Slashdot Mirror


Facebook Bans Animated Breast Cancer Awareness Video Showing Circle-Shaped Breasts (theguardian.com)

Last month, Facebook deleted a historic Vietnam war photo of a naked girl fleeing a napalm attack, claiming it violated Facebook's restrictions on nudity. Now it appears that the company has removed a video on breast cancer awareness posted in Sweden after deeming the images offensive, the Swedish Cancer Society said on Thursday. The Guardian reports: The video, displaying animated figures of women with circle-shaped breasts, was aimed at explaining to women how to check for suspicious lumps. Sweden's Cancerfonden said it had tried in vain to contact Facebook, and had decided to appeal against the decision to remove the video. "We find it incomprehensible and strange how one can perceive medical information as offensive," Cancerfoden communications director Lena Biornstad told Agence France-Presse. "This is information that saves lives, which is important for us," she said. "This prevents us from doing so." The Guardian went on to report in a separate article that the the Swedish Cancer Society decided to make the round breasts square to evade Facebook's censorship of female anatomy. The group issued an open letter to Facebook featuring the pair of pair of breasts constructed of pink squares as opposed to pink circles. Facebook did apologize for banning the video, saying in a statement to the Guardian: "We're very sorry, our team processes millions of advertising images each week, and in some instances we incorrectly prohibit ads. This image does not violate our ad policies. We apologize for the error and have let the advertiser know we are approving their ads."

99 comments

  1. Pretty sure... by 110010001000 · · Score: 4, Funny

    ...breasts ARE square. So what is the problem here?

    1. Re:Pretty sure... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey, you're the guy that wouldn't donate money towards David Bunnell's funeral! All you did was offer up worthless prayers so you could feel good about yourself! You're a horrible person!

    2. Re:Pretty sure... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So what is the problem here?

      I'm guessing it's spending too much time in your 'special' Minecraft mod...

    3. Re:Pretty sure... by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

      Wrong: I offered THOUGHTS too.

    4. Re:Pretty sure... by Big+Hairy+Ian · · Score: 1

      Pretty sure you're the guy who invented cybersex on Elite!

      --

      Build a Man a Fire, and He'll Be Warm for a Day. Set a Man on Fire, and He'll Be Warm for the Rest of His Life.

    5. Re:Pretty sure... by Mister+Transistor · · Score: 1

      You've been looking at too many mammograms! You need to get out more...

      --
      -- You are in a maze of little, twisty passages, all different... --
    6. Re:Pretty sure... by NoSalt · · Score: 1

      ... and they feel like bags of sand.

    7. Re:Pretty sure... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sure, just like deltoids are triangular and the trapezius is trapezoidal.

      FWIW I am reasonably sure that Kari Wuhrer's breasts are perfectly circular, or at least they were back when she was on MTV.

      Gitawfmalawn.

  2. Square breasts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A new level of kinky :)

    1. Re:Square breasts by erapert · · Score: 1

      Yeah, it's kind of a new angle isn't it?

  3. that's what you get by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    When you replace Internet with a walled farcical version of it.

    1. Re:that's what you get by Ensign_Expendable · · Score: 1

      FaceBook. Isn't that where grandparents go see jpegs and videos of the grandkids in Phoenix?

    2. Re:that's what you get by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      FaceBook. Isn't that where grandparents go see jpegs and videos of the grandkids in Phoenix?

      The population of Phoenix is 1.513million. If we generously assume that there's at least 4 grandparents per grandchild, and that everyone under the age of 55 has a grandparent that is 85% of the population which could potentially be looked at by 4 other people each with their own accounts. That's 1.286 million grandchildren in Phoenix and 5.144 million grandparents for a total of 6.43 million accounts.

      Given Facebook has 1.71billion active users I would say that your scenario accounts for only 0.38% of Facebook users.

      I guess what I'm trying to say is ... no.

  4. But Homicide Is Fine by Baby+Duck · · Score: 5, Informative

    Meanwhile, I've reported two videos on Facebook showing actual homicide. Each time they said it did not violate Community Standards.

    --

    "Love heals scars love left." -- Henry Rollins

    1. Re:But Homicide Is Fine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      that was probably performance art

    2. Re:But Homicide Is Fine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Could this have anything to do with the fact that on American TV, homicide IS fine while nudity is NOT? Nah, people are more than just blind lemmings who draw their ideology from the profiteering mass media. Aren't they?

    3. Re:But Homicide Is Fine by jedidiah · · Score: 1

      On American TV, they usually just show the aftermath afterwards. American movies are certainly full of murder. I'm not sure how much of that makes it into broadcasts.

      Of course there are different standards for "broadcast" versus "cable". Not even sure what Walking Dead edited for broadcast TV would look like.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    4. Re:But Homicide Is Fine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In America this is called second amendment rights.

    5. Re:But Homicide Is Fine by JaredOfEuropa · · Score: 1

      "Show a tit, it's an X. Hack if off with a sword: PG13". Nicholson, IIRC.

      --
      If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
  5. Japanese Censors by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 3, Funny

    I thought it was just Japanese censorship that made them look square and pixelated. I didn't know they really were.

    --
    "That's the way to do it" - Punch
    1. Re:Japanese Censors by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And don't forget the tentacles.

  6. Lighten up .... the people reviewing the photos... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Facebook probably has thousands of photos posted per minute... and the review has to be mostly automated (and was at the end of the day written by humans). Even if a human is involved, they probably only have a few seconds to make a decision on the photo.

    It's not unreasonable to expect that occasional mistakes will be made and corrected.

    It seems like /. expects that the world is flawless. It's mostly made up of messy humans (even, who are occasionally tired, distracted, or overworked.)

    Mistakes are made. Mistakes can mostly be corrected.

  7. You'd think... by shilly · · Score: 3, Insightful

    A cancer society above all would understand that T2 errors happen...

    1. Re:You'd think... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Tit #2 is always the hardest to validate.

  8. So what? by js3 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Create your own website and post your videos there. We still have people who are stuck with the AOL mentality like Facebook is the only place on the internet..

    --
    did you forget to take your meds?
    1. Re:So what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      ...Facebook is the only place on the internet.

      What? Are you telling me there is something outside failbook? The internet? What's that?

    2. Re:So what? by Maritz · · Score: 1

      ...Facebook is the only place on the internet.

      What? Are you telling me there is something outside failbook? The internet? What's that?

      He's talking about usenet. You wouldn't like it.

      --
      I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
    3. Re:So what? by mwvdlee · · Score: 2

      Yes, I'm sure a breast cancer awareness video would reach just as big an audience if posted on some obscure website.

      As you said yourself; lots of people equate Facebook with the internet. For all practical intents and purposes, that DOES make Facebook the internet.

      --
      Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
    4. Re:So what? by k6mfw · · Score: 1

      It's been done. Back in internet early days (1990s) someone made a webpage with showing post mastectomy photos, got into trouble because it showed "nudity." However, the woman who created this page wanted informative photos because only pictures available were very basic line illustrations. Doctors and nobody would show such photos.

      --
      mfwright@batnet.com
    5. Re:So what? by jedidiah · · Score: 1

      > Yes, I'm sure a breast cancer awareness video would reach just as big an audience if posted on some obscure website.

      Clearly you are not aware of this idea from 1993 called hyperlinking.

      Again, you're stuck in the AOL mentality.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    6. Re:So what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, how is this insightful?

      We are talking about the Swedish Cancer Society. This is charity organisation which collects donations, sponsors and finances research, spreading information and creating opinion, to increase the survival rate and decrease the number of people contracting it.

      They have been doing this since 1951 and are the biggest financiers within this field in Sweden. In other words, they are not what you'd call a scummy outfit. Neither are they a "social media platform".

      Now, if you want to spread spread information, like in this case, you have to go to where the people are. It's not very helpful if you have an important message to go down in your own basement and talk loudly about it there which is what you're suggesting.

      The problem here isn't that Swedish Cancer Society should create their own platform, which they have, it's here. The problem is that the morons at Facebook, and the prudish radishes they are catering to, are blocking access to (probably) exactly the kind of people who need it the most, because they are sure as hell not going to visit the Swedish Cancer Society on their own volition.

    7. Re:So what? by mwvdlee · · Score: 1

      Hyperlinked sites and media can be banned from Facebook just as well.
      Whether you like it or not, if you want to reach those "AOL" people, you have to go to the "AOL" places.

      --
      Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
    8. Re:So what? by Calydor · · Score: 1

      And WILL be if the links contain nudity.

      There was a book recently published in Denmark about the squatter movement (BZ, pronounced as 'besæt', the Danish word for Possess or Take Over). The author tried to link to it on Facebook, but that got pulled off the site because it contained a few nude pictures. Danish newspaper article: http://politiken.dk/kultur/med...

      --
      -=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
    9. Re:So what? by HiThere · · Score: 1

      To be fair their website would not be equivalent to shouting in your basement. Google would index it, etc. But only people looking for the information would find it, and this appears to have been an advertisement intended to reach people who were not currently considering the problem. So their own web page wouldn't be a useful option.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
  9. Maybe I've led a sheltered life, but... by MiniMike · · Score: 2

    The group issued an open letter to Facebook featuring the pair of pair of breasts...

    Four of them? Those Swedes seem to be into some weird stuff...

    1. Re:Maybe I've led a sheltered life, but... by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      Square and round perhaps?

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
  10. Don't use Facebook by Artem+S.+Tashkinov · · Score: 4, Insightful

    /thread

    Seriously. It's the Nth time we learn about that and the result is always the same.

    There are ways to publish such videos without such insane restrictions. Even youtube nowadays seems a better platform. Also we have vimeo and torrents.

    1. Re:Don't use Facebook by jandersen · · Score: 1

      There are ways to publish such videos without such insane restrictions.

      Of course, but that is hardly the issue here. They are trying to promote important health awareness information as widely as possible, and facebook is, regrettably, popular. It is a real shame that unenlightened prudishness shall stand in the way of such a noble purpose. And as the saying goes, all things are pure to the innocent; or in other words, the more prudish you are, the more you have to be ashamed of, clearly.

    2. Re:Don't use Facebook by jedidiah · · Score: 1

      Yeah, you couldn't do anything like referencing an outside source. It's not like the whole web is specifically designed with that idea in mind. You TOURISTS getting your panties in a bunch are so funny. Those of us for whom this stuff is more immediately relevant are not so narrow minded.

      Due to the nature of some conditions, this leads to the kinds of old geezers you would probably make fun of being much more adept at navigating this stuff than you are.

      Serious medical discussions will pretty much immediately leave the little walled garden you're so upset about.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    3. Re:Don't use Facebook by HiThere · · Score: 1

      You don't seem to understand. This was an advertisement intended to reach those who weren't thinking about the problem. Anything that requires an explicit search would not meet the goal.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    4. Re:Don't use Facebook by jandersen · · Score: 1

      Of course he doesn't understand. If you click on the name he uses, you will see that most of his comments seem to be jeers that he hopes are efficient put-downs. He isn't trying to understand or engage in an enlightened discussion, he just wants a howling match from the safety of his bedroom.

  11. New guidelines by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 3, Funny
    Facebook just issued new a new TOS.

    All humans are to be depicted as Meseeks.

    --
    The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    1. Re:New guidelines by Maritz · · Score: 1

      LOOK AT ME!!!

      --
      I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
  12. Re:Lighten up .... the people reviewing the photos by Alioth · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I suspect also that Facebook (being a US firm) is trying to impose American prudishness on nations with completely different cultures. Not out of malice, merely ignorance of what other places may or may not find offensive.

  13. Re:Lighten up .... the people reviewing the photos by mvdwege · · Score: 5, Interesting

    But isn't it funny that every time a mistake is made it is nudity that is the target? While the hate speech and violence is left alone?

    And for 'funny' read: "Piss off with your American prudishness".

    --
    "I know I will be modded down for this": where's the option '-1, Asking for it'?
  14. Good! Facebook Is A US Company. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Facebook Bans Animated Breast Cancer Awareness Video Showing Circle-Shaped Breasts

    This is a good thing, being that Facebook is a US company.

    The breasts should be a VERY oblong oval shape like this

    | |
    | |
    | |
    | |
    | |
    | |
    U

    Accuracy, people. Accuracy.

    1. Re: Good! Facebook Is A US Company. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Reminds me of my old teacher at South Park elementary. Her name was Miss Chokesondiks.

  15. Cancer promotes cancer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Facebook is cancer - or course its going to help cancer win the fight

  16. Re:Lighten up .... the people reviewing the photos by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well that's the whole problem. Not just American prudishness. Add in "can't insult the king" (Thailand - and yes, I know he recently died), can't show female faces (some of the stricter Islamic groups), can't show x, y, or z - you get to a world where not only can you not show most images but even the text has to be highly censored. Can't offend anyone culture goes too far in cases like this.

  17. Re:Lighten up .... the people reviewing the photos by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And how exactly do mistakes get corrected, if we don't point out said mistakes?

  18. How nice of Facebook! by hyades1 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Facebook's "apology" is nothing but a cynical attempt to stem public anger...the kind of anger that might cause governments to act against it.

    Until an aggrieved party can access an appeal process in a reasonable time and get ridiculous situations like this taken care of promptly, Facebook remains an irresponsible gate-keeper, and its apology remains a fraud.

    We'll leave for another day the fact that Facebook is inflicting its prissy, Puritanical standards on the rest of the world. And no, the argument that "you can always stop using it" doesn't apply. It has occupied its niche in the internet's ecology completely, leaving no reasonable alternative. Practically speaking, it is a monopoly.

    --
    I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
    1. Re:How nice of Facebook! by plague911 · · Score: 1
      I hate facebook as much as the next guy

      "Facebook's "apology" is nothing but a cynical attempt to stem public anger...the kind of anger that might cause governments to act against it."

      lol no reasonable government will act over this

      "Until an aggrieved party can access an appeal process in a reasonable time and get ridiculous situations like this taken care of promptly, Facebook remains an irresponsible gate-keeper, and its apology remains a fraud."

      I agree Facebook is an irresponsible gate-keeper

      "We'll leave for another day the fact that Facebook is inflicting its prissy, Puritanical standards on the rest of the world. And no, the argument that "you can always stop using it" doesn't apply. It has occupied its niche in the internet's ecology completely, leaving no reasonable alternative. Practically speaking, it is a monopoly."

      Lol no it is not a monopoly, you are here are you not?

    2. Re:How nice of Facebook! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "... prissy, Puritanical standards on the rest of the world."

      Maybe you'd prefer the standards under explicitly atheistic governments, which actually attempted to expand to the rest of the world.

      "In March 7, 1934, Article 121 was added to the criminal code, for the entire Soviet Union, that expressly prohibited only male homosexuality, with up to five years of hard labor in prison."

      "Soviet cultural writer Maxim Gorky authored an article, published in both Pravda and Izvestia... He rejected the notion that homosexuals were a social minority, and argued that the Soviet Union, governed by 'manly proletariat', is obliged to persecute homosexuals to protect the youth from their corrupting effect."

      "When Stalin came to power, homosexuality became a topic unfit for public depiction, defense or discussion. Homosexual or bisexual Russians who wanted a position within the Communist Party were expected to marry a person of the opposite sex, regardless of their actual sexual orientation."

      Wiki

      Feel free to proceed with your whiny dissertation about how you don't always see what you want when you click on stuff in your browser.

    3. Re:How nice of Facebook! by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 2

      People's Outrage levels always amuse me.

      Facebook autobans video equals Pitchforks and Torches. Apology not accepted.
      Clinton Campaign dumps sewage onto a street, and people make excuses. Apology quickly accepted.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    4. Re:How nice of Facebook! by JonnyCalcutta · · Score: 1

      Yeh, because we are all involved equally in both those situations.....

    5. Re:How nice of Facebook! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >Facebook's "apology" is nothing but a cynical attempt to stem public anger...

      Umm people are angry, (you included), for no reason. Here, perhaps this education will calm the storm:
      - All the image removals are an automated-computer flag of the image. No opinionated human is actually censoring the images.
      - It was recognized as a mistake, and already corrected. By a human.
      - There is a reason 'the public' is not invited to every little administrative bump or cubical decision made by companies, sports teams, cubs, bicycle race committee, art class, or scheduling planners for the local parks. NO THING WOULD GET DONE. There's a phrase for that "death by committee". Some stuff 'JUST GETS DONE' and it gets done right, especially the regular Janes & Joes of the world dodn't have awareness or a say in it.

      You are a shining example of backseat driving, where nothing would get done under your idea of constant divulgence. How about you realize it is an automated procedure, was errored, error corrected, and the world still moves on aok without having consulted you about it??

    6. Re:How nice of Facebook! by hyades1 · · Score: 1

      LOL. If you're trying to compare Slashdot to Facebook as a communication venue, I've got a great bridge for sale in Brooklyn...I've no doubt you'll be interested in forking over the mere $300,000 cash for this valuable asset, or perhaps the deed to your house.

      And governments have already acted against Facebook, and it has toed the line. Canada's Privacy Commissioner demanded changes in its practices, and got them. India has banned parts of it outright. Facebook has also changed some of its practices due to pressure from various European governments. So lol, many reasonable governments have already acted against Facebook, and been obeyed.

      --
      I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
    7. Re:How nice of Facebook! by hyades1 · · Score: 1

      Trump's ready to sell Uncle Sam's ass to the Russians, and all the mouth-breathing moronic conservatives in America line up to give him oral.

      Pathetic!

      --
      I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
    8. Re:How nice of Facebook! by hyades1 · · Score: 1

      It was corrected after public embarrassment forced a correction.

      Jeez you're stupid.

      --
      I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
  19. sesame street banned by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So i am guessing cookie monsters eyes would trigger the same filter then

  20. Happened recently by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They replaced female boobs with man boobs. I was impressed.

  21. Solution by WormholeFiend · · Score: 3, Funny

    Ban people who submit "offensive content" complaints. Eventually, you will have a population of users who are never offended.

    1. Re:Solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For someone on /., you're pretty thick. Most trolls and tossers use pseudonyms. Yeah, that's a big word for a dumb ass, I'm sure there's an place to look it up in these 'ere interwebtubes for you.

    2. Re:Solution by 31415926535897 · · Score: 1

      That's right, you'll end up with the person pushing the ban button as the last man standing. I've noticed that everyone seems to be offended by something. I mean, you're offended by the "offensive content complainers" and complaining about it here. Generally speaking, conservatives seem to be offended by these issues people are calling "puritanical standards", but liberals seem to be offended by non-conforming ideas (c.f. safe zones). This is a game that nobody can win.

    3. Re: Solution by easyTree · · Score: 1

      Most trolls and tossers use pseudonyms.

      You've made your point most eloquently, AC.

  22. Is our society ever going to stop being so prude? by ZorinLynx · · Score: 1

    It's so absurd that anything sexual is considered "harmful" somehow. It defies all logic, yet here we are, still overreacting about such things.

    I wonder if we'll ever reach a point where it doesn't matter, naked bodies are no longer shameful and we can discuss these things without blushing.

    It's frustrating that it's taking this long to purge outdated "values" from our culture.

  23. Remember, ladies: to catch breast cancer early... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... get a parallelogram every few years.

  24. Arrogance, that's why by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Americans like enemies. It gives them something to beat their chests about. That's American culture in a nutshell. What you are witnessing here is the creation of a make-believe enemy (nudity) for the mere purpose of having a target for chest-beating. It's not the nudity OR the chest-beating that creates the problem -- it's mere arrogance.

    To be fair, not all Americans are like this. But clearly, the ones who are have taken it upon themsleves to speak for the rest.

  25. This truly exposes a major hypocrisy present by no-body · · Score: 2

    Repression of lust, enjoyment sexual expression is present in any human society on this planet. To control one of the most important drives in a species - procreation - is paramount to control, repress and pervert people in various societies (and religions) from early childhood on.

    Just look - everyone has it, any creature on this planet does it, it's part of life and it is "forbidden", controlled - no, your body does not belong to you, what you do and how you do it in your bedrooms - no, can't do this or that, it's against (fill in whatever believe conditioning is there),

    This Facebook acting is another example of this ongoing mental castration!

    1. Re:This truly exposes a major hypocrisy present by jedidiah · · Score: 1

      Yeah... but watch these same whiners melt down the moment the sexual expression of a guy that can easily get willing participants. Then their heads will explode and they will be running around like hysterical decapitated chickens.

      Most of these "cultural libertarians" are probably flaming hypocrites.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
  26. Re:Is our society ever going to stop being so prud by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's saying that the culture is outdated. Perhaps, but it has gotten us to where we are now. So look back on all the great failures and accomplishments and they were a result of those outdated values.

  27. Re:Lighten up .... the people reviewing the photos by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you dare get off your high horse, Facebook, Google, and other US based companies have already been changing how they operate in other countries based on local laws(see: Right to be Forgotten, Germany's requirements on banning swastikas, Australia's requirements for things that are too violent, etc).

    So it probably has less to do with "American prudishness" and more to do with an automated system curating content which is posted by people all over the globe, and flagged by people all over the globe.

  28. Somebody else's website by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So they put something on somebody else's website, the owner didn't like it and deleted it ?
    Create your own website then. It is really not that hard.

  29. Re:Lighten up .... the people reviewing the photos by jedidiah · · Score: 2

    > But isn't it funny that every time a mistake is made it is nudity that is the target?

    No, that's just your own confirmation bias.

    --
    A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
  30. Re:Lighten up .... the people reviewing the photos by jrumney · · Score: 1

    I'm pretty sure most nations find breast cancer and chemical warfare offensive. The problem is the policy, not the definition of the word. What Facebook wants to block is titillating images, not offensive ones. But then they really do come across as prudes if they call it what it is.

  31. Re:Lighten up .... the people reviewing the photos by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think it's not so much about "trying to", but the people making the decisions are Americans living in the US. The decisions made therefore conform to mainstream American standards, without regard for where the poster is.

  32. Re:Is our society ever going to stop being so prud by jrumney · · Score: 1

    What is even more absurd is that circles used for educational purposes could be considered sexual.

  33. Re:Is our society ever going to stop being so prud by JustNiz · · Score: 2

    > It's so absurd that anything sexual is considered "harmful" somehow.... yet here we are, still overreacting about such things.

    Yep moving to the US from Europe, I couldn't believe how puritanical and apparently stuck in the 1800's the US really is when it comes to sex (which is after all a natural thing), but completely fine with sensationalizing graphic hardcore gun violence (which isn't).

    In the US, blowing someones guts out all over the camera is fine, but you better not inadvertently show their nipple at the same time.

  34. Re: Lighten up .... the people reviewing the photo by kfsone · · Score: 1

    The article misses a key word for both takedowns: briefly. It portrays Facebook as being unreachable by the posters, and yet tucked away at the end of the article, Facebook has reversed the decision and apologised *before* the takedown made press.

    In that light, the article and your presumption of intent really don't hold up to scrutiny.

    --
    -- A change is as good as a reboot.
  35. Re:Lighten up .... the people reviewing the photos by Calydor · · Score: 1

    Please show just one link to a high profile story of Facebook banning something it shouldn't on grounds other than nudity.

    Meanwhile there is this story, there's the Vietnam story, there's the Little Mermaid Statue story ...

    --
    -=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
  36. Re:Lighten up .... the people reviewing the photos by thegarbz · · Score: 1

    Welcome to America. You can blow up a boob as long as you never show an intact nipple.

  37. More lies from Facebook by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    " our team processes millions of advertising images each week"

    No, our SOFTWARE processes millions of advertising images. If a TEAM of (reasonable) PEOPLE had done it, the video would not have been banned.

  38. commentsubject: by Falos · · Score: 1

    >the company has removed a video after deeming the images were "the o-word"
    FTFY.

    I was sad when I saw the meaning of "literally" drowning in a flood of tard, but watching it happen to "offensive" is like watching someone fall down an escalator forever.

    Soon the dictionary will just list Offensive: We have no idea.

  39. Re:Lighten up .... the people reviewing the photos by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No, read above poster one more time:

    >...and the review has to be mostly automated...
    >Mistakes are made. Mistakes can mostly be corrected.

    Instant news these days just solidifies what is actually a transient moment. The shapes were flagged by computer, and a human will unflag it. This story (shining light on a half-baked moment) creates the exact sensationalism you just expressed.

  40. Re:Lighten up .... the people reviewing the photos by HiThere · · Score: 1

    That's probably correct, but they made it difficult to contact them, which removes any excuse that "it was an automated system that did it" provides.

    Yes, if they made it easy to contact them they'd probably get LOTS of complaints. Guess what, They OUGHT to get lots of complaints.

    Personally, I don't understand why people are willing to use Facebook, but since they are there are they are a public accomodation. It's not quite the same as a monopoly, though there are certain similarities, strongly reinforced by the network effect. As such for them to refuse service should be a crime. When this is going on internationally, though, things get quite complex, so they have an obligation to make contact, explanation, and negotiation easy when they refuse service. When they don't I start seeing valid reasons for countries to refuse to allow them to do business within "their borders".

    --

    I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
  41. Re: Lighten up .... the people reviewing the photo by HiThere · · Score: 1

    It's clear that they EVENTUALLY got in contact with Facebook, but possibly only indirectly. It's not at all clear whether this happened before or after the story hit the news. Having called technical support at some companies and been put on hold for over an hour, I'm not willing to give Facebook the benefit of the doubt. I could be wrong, but I'll require at least *some* evidence before I'll believe it.

    --

    I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
  42. Re:Lighten up .... the people reviewing the photos by HiThere · · Score: 1

    The temporary censorship is a problem, but not the major problem, as that was corrected. The major problem is that it was difficult to reach someone who both could and would address the problem. I've been in that situation so often that I find THAT problem hard to forgive.

    --

    I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
  43. Killing Only Please by nuckfuts · · Score: 1

    Facebook is a product of America, where exposed breasts in media are considered indecent, but graphic depictions of murder are just fine.

    1. Re: Killing Only Please by easyTree · · Score: 1

      It's population control. They need to kill as many people at possible without it being clear that it's deliberate because within one generation, we - are - screwed.

  44. Maybe... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They might if they knew what T2 errors were. I know on the internet you have to pretend to know everything but I'm looking to buck that trend and admit I don't know what the fuck you're talking about. So maybe these guys don't either.

    1. Re: Maybe... by easyTree · · Score: 1

      Look! a n00b! Chase him.

    2. Re: Maybe... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      lol, right? Exactly! Let's all have a good looking-down-the-nose!

    3. Re: Maybe... by easyTree · · Score: 1

      Everyone knows n00bs make tasty snacks...

    4. Re: Maybe... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      n00bs is people!

    5. Re: Maybe... by easyTree · · Score: 1

      http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/000/026/777/noob_-_domokun.jpg?1318992465

  45. What's a Facebook? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sounds painful.

  46. Uhh.... by easyTree · · Score: 1

    What's offensive is that you creepy invasive pricks are selling the data of the world's citizens to NoSecretsAllowed etc.

    You creepy fucks.

    Also, how long until non-Facebook users sue en-masse for being collaterally recorded by multiple Facebook-creepiess-enablers as they wander around with the app installed, in earshot of us all?

  47. It's Facebook, by Bender+Unit+22 · · Score: 1

    what did you expect? It's an american company, so they are prudes and bashful. :)
    That's how it is, if you have a problem with that, then don't use Facebook.

  48. Re: Lighten up .... the people reviewing the photo by hackwrench · · Score: 1

    Facebook is only a thing to kill time. At least that is what I have seen.