudity that is past the FCC standard, then it would go downhill fast. As desperate young adults showing the goods that they got, or the would be models giving a full preview.
  Now if you want to change this, then you need to change the culture. Right now facebook (a non-government, corporation) needs to balance its ideals with free speech, and maintaining the optimal number of users.
  The first amendment states that the Government cannot stop free speech (Where I still question the constitutionality of the FCC rules), however that doesn't mean non-government groups need to allow free speech, they can choose what they want or not want to show or say.
  
  --
  If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
3. Re:Nipples and terrorism? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-03-16 02:12 · Score: 1
  
  Your ideas intrigue me, and I would like to subscribe to your newsletter.
4. Re:Nipples and terrorism? by sycodon · 2015-03-16 02:18 · Score: 1
  
  You're just sucking up to the American people.
  
  --
  When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
5. Re:Nipples and terrorism? by sycodon · 2015-03-16 02:20 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  Funny, I looked for that phrase, "political speech", in the text of the 1st...didn't find it.
  
  --
  When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
6. Re:Nipples and terrorism? by PPH · 2015-03-16 02:28 · Score: 1
  
  It's right next to the one about corporations are people too. Courts just love to make stuff up.
  
  --
  Have gnu, will travel.
7. Re:Nipples and terrorism? by Errol+backfiring · 2015-03-16 02:32 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  I know it is meant to be funny, but it is a quite refreshing idea that someone in politics sucks up to the people instead of to the companies.
  
  --
  Nae king! Nae laird! Nae yurrupiean pressedent! We willna be fooled again!
8. Re:Nipples and terrorism? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-03-16 02:32 · Score: 2
  
  What in hooting hollering name is wrong with noodie nipples? And why such a sexist approach - guys nipples are ok to show but not womens?
9. Re:Nipples and terrorism? by gringofrijolero · 2015-03-16 02:37 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  Companies have much bigger, um, teats... You can say that, right?
  
  --
  Todos mis movimientos están friamente calculados
10. Re:Nipples and terrorism? by drinkypoo · 2015-03-16 02:38 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  While in many other countries a drink is just a drink, not even enough to get legally buzzed.
  And in yet other countries, there's an even greater tendency towards alcoholism than in the USA.
  
  Culturally nudity is equated with sex.
  Right, and in some cultures, not being in a bad is equated with harlotry.
  It's not that I don't think that we can improve in these areas, I think there's lots of room for improvement in fact, but you opened with "In general Americans have problems with moderation" and that seems a bit inflammatory.
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
11. Re:Nipples and terrorism? by Archangel+Michael · 2015-03-16 02:42 · Score: 0
  
  To be fair, the part about corporations being "people" is in the actual statute. The court simply held that it was constitutional (the statute). Want to change the statute, change congress. And good luck getting rid of the Republicrats that support the Corporate States of America
  
  --
  Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
12. Re:Nipples and terrorism? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-03-16 02:46 · Score: 0
  
  Rest of the world.....
13. Re:Nipples and terrorism? by gman003 · 2015-03-16 02:52 · Score: 1
  
  Well, you've perked my interest.
14. Re:Nipples and terrorism? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-03-16 03:17 · Score: 0
  
  That's a pretty massive generalisation. But even if it were true, so what? What facebook are saying is that it's okay to post graphic media of extreme violence (which has a pretty high chance of screwing up the very young or vulnerable) but it's not okay to post a picture of a naked arse (which won't screw anyone up, ever, but might marginally offend the easily-offended, especially if they happen to have a very screwed up set of priorities). I'm not especially keen for fb to start allowing any and all porn on the site, but seeing people have sex is fundamentally not as damaging as seeing people murdered. (Yes, I'm too lazy to provide citations, go google it for yourself.)
15. Re:Nipples and terrorism? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-03-16 03:20 · Score: 0
  
  Yup they are right tits over the issue!
16. Re:Nipples and terrorism? by sconeu · 2015-03-16 03:28 · Score: 1
  
  You're such a boob.....
  
  --
  General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
17. Re:Nipples and terrorism? by disposable60 · 2015-03-16 03:34 · Score: 1
  
  As it was closing an era in this part of North America in which unpopular political speech was greeted with torture, imprisonment and death, it was understood to apply to political speech being restricted by the politicians.
  Of course, at the time. speech in general was a tad more civil - norms and mores more closely observed in public rather than flouted for attention-seeking effect.
  
  --
  You're looking for quotes? See my journal.
18. Re:Nipples and terrorism? by bickerdyke · 2015-03-16 03:37 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  That's the almost funny thing here.
  The average American poster thinks of their "Free Speech" (other examples that follow the same pattern could be found too) right as a Holy Cow that is invincible, because it is protected by the constitution.
  I had some posters here looking down on, say, Germany as an "undemocratic" country, because there are laws in place that actually limit free speech. (Which is protected by the constitution there, too)
  But, at the bottom line, free speech in the US is even more limited, be it FCC rules, sue-trigger-happy lawyers, facebook EULAs, general politeness - anything down to school district regulations.
  
  --
  bickerdyke
19. Re:Nipples and terrorism? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-03-16 03:52 · Score: 0
  
  In general Americans have problems with moderation.
  If you say you went out to drink, then you will drink until you're drunk.
  Makes me feel like home again.. :( Moderation with alcohol is rare among the cultures. The lack of moderation reaches to the other ways as well, namely religion and politics. Our common, stone-age biology is causing problems no matter what the culture.
20. Re:Nipples and terrorism? by mSparks43 · 2015-03-16 04:03 · Score: 1
  
  The chocolate powerup in candy crush looks like a black boob covered in colourful nipples.
  ban this game now and save me and hundreds of thousands from the addiction.
  Other than that I'm not sure what they mean? does facebook have other content other than candy crush?
21. Re:Nipples and terrorism? by jimbolauski · 2015-03-16 04:04 · Score: 2
  
  It's right next to the one about corporations are people too. Courts just love to make stuff up.
  What the courts stated was that corporations are just groups of people, and that they should not lose rights for simply being in a group. If a person can donate to a political campaign then a group of people should be able to pool their money and do the same. The corporations are people is just rhetoric designed to make you emotional and stop thinking critically so you will blindly support it's cause.
  
  --
  Knowledge = Power
  P= W/t
  t=Money
  Money = Work/Knowledge so the less you know the more you make
22. Re:Nipples and terrorism? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-03-16 04:18 · Score: 0
  
  Yeah, well, politicians have trouble with absolutes, they don't understand clear language like "shall not be abridged"
23. Re:Nipples and terrorism? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-03-16 04:22 · Score: 0
  
  In general Americans have problems with normal sexual anatomy.
  FTFY
24. Re:Nipples and terrorism? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-03-16 04:30 · Score: 0
  
  It's right next to the one about corporations are people too.
  Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
  
  I highlighted the part about corporations being people, but I'm afraid I cannot see anything surrounding it that limits protected speech to political speech.
  
  (Yes, I hate the idea of Apple, Coke, Ford, etc having the same rights as individuals. But every time a "fix" is proposed, the person proposing it is either blissfully unaware, or is being deliberately malicious, because their "fix" would also silence the likes of the EFF, the NRA, and PETA. You may not agree with all three organizations (I know I disagree with at least one), but it would be hard to argue that they do not fall under the protections of the First Amendment.)
25. Re:Nipples and terrorism? by RevWaldo · 2015-03-16 04:54 · Score: 2
  
  No sir, I'm not interested in more nipples.
  
  Tell you what though - do you have any rubber walrus protectors?
  
  .
  
  --
  Prisencolinensinainciusol. Ol Rait!
26. Re:Nipples and terrorism? by ckatko · 2015-03-16 04:54 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  In general Americans have problems with moderation.
  
  If you say you went out to drink, then you will drink until you're drunk. While in many other countries a drink is just a drink, not even enough to get legally buzzed.
  Really... really? You're gonna pull the "America is the only place without moderation" card?
  
  How about we throw some facts into the deck:
  
  Smoking problems? 51st place.
  
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
  
  Drinking problems? 22nd place.
  
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
  
  Notice those are the consumption RATES, meaning people in those countries smoke and drink more.
  
  So unless I see you also make the same argument against the 71 cases of countries with higher rates than the USA, I'm going to tell you to sit down and shut up. Because you're talking like an idiot.
  
  Stop misappropriating the fact that people care enough to change things in the USA, with actual rates of those things occurring. Because if that's all you do, you'd think the USA was a racist hellhole. But you'd be wrong: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new...
27. Re:Nipples and terrorism? by xfade551 · 2015-03-16 05:00 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  In general Americans have problems with moderation. If you say you went out to drink, then you will drink until you're drunk. While in many other countries a drink is just a drink, not even enough to get legally buzzed. If the person smoke then they smoke at least a pack a day. While in other countries it may be 1 or 2 cigarette a day.
  Anecdotes are anecdotes, but as an American with a bit a world travel under my belt, this contrasts with my observations. Europeans tend to be better at the "just one drink" (and when they do over-do it, there is much better public transit, or their homes are nearby). East Asians seem to enjoy having a few drinks at a time, and Mexicans as well. There was no legal alcohol in Kuwait, and my visit to Afghanistan was before the wine "industry" started up again (so no observations there). However, the pub culture and local breweries have been taking off here in the western U.S., and we frequently go and have just one beer around here.
  As to smokers: in every other country I visit, the local nationals are always surprised at how few Americans smoke. In many states in the U.S., public indoors smoking is illegal, which really cuts down on the number of chain smokers, and forces them to limit their smoking to about one cigarette per hour. I'm always surprised when I go elsewhere, as to how many people will finish a cigarette, then immediately light up another.
28. Re:Nipples and terrorism? by Errol+backfiring · 2015-03-16 05:13 · Score: 1
  
  You could say that they are better company.
  
  --
  Nae king! Nae laird! Nae yurrupiean pressedent! We willna be fooled again!
29. Re:Nipples and terrorism? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-03-16 05:19 · Score: 0
  
  Have you seen the public-facing aspects of our country lately? You know, the stuff that people *outside* of the country see day in, and day out? It's hard to look at our politicians (for example), or our foreign policy (as another example) without coming to the conclusion that we "have problems with moderation".
  We have an entire political party dedicated to making sure the country fails in whatever way they can finagle because they don't like that 'the other guy' got elected (twice).
30. Re:Nipples and terrorism? by bws111 · 2015-03-16 05:32 · Score: 2
  
  Freedom of speech is not the only right there is, and it is not some sort of 'super right' that trumps all others.
  FCC rules - an argument could be made that this is a restriction of speech. However, an argument could also be made that the public should have the freedom to decide how a scare public resource (airwaves) can be used. Does Germany have no such freedom for the public to influence use of public resources? If not, score one more freedom for the US.
  Lawyers - I guess you mean libel/slander laws. Does Germany have no right of a person to seek redress for being lied about? If not, score one more freedom for the US
  Facebook - Does Germany have no freedom of the press, that is, the right to decide what you will and will not publish using your private property? If not, score one more freedom for the US
  General politeness - wtf? Is there some kind of law in Germany that says I must still associate with you and not think ill of you just because you make repugnant or just stupid speeches? If so, score another freedom for the US
  School district rules - should the public have no say in the environment that is created, using its tax money, in the place where its children must attend each day by law?
31. Re:Nipples and terrorism? by bws111 · 2015-03-16 05:35 · Score: 1
  
  That is because in the real world there are no absolutes. Can I use your house to display a giant hate-filled diatribe? Why not, what gives you the right? It can't be property rights, because that would be abridging my right of free speech. The exact same is true for ever one of his supposed 'restrictions of free speech'.
32. Re:Nipples and terrorism? by whitroth · 2015-03-16 05:49 · Score: 1
  
  As an American, let me say this about that: you got that right. Freakin' winner in the "Most Hypocritical Country In The History Of The World" contest, more Victorian than Queen Victoria (who was known to run around the Palace in the altogether).
  mark
33. Re:Nipples and terrorism? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-03-16 05:50 · Score: 0
  
  What do rubber walruses need protection from?
34. Re:Nipples and terrorism? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-03-16 06:03 · Score: 0
  
  Nipples, terrorism and Americans. Fuck yeah!
35. Re:Nipples and terrorism? by bickerdyke · 2015-03-16 06:05 · Score: 1
  
  Even more so. How to handle conflicting rights granted by the constitution is also part of the constitution. (And I met people here who consider that as limitation) but it's more straight forward than this absolut sounding "shall pass no law to restrict" while the restrictions are there anyway.
  
  --
  bickerdyke
36. Re:Nipples and terrorism? by DutchUncle · 2015-03-16 06:24 · Score: 1
  
  Is that more nipples per person, or more nipples per person? Because the latter could be kind of weird . . . .
37. Re:Nipples and terrorism? by davester666 · 2015-03-16 06:24 · Score: 1
  
  ...and online video service...
  
  --
  Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
38. Re:Nipples and terrorism? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-03-16 06:56 · Score: 0
  
  Can I use your house to display a giant hate-filled diatribe?
  US law inherits variously from English Common Law, which among other rights, guarantees owners of real property the "Right of Quiet Enjoyment". This right preexisted the United States by half a millennia, and probably takes precedent because of this fact.
  The 1st amendment doesn't say you can use other people's money (i.e. property) to perpetuate your views, or that any given speech will be without repercussion.
39. Re:Nipples and terrorism? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-03-16 06:56 · Score: 0
  
  Actually, that's utter horseshit. The FCC and congress have had an abysmal record of restricting speech even in broadcast media. Any time a network stepped to them in court, the FCC lost. It didn't take long for the FCC to abandon cable, recorded and internet censorship. They last thread they hold is over-the-air broadcast networks, given that they technically own the airwaves and license it's usage. Even then broadcast networks have loosened their nipples, so to speak, and mainly focus on prime time standards and big events. Any why? Not because the FCC, but because they don't want to piss off a measurable portion of their heterogeneous audiences.
40. Re:Nipples and terrorism? by bws111 · 2015-03-16 07:26 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, that is exactly my point. I was responding to the idiot complaining that 'politicians do not understand clear language'. There can be no such thing as 'absolutes', as I demonstrated. You DO have property rights, and you CAN use them to stop me from using your property to make a speech, even though that may APPEAR to be a violation of free speech. Similarly, Facebook DOES have freedom of the press, and CAN decide what to publish, even if that removes a venue for you to make a speech.
41. Re:Nipples and terrorism? by rjstegbauer · 2015-03-16 07:30 · Score: 1
  
  I admit that I have never thought of organizations like the EFF, the NRA, and PETA when thinking about corporations being people.
  However I want to restrict even these organizations from donating to political candidates. I want political contributions be be limited to human beings. If PETA likes Regan, then all of the individual members of PETA can donate as much as they want. With the added restriction that all of the contributions are made public immediately after the donation is made. Full and immediate disclosure so that nothing is hidden. And Apple, Coke and Ford would have to convince all of their employees to contribute if the company thought Regan is the best candidate. A for-profit company has only one goal...to make more money...which is probably not in the best interest of the USA citizens...which is what the politicians should really be concerned with.
  Randy - orhaveifallenintoanothertrap?
42. Re:Nipples and terrorism? by fyngyrz · 2015-03-16 07:33 · Score: 2
  
  Hi, I'm from the More Nipples Party and I'm running for president.
  
  I predict you will have to remain stiff in the face of strong opposition; support is key, as it raises your points in the face of the electorate, and helps to project your main tips as to how your new political stance will affect us. I hope your platform will also incorporate a significant transparency component, so that instead of relying on Internet searches, we can directly view the issues at hand. With careful planning, I'm sure you can get at least the male portion of the electorate thinking of your campaign every few seconds without fail. And remember to keep it real, and keep it natural. While no one likes a sagging economy, propping up with what amounts to nothing more than plastic bags won't fool most voters. We can read a curve -- we know the real thing when we see it.
  
  --
  I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
43. Re:Nipples and terrorism? by bws111 · 2015-03-16 07:35 · Score: 2
  
  Well now I am very confused. Above I thought you were doing good old America bashing about how we were 'more restricted' than Germany, but here you are admitting that other people also have rights which may be in conflict with yours. So which is it? Is America really 'more restricted', or are we in fact freer? Frankly, I do not see any way that a country which has no actual laws against free speech, but which does respect the rights that others may have is 'more restricted' than a country which has actual laws against certain speech, unless you consider free speech to be the ONLY right worth having.
44. Re:Nipples and terrorism? by fyngyrz · 2015-03-16 07:40 · Score: 1
  
  it's not okay to post a picture of a naked arse (which won't screw anyone up, ever, but might marginally offend the easily-offended, especially if they happen to have a very screwed up set of priorities).
  You have to account for the effect of the hysterical telling people their "lives are ruined" because X happened. That's the real driver for the vast majority of the sexual neurosis in the USA: backwards, puritanical pinheads who value harmful rhetoric over people's sense of self under any circumstance that has anything at all to do with sexuality, direct or indirect.
  
  --
  I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
45. Re:Nipples and terrorism? by jellomizer · 2015-03-16 08:26 · Score: 1
  
  How can I talk about over 300 million people without a mass generalization?
  
  --
  If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
46. Re:Nipples and terrorism? by Darinbob · 2015-03-16 09:54 · Score: 1
  
  All hail the mother land.
47. Re:Nipples and terrorism? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-03-16 09:55 · Score: 0
  
  I admit that I have never thought of organizations like the EFF, the NRA, and PETA when thinking about corporations being people.
  However I want to restrict even these organizations from donating to political candidates. I want political contributions be be limited to human beings.
  The organizations are made up of people who represent the interests of people. Therefore the organizations are people, in aggregate.
  You on the other hand are just a single idiot.
  Good luck trying to change the influence that organized groups have, it's not going to happen.
48. Re:Nipples and terrorism? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-03-16 10:07 · Score: 0
  
  Sure.
  If contributions are public, I can just ask all of my employees to contribute to a specific party/candidate. And dock their pay if they don't (or not give them raises, or whatever). Only people contributing, but still, the corporation makes the donation it wants to.
49. Re:Nipples and terrorism? by Kjella · 2015-03-16 10:15 · Score: 1
  
  So which is it? Is America really 'more restricted', or are we in fact freer?
  It probably depends on the meaning of free, particularly "free to" and "free from". I'm free to wear my gold chain for a stroll in Somalia, but the odds of being free from crime is probably better at home. Recently we had a court case about a guy who was openly applauding the IS atrocities and calling them heroes and martyrs and true followers of Islam, but stopped just short of encouraging others to commit terrorism. On the one hand it would be silly to criminalize approval of illegal actions - it would make saying you approve of pot smoking criminal - on the other hand you can't get a more clearly told unsaid message if you tried. Or even directly through handpicked quotes, hiding behind the book to avoid saying it yourself. It's not some axiomatic rule set where one right always outranks the other, they brush up to each other and there's shades of gray were you can argue both ways. I even sometimes manage to disagree with myself depending on the starting point.
  
  --
  Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
50. Re:Nipples and terrorism? by Carewolf · 2015-03-16 11:06 · Score: 1
  
  Freedom of speech is not the only right there is, and it is not some sort of 'super right' that trumps all others.
  FCC rules - an argument could be made that this is a restriction of speech. However, an argument could also be made that the public should have the freedom to decide how a scare public resource (airwaves) can be used. Does Germany have no such freedom for the public to influence use of public resources? If not, score one more freedom for the US.
  Lawyers - I guess you mean libel/slander laws. Does Germany have no right of a person to seek redress for being lied about? If not, score one more freedom for the US
  Facebook - Does Germany have no freedom of the press, that is, the right to decide what you will and will not publish using your private property? If not, score one more freedom for the US
  General politeness - wtf? Is there some kind of law in Germany that says I must still associate with you and not think ill of you just because you make repugnant or just stupid speeches? If so, score another freedom for the US
  School district rules - should the public have no say in the environment that is created, using its tax money, in the place where its children must attend each day by law?
  Are you being sarcastic, and pointing out how little freedom the US has?
51. Re:Nipples and terrorism? by bickerdyke · 2015-03-16 11:19 · Score: 1
  
  I didn't want to actually 'bash' anyone except those people oversimplifying the matter by putting Germany next to a socialist dictatorship because the limits of free speech are already codified by laws and at the same time falling for the illusion of unlimited free speech in the US just because the limits there aren't actual laws.
  But in the end, the restrictions are more or less the same (With a few well known exceptions like the use of symbols of historical fascist groups), so we're talking about details here.
  When I mentioned that this could lead to a situation where less rules could lead to a bit less freedom in the end may be partly bias partly gut feeling, but without a well defined framework, there is always the chance that some lawyer finds a way to convince a court why exactly your speech wasn't protected by free speech and you're to pay huge damages. This risk (Or some lawyer threatening with it - we're still talking about fringe cases...) might make people not use their right to speak freely.
  On the other side, given definition of what is included by "free speech" and what not is simpler and eliminates surprising court rulings. It's easier for everyone to know how free speech works and claim that right because the limits define also what is inside the limit and therefore definitly protected.
  For that to work, of course, the limiting laws themselves have to be insides the limits of a constitution that deserves the word "democratic". Without that limit, my line of reasoning may be used as an excuse for every dictator to kill fredom of speech.
  
  --
  bickerdyke
52. Re:Nipples and terrorism? by thegarbz · 2015-03-16 11:49 · Score: 2
  
  Generalised rates have very little to do with what the GP was talking about. There's a big difference between a person who has a shot of Whiskey every night as a nightcap, and a person who drinks half the bottle once a week. The rate however is the same.
  Take France for instance. Big old number 1 on the drinking "problems" list. I spent a good few months in Paris. Every single day at lunch or dinner you can walk past any restaurant and see someone drinking a glass of wine. But even when I went to university bars and night clubs I didn't see half the patrons having difficulty standing, I didn't see people glassing each other or stabbing each other in drunken brawls, and I didn't see people endlessly passed out and / or throwing up in the streets. That however is very common every Saturday in every major city in the number 15 country.
  Likewise if you go out to after work drinks in Austria an you're likely going to have a few drinks that just get you high enough for a DUI because one drink is never enough. Go out to after work drinks in China (they are so far down the list I had to search) and expect to lose your glasses and have a workmate carry you home (no really that happened to me about 4 days ago, the designated drivers took it upon themselves to ensure everyone somehow made it home safely regardless if they were conscious or not).
  Why? Because drinking moderation has nothing to do with alcohol consumption rate per-capita, especially when the entire country drinks nothing but tea for 6 days a week.
  It's all Lies, Damn Lies and Statistics.
53. Re:Nipples and terrorism? by bws111 · 2015-03-16 12:20 · Score: 1
  
  OK, I'll bite. Which of those shows a lack of freedom?
54. Re:Nipples and terrorism? by PPH · 2015-03-16 13:36 · Score: 1
  
  What the courts stated was that corporations are just groups of people, and that they should not lose rights for simply being in a group.
  I have no problem with that. I just don't like the idea of extending the limited financial liability of a corporation to other activities (possibly illegal) that groups of people might engage in.
  
  --
  Have gnu, will travel.
55. Re:Nipples and terrorism? by bws111 · 2015-03-16 13:40 · Score: 1
  
  According to the WHO, what you are describing is 'heavy episodic drinking', which is defiined as '60 or more grams of pure alcohol consumed on one occasion in the last 30 days'.
  In France (by your accounting nobody there does heavy episodic drinking), 43.7% of male drinkers (or 42.2% of the entire male population) engage in heavy episodic drinking. France has the lowest (worst) score for years life shortened by alcohol.
  In the US (by your account, all drinkers are heavy episodic drinkers), 30.9% of male drinkers (or 23.2% of the entire male population) engage in heavy episodic drinking.
  My father-in-law died of alcoholism. He was never passed out, he was never falling-down drunk, he was never in bar fights. He had built up such a tolerance to alcohol that it seemed to have no effect on him. Nevertheless, that is NOT 'drinking in moderation'.
  Maybe it is time to adjust your ever-so-wrong stereotypes and definition of what 'moderation' means.
56. Re:Nipples and terrorism? by Kirth · 2015-03-16 19:07 · Score: 1
  
  Now this is interesting
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
  We Swiss drink the same amount as the British. But funny enough, Britain does have a kind of a "drunk" problem; because people go out, drink as much as they can, then the pubs close. In Switzerland however, restaurants and bars stay open rather longish, which leads to people spreading their drinking through the evening into the morning, and NOT get drunk.
  Similarly, in France and Austria, people might drink a lot, but usually don't go binge drinking.
  
  --
  "The more prohibitions there are, The poorer the people will be" -- Lao Tse
57. Re:Nipples and terrorism? by jimbolauski · 2015-03-17 00:04 · Score: 1
  
  If a company commits crimes to make money all it's ill gotten gains should be seized the same as what they do with drug dealers. You shouldn't be able to commit a crime make $10muillion and pay a $1million fine, the $10 million should be seized along with the $1million fine. CEO's who knowingly commit crimes are not protected nor have they been protected by limited liability.
  
  --
  Knowledge = Power
  P= W/t
  t=Money
  Money = Work/Knowledge so the less you know the more you make
58. Re:Nipples and terrorism? by ThatsDrDangerToYou · 2015-03-17 02:42 · Score: 1
  
  "In the future, women will have breasts all over." -- David Byrne
  The future -- deal with it.
59. Re:Nipples and terrorism? by shutdown+-p+now · 2015-03-17 08:18 · Score: 1
  
  People shouldn't lose their rights for simply being in a group, of course. But that does not translate to a "legal person" of a corporation - which is in practice distinct from all the people that form it - acquiring rights of its own, independent of those of its members. Which is the case in practice under the current interpretation.
  I'll grant you that certain rights and freedoms should be accorded to groups, and among them is the freedom of speech, but that is a separate discussion and shouldn't be mixed up with freedom of speech as a natural right of individuals.
  The other craziness is the notion that spending money on elections amounts to free speech. That is absurd - money is evidently not speech.
60. Re:Nipples and terrorism? by jimbolauski · 2015-03-18 05:32 · Score: 1
  
  You are getting caught up in rhetoric which has blinded you to the issue. Money is not free speech but saying money can't be used to disseminate speech is limiting/abridging speech.
  
  Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech ...
  
  --
  Knowledge = Power
  P= W/t
  t=Money
  Money = Work/Knowledge so the less you know the more you make
61. Re:Nipples and terrorism? by Mex5150 · 2015-03-19 03:25 · Score: 0
  
  > Your ideas intrigue me, and I would like to subscribe to your newsletter.
  
  Does it come in Braille?
Everyone play nice now by Anonymous Coward · 2015-03-16 02:00 · Score: 0

YAY! More regulations to keep me ignorant!!!
I have nipples... by the_skywise · 2015-03-16 02:06 · Score: 5, Funny

Pam Byrnes: I had no idea you could milk a cat!
Greg Focker: Oh, you can milk just about anything with nipples.
Jack Byrnes: [He reacts] I have nipples, Greg, could you milk me?
1. Re:I have nipples... by Fencepost · 2015-03-16 03:58 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah, yeah, whoosh, "Meet the Fockers", blah blah
  
  The answer should actually have been "Yes, but you probably wouldn't enjoy what's required."
  
  --
  fencepost
  just a little off
Time to start tripping those automatic filters? by Brandano · 2015-03-16 02:15 · Score: 1

http://commons.wikimedia.org/w...
beware... by sxpert · 2015-03-16 02:18 · Score: 1, Informative

the Attack of the killer terrorist nipples...
stupid false prude US IDIOTS, prime purveyors of hard p0rn all over the world
"Better safe than sorry" right?? by Iamthecheese · 2015-03-16 02:18 · Score: 5, Insightful

Recently there was a video going around of a racist beating up a child. With some searching I was curiously unable to find the raw video so here is a news article about it. This video was banned from Youtube for "encouraging bullying". When you're claiming presentation of evidence is encouraging the crime you've gone one step too far. It becomes censorship. If we don't see it it hasn't actually happened? The only reason I know about this at all, given youtube taking it down, is the wide news reporting on it. Imagine it were something even more controversial: "senator kicks kitten". Would any news organization report it? Sure if enough people found out about that hypothetical video for the Streisand effect to kick in it would be all over the chans but besides that. And how many of you go to the chans for news anyway? I know I don't.

The point of all this is that anything sufficiently sufficiently controversial is getting censored in the name of protecting our fragile little minds with a very real, very strong chilling effect. It will be a sad day when I have to make my own website mirrored on Tor to proactively report on anything that might get censored but I can see that day coming.

--
If video games influenced behavior the Pac Man generation would be eating pills and running away from their problems.
1. Re:"Better safe than sorry" right?? by bickerdyke · 2015-03-16 03:39 · Score: 1
  
  This video was banned from Youtube for "encouraging bullying". When you're claiming presentation of evidence is encouraging the crime you've gone one step too far.
  I agree that it isn't specifically "encouraging", but if it's evidence, it belongs onto a police or court file, not youtube.
  
  --
  bickerdyke
2. Re:"Better safe than sorry" right?? by kaizendojo · 2015-03-16 03:58 · Score: 1
  
  The point your missing is while the censorship itself is always a problem, the real problem is that the simple act of putting something outrageous on YouTube or even TV always needs to be prefaced with the idiot protection disclaimer, "don't try this at home" or some variation thereof. How stupid have we become as a society that we actually have to tell the stupider amongst us that this isn't a good idea to emulate?
3. Re:"Better safe than sorry" right?? by ColdSam · 2015-03-16 08:11 · Score: 1
  
  Is your point that this video did not encourage bullying or that every website should allow videos that encourage bullying?
  If you can find a website to post this video where it will be treated as a pure news story and people have a reasonable conversation about bullying, racism, etc. then great. However, I'm guessing that this video on youtube did not meet that criteria and therefore they have every right, perhaps even an obligation, to take it down. That's not censorship.
Facebook by Anonymous Coward · 2015-03-16 02:18 · Score: 1

Oh, wow, people still use Stasibook?
1. Re:Facebook by kheldan · 2015-03-16 02:25 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  This, amplified by a factor of one million. Why are any of you still using Failbook!? Do you enjoy pain? Do you like being treated like children or inmates?
  
  --
  Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
2. Re:Facebook by CohibaVancouver · 2015-03-16 03:24 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Why are any of you still using Failbook!? Do you enjoy pain?
  Because it's handy to keep up with what my friends and family are doing.
  
  Do you like being treated like children or inmates?
  
  I don't experience this. My friends on Facebook and I engage in wide-ranging debates on subjects as diverse as Putin, gun control and trans issues, with nary a peep from the prison guards & parents that you seem to think run Facebook.
3. Re:Facebook by Anonymous Coward · 2015-03-16 03:24 · Score: 0
  
  Er, I use it to keep in touch with friends. I believe that's what it was actually designed for. I don't go there for my daily dose of news...
  Within its original use case (to keep up with people you might wish to but would otherwise have lost contact with, or who it's difficult to using other means maybe because they live far away) it's a good tool. The problem is, it's a screwdriver and people are trying to use it as a hammer - or a reciprocating saw, or something. Sure, there ought to be a good tool to share stuff about people being bullied, or images of your privates, or violent media that are being otherwise suppressed - citizen journalism, in other words - but facebook isn't it, and I don't know that it even exists yet.
  By the way, does fb get rid of links to content it deems offensive but which are hosted elsewhere, or does it only care about content uploaded to its own servers?
4. Re:Facebook by Anonymous Coward · 2015-03-16 04:10 · Score: 0
  
  I don't experience this. My friends on Facebook and I engage in wide-ranging debates on subjects as diverse as Putin, gun control and trans issues, with nary a peep from the prison guards & parents that you seem to think run Facebook.
  Don't worry citizen, we are tracking you. Any worrying signs of Thoughtcrime will be noted.
5. Re:Facebook by CohibaVancouver · 2015-03-16 04:49 · Score: 1
  
  Don't worry citizen, we are tracking you. Any worrying signs of Thoughtcrime will be noted.
  Hey Anonymous Coward, you really need to get out more. It's an nice day. Leave your basement and go for a walk.
6. Re: Facebook by Anonymous Coward · 2015-03-16 07:51 · Score: 0
  
  Your obedience to Facebook and acceptance of its deep anal spyware are admirable citizen. Keep posting all your activities, networks, family and aquaintances online. We are watching you.
7. Re:Facebook by Anonymous Coward · 2015-03-16 10:38 · Score: 0
  
  My friends on Facebook and I engage in wide-ranging debates on subjects as diverse as Putin, gun control and trans issues, with nary a peep from the prison guards & parents that you seem to think run Facebook.
  And you will be able to do the above right up until the day they come for you.
  You're just a naive person, and your confidence that you can post all your opinions on F4ceb00k without risk proves you are
  naive. Don't expect those of us who knew better to give a shit when the troops come to round you up and take you
  to an internment camp.
8. Re:Facebook by thegarbz · 2015-03-16 11:51 · Score: 1
  
  So what would you suggest? No seriously, tell me the alternative. The key requirement is that the 200+ friends of mine use it too. Tell me which service fits the bill and I'll happily jump ship right now.
Not necessarily in that order... by dcollins117 · 2015-03-16 02:21 · Score: 4, Funny

So if facebook allowed nudity that is past the FCC standard, then it would go downhill fast.
Heaven forbid we might find nudity on the internet.
1. Re:Not necessarily in that order... by CaptainDork · 2015-03-16 02:47 · Score: 1
  
  Heaven forbid that Facebook go downhill fast.
  
  --
  It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
2. Re:Not necessarily in that order... by Anonymous Coward · 2015-03-16 03:18 · Score: 0
  
  Get out of the 90's. The real trigger word on today's internet is "sexism".
3. Re:Not necessarily in that order... by Anonymous Coward · 2015-03-16 03:47 · Score: 1
  
  My trigger word is "trigger".
Facebook? by wulfmans · 2015-03-16 02:21 · Score: 3, Informative

You all still have a facebook account?
1. Re:Facebook? by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · 2015-03-16 02:40 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Someone has to poison the NSA data mining well.
  
  --
  Time to offend someone
2. Re:Facebook? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-03-16 10:41 · Score: 0
  
  You all still have a facebook account?
  I never had one, period.
  The existence of large numbers of people who do have accounts proves that there are a lot of stupid people. Of course at this time it is necessary
  to cite Dunning-Kruger, because most of these idiots are too fucking stupid to even KNOW they are stupid.
3. Re:Facebook? by thegarbz · 2015-03-16 11:53 · Score: 1
  
  Why not? Give me an alternative.
Why the difference? by jdhorner · 2015-03-16 02:23 · Score: 1

So... would that mean the Kim Kardashian break-the-internet picture would be banned? Would male nipples also be banned?
Religious wingnuts by AndyKron · 2015-03-16 02:27 · Score: 1, Interesting

The religious wingnuts are infiltrating FaceBook.
"Terrorism" by bill_mcgonigle · 2015-03-16 02:28 · Score: 3, Insightful

So, no outright bans, despite what the clickbait title would like you to believe:

Sometimes, those experiences and issues involve violence and graphic images of public interest or concern, such as human rights abuses or acts of terrorism. In many instances, when people share this type of content, they are condemning it or raising awareness about it. We remove graphic images when they are shared for sadistic pleasure or to celebrate or glorify violence.

Many of my friends regularly post pictures of some nation state having blown the shit out of some children or some wedding party, and those don't get taken down. If they did, they'd probably all leave, and really what these guidelines are about is maximizing ad sales.
I'm more concerned with Facebook's choice to impose Puritanism's soft-ban on depictions of the human body, which is a religious preference (one absent of logic, IMO) straight out of the Victorian era. More people would be upset if they were imposing other religious filters.
Why not ban depictions of Muhammad? That'll offend more people than boobs.

--
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
1. Re:"Terrorism" by Dog-Cow · 2015-03-16 02:40 · Score: 2
  
  Why not ban depictions of Muhammad? That'll offend more people than boobs.
  Yes, I am fairly certain no boobs would be offended at all.
2. Re:"Terrorism" by neminem · 2015-03-16 03:04 · Score: 1
  
  I disagree, people who want to ban depictions of Muhammad are pretty big boobs. (Though they're also still people, so it would offend exactly the same number of both, by definition.)
3. Re:"Terrorism" by Flavianoep · 2015-03-16 03:12 · Score: 1
  
  Many of my friends regularly post pictures of some nation state having blown the shit out of some children or some wedding party,(...)
  What you mean by "some nation state" is often the US, isn't it?
  
  --
  Linux is for people who don't mind RTFM.
4. Re:"Terrorism" by Whorhay · 2015-03-16 08:13 · Score: 2
  
  "straight out of the Victorian era"
  What really amazes me is when people are even more uptight than the historical culture was. One of my siblings always gets up in arms when people start talking about breast feeding in public without a nipple shield for his comfort. When he started trying to use religous dogma one of my other siblings gleefully posted pictures, related to his religion of choice. Those pictures were of wood block carving pictures published in public news papers during the victorian era depicting men and women attending a large religous meeting, dressed from head to toe in the fashions of the day. Clearly visible in these pictures are various women throughout the congregation nursing kids without any sort of coverings, and incredibly no one pitching a fit about being so horribly tempted to stare.
So...no more topless selfies? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-03-16 02:29 · Score: 0

What's Anthony Weiner going to do?
But torture to animals is ok by Anonymous Coward · 2015-03-16 02:30 · Score: 0

I reported a posted video showing torture to an animal, facebook replied it met their acceptable use policy.
1. Re:But torture to animals is ok by Flavianoep · 2015-03-16 03:19 · Score: 1
  
  I reported a posted video showing torture to an animal, facebook replied it met their acceptable use policy.
  But... was the pictured animal naked, or the torture in a sexually arousing context? Seems like those are the only things Facebook staffers care about.
  
  --
  Linux is for people who don't mind RTFM.
Nipples and Terrorism and Sexual Descriptions by Greyfox · 2015-03-16 02:31 · Score: 1

Rush Limbaugh's tasty prescriptions
Hillary Clinton in Gold Nipple Rings
These are some of my favorite things!

--
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
1. Re:Nipples and Terrorism and Sexual Descriptions by ColdWetDog · 2015-03-16 02:47 · Score: 2
  
  Hillary Clinton in Gold Nipple Rings
  Look, I'm all for a pretty liberal interpretation of free speech, but some things really should be banned.
  
  --
  Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
Drinking by Anonymous Coward · 2015-03-16 02:48 · Score: 1

Never been to the UK or Russia? Binge drinking is a way of life there. Check out the late night pictures of Cardiff for "moderation".
1. Re:Drinking by Anonymous Coward · 2015-03-16 03:10 · Score: 0
  
  Tidy
Sexual description? by thieh · 2015-03-16 02:49 · Score: 1

I can't even write my own erotic novel on Facebook? That is fcked up.
1. Re:Sexual description? by sumdumass · 2015-03-16 03:12 · Score: 2
  
  Sure you can. You just need to keep it like your real life and make it devoid of sexualized body parts.
2. Re:Sexual description? by Xenx · 2015-03-16 06:05 · Score: 1
  
  But, there would be plenty of sexualized body parts involved... just in the videos being watched.
3. Re: Sexual description? by Xman73x · 2015-03-17 05:29 · Score: 0
  
  The younger generation sure they come out with a cool idea, but then they get lazy and pay someone else to do there dirty work for them! Zuckerberg is one of them slackers. But I'd like to ask him this why do you really care in the first place you socialist pig!
4. Re: Sexual description? by Xman73x · 2015-03-17 05:37 · Score: 0
  
  They should then ban the depictions of Christians being Slaughtered by Terrorist groups or pictures of children being slaughtered by ISIS etc etc!ðY-ðY
I don't care ... by CaptainDork · 2015-03-16 02:54 · Score: 4, Funny

... if Facebook wants to support the nipple deniers.

--
It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
1. Re:I don't care ... by kaizendojo · 2015-03-16 03:59 · Score: 1
  
  Then the nipple deniers win.
2. Re:I don't care ... by Darinbob · 2015-03-16 09:56 · Score: 2
  
  When nipples are outlawed, only outlaws will have nipples.
If you look at them, the nipples already won! by Anonymous Coward · 2015-03-16 03:17 · Score: 0

Babies are the ISIS of the nipple terrorism ...
Beheadings still allowed by rjmonna · 2015-03-16 03:33 · Score: 1

Because torturing and killing people is not harmful to the children. They have to get used of seeing dying and dead people. Nudity on the other hand, is very unnatural and has to be shielded at any cost.
1. Re:Beheadings still allowed by Anonymous Coward · 2015-03-16 03:46 · Score: 0
  
  I believe that would be grouped under terrorism
2. Re:Beheadings still allowed by Anonymous Coward · 2015-03-16 04:18 · Score: 0
  
  Because torturing and killing people is not harmful to the children. They have to get used of seeing dying and dead people.Nudity on the other hand, is very unnatural and has to be shielded at any cost.
  Absolutely. I'm glad you understand citizen. The young must be de-sensitized to death and violence, since we will need to send them on missions for the State and because they need an outlet for the anger that we instill. But we must remain maximum sexual sensitization of the young to the human body, because advertizing makes money out of sexualizing the human body and because suppression of sexuality is the number one expression of political control.
3. Re:Beheadings still allowed by Anonymous Coward · 2015-03-16 04:43 · Score: 0
  
  Why shouldn't they be? They're part of the news. Am I supposed to just take someone's word for it that something really happened and I should base my support of going over and blowing people up and risking young people's lives rather than *gasp* watch a video? Especially considering the videos in question are not very violent and . . . quiet possibly fucking fake in the first place.
Terrorist Nipples by cHiphead · 2015-03-16 03:36 · Score: 1

We may have just discovered an un-capitalized niche market for porn.

--

This is my sig. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
1. Re:Terrorist Nipples by Anonymous Coward · 2015-03-16 05:03 · Score: 0
  
  Rule 34 dictates that it has already been capitalized upon, although doing the searches necessary to verify this would probably get you added to a 'dangerous perverts' list somewhere.
no nipples? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-03-16 03:37 · Score: 0

Guys cannot post topless selfies anymore? Boo
1. Re:no nipples? by Darinbob · 2015-03-16 09:57 · Score: 1
  
  I predict a surge in band-aid sales.
This leaves questions unanswered... by duck_rifted · 2015-03-16 03:40 · Score: 1

...such as why some people aren't allowed to post clothed, wholesome pictures of THEMSELVES without having it removed for being "unauthorized" or for "violating privacy".
Ban sunglasses with prices by crow · 2015-03-16 03:44 · Score: 1

I keep seeing spam, and it's always for sunglasses. What's the deal with that? Are people really buying sunglasses from spammers? More interestingly, if it's working for sunglasses, why am I not seeing spam for anything else?
Equality? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-03-16 04:00 · Score: 2, Interesting

So, will this be handled equally between men and women?
Can men still post shirtless pics of themselves while women cannot?
Sounds like an invitation to a discrimination suit.
What's so scary about nipples? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-03-16 04:06 · Score: 0

And what's not so scary about shoot and kill?
Conspiracy to pee on the peeple? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-03-16 04:08 · Score: 0

(insert beer and wine sponsor ad here)
http://www.24news.ca/the-news/...
Makes no sense, American puritanism by Anonymous Coward · 2015-03-16 04:14 · Score: 1

From TFA:
Campaigners will be pleased to learn that Facebook will "always allow photos of women actively engaged in breastfeeding or showing breasts with post-mastectomy scarring".
So it's ok to jack off to those.
Other depictions of breasts that show the nipple are likely to come in for scrutiny.
But not ok to jack of to these. Huh?
Facebook helps solve a personal problem. by Futurepower(R) · 2015-03-16 04:17 · Score: 1

Are you too happy? Is it uncomfortable being happier than everyone else? Do you want to be miserable like everyone you see around you?

Facebook has an answer. Read Facebook use predicts declines in happiness, new study finds. Or download the scientific paper.
So... by Anonymous Coward · 2015-03-16 05:20 · Score: 0

Will we have to describe certain sexual events in terms of "Niagra Falls" like they did in the movies 50-60 years ago?
I wonder if pointing out Israel's ethnic cleansing by Anonymous Coward · 2015-03-16 07:56 · Score: 0

will be considered terrorism?
Sexual quality by Anonymous Coward · 2015-03-16 10:07 · Score: 0

Nipples ...

So there are no images of topless men? Nipples, while technically part of the skin, are sexual organs and I'm very interested in the big organs borne by one gender. This makes gender equality impossible to enforce since topless men aren't sexual to me and topless women are. This is reinforced by westernized culture.
It's a hard problem by infernalC · 2015-03-16 10:39 · Score: 1

I don't think Facebook is competent to decide whether or not a church's refusal to recognize the legitimacy of homosexual couples is hate speech, or whether or not the state of Israel is a terrorist organization, etc.
I'd rather them stick to standards that are not so subject to interpretation, like no depictions of one person's genitalia in contact with another person where either person is not of the age of majority. Let the nation states decide what those ages of majority are. Those sorts of standards are much less subject to interpretation.
Not Terrified of Nipples by Anonymous Coward · 2015-03-16 11:26 · Score: 0

So I don't see the problem . . .
Nice try by justthinkit · 2015-03-16 14:58 · Score: 1

Nice try.

Drinking is drinking. It is physically and psychologically addictive, whether from regular "light" embibing or binge drinking.

Those "wonderfully reasonable" French are probably ALL addicted. They would suffer, especially physically, if they tried to stop.

My father was a "reasonable" drinker. Glass of wine at dinner, and nothing else. I lived with the guy for 17 years, then (after moving out) would visit for summer holidays each year.

I got a chance to watch the problem develop. The man was addicted, and it wasn't a pretty sight. But he never drank more than 2 glasses of wine, and only at a meal.

--
I come here for the love