Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

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

Posted by samzenpus on 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.

18 of 134 comments (clear)

  1. Nipples and terrorism? by Carewolf · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Americans...

    1. Re:Nipples and terrorism? by ThatsDrDangerToYou · · 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 · · 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 sycodon · · 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.
    4. Re:Nipples and terrorism? by Errol+backfiring · · 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!
    5. Re:Nipples and terrorism? by gringofrijolero · · Score: 3, Funny

      Companies have much bigger, um, teats... You can say that, right?

      --
      Todos mis movimientos están friamente calculados
    6. Re:Nipples and terrorism? by bickerdyke · · 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
    7. Re:Nipples and terrorism? by ckatko · · 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...

    8. Re:Nipples and terrorism? by xfade551 · · 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.

  2. I have nipples... by the_skywise · · 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?

  3. "Better safe than sorry" right?? by Iamthecheese · · 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.
  4. Not necessarily in that order... by dcollins117 · · 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.

  5. Facebook? by wulfmans · · Score: 3, Informative

    You all still have a facebook account?

    1. Re:Facebook? by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Someone has to poison the NSA data mining well.

      --
      Time to offend someone
  6. Re:Facebook by kheldan · · 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!
  7. "Terrorism" by bill_mcgonigle · · 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)
  8. I don't care ... by CaptainDork · · 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.
  9. Re:Facebook by CohibaVancouver · · 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.