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

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.

Comments

Nipples and terrorism?

[Carewolf]

Americans...

Re:Nipples and terrorism?

[Errol backfiring]

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.

Re:Nipples and terrorism?

[drinkypoo]

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.

Re:Nipples and terrorism?

[bickerdyke]

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.

"Better safe than sorry" right??

[Iamthecheese]

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.

"Terrorism"

[bill_mcgonigle]

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.

Re:Facebook?

[Bob the Super Hamste]

Someone has to poison the NSA data mining well.

Re:Facebook

[CohibaVancouver]

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.