Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Facebook Is Sorry for Taking Down a Photo of a Nude Neptune Statue (fortune.com)

Posted by msmash on from the handling-1.5-billion-people dept.

Facebook has apologized for mistakenly blocking a photo of a famous statue for being "sexually explicit." From a report on Fortune: The social media giant flagged a photograph of a 16th-century statue of the sea god Neptune in the Italian city of Bologna. The picture of the sculpture -- which was created in the 1560s -- was featured on the Facebook page of local writer and art historian Elisa Barbari called "Stories, curiosities and view of Bologna." Facebook told Barbari that the picture violated the company's privacy policies. "It shows an image with content that is explicitly sexual and which excessively shows the body or unnecessarily concentrates on body parts," the company said in a statement. The company added: "The usage of images or video of nude bodies or plunging necklines is not allowed, even if the use is for artistic or educational reasons." Facebook later said that blocking the photo was a mistake.

108 of 159 comments (clear)

  1. Remember this when they decide fake news... by aicrules · · Score: 3, Insightful

    oops we accidentally removed your verified news article that just happened to conflict with our corporate interests or political views....

    1. Re:Remember this when they decide fake news... by bsdasym · · Score: 4, Insightful

      There's zero chance that an "image detection algorithm" flagged that statue. Zero.

    2. Re:Remember this when they decide fake news... by rhazz · · Score: 2

      I dunno, my own algorithms detect a 90% likelihood of pelvic thrust.

    3. Re:Remember this when they decide fake news... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yes, the image detection algorithm that flagged that, automatically, is clearly a conspiracy to control "fake news".

      You are kinda dumb aren't you?

      The "controlling fake news" conspiracy literally is this. You now have the option when flagging a story, to mark it as fake news. That's it. It's not even an automated process (yet) it's literally giving YOU the ability to alert THEM to fake stories.

      So, unless you are an asshole spreading bullshit fake news, you should be happy. But going from your tone, I think we all know you are all up in that pizzagate... Right?

      "Fake news" only became a big deal when Democrats and the media that said Hillary! would win had to excuse her loss instead.

      Want to talk about "fake news"? Now half of all Democrat voters actually believe that the Russian government directly affected vote counts to allow Trump to win.

      Now there's some "fake, narrative-driven news" for you - all for the Democrat's and partisan media's goal to delegitimize Trump's win.

      And it's brought to you by the same folks at CBS, ABC, NBC, The New York Times, and of course the "Russians-also-hacked-the-electricity-grid-ooops-forget-we-published-that" Washington Post:

      'Fake News' And How The Washington Post Rewrote Its Story On Russian Hacking Of The Power Grid

    4. Re:Remember this when they decide fake news... by haruchai · · Score: 1

      I dunno, my own algorithms detect a 90% likelihood of pelvic thrust.

      Reading that put me in a time warp back to 1975

      --
      Pain is merely failure leaving the body
    5. Re:Remember this when they decide fake news... by jedidiah · · Score: 3, Informative

      There's 100% chance that their "junk detection algorithm" tagged this as something that would offend uptight pricks in the suburbs. Those kind of people will insist on junk being covered on renaissance masterpieces.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    6. Re:Remember this when they decide fake news... by epyT-R · · Score: 1, Insightful

      That flag is about as good as the 'troll' flag is on slashdot at identifying intent. It's just as likely that the flagger is the one attempting to bias output...

    7. Re:Remember this when they decide fake news... by sinij · · Score: 2

      You just don't understand! Our entire civilization might collapse if enough people see some long-since-dead dude's junk etched in marble. This is exactly what happened to Sabine!

    8. Re:Remember this when they decide fake news... by ShaunC · · Score: 1

      There's 100% chance that their "junk detection algorithm" tagged this as something that would offend uptight pricks in the suburbs. Those kind of people will insist on junk being covered on renaissance masterpieces.

      Reminds me of the guy who lost an election to a dead man, but was still appointed Attorney General. Let the Eagle Soar! Just don't let any nipples show.

      --
      Thanks to the War on Drugs, it's easier to buy meth than it is to buy cold medicine!
    9. Re:Remember this when they decide fake news... by ClickOnThis · · Score: 2

      If one side disproportionately supports fake news, then Facebook's algorithms will disproportionately identify one side as the source of all of it. And I won't be a bit surprised when that one side complains about it. Cry me a river.

      --
      If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
    10. Re:Remember this when they decide fake news... by erapert · · Score: 1

      Do you think Hentai is something that children should be exposed to?
      But it's not even real people, it's ink on paper or some flickering LEDs on a computer monitor! Have you ever heard about old National Geographics?
      But it's just some ink on paper!

      Relevant XKCD panels.
      I hope that you understand how your reductionist scoffing is defeated. You are being deliberately obtuse and ignoring the actual objections of those "uptight pricks in the suburbs".

    11. Re:Remember this when they decide fake news... by Calydor · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I think letting kids believe the world is some kind of Disney-fied wonderland can ultimately prove harmful when they suddenly become aware that THEY have genitals. And they will become aware of that.

      Should kids be sat down and made to watch hentai? Of course not.
      Should kids be shielded from ever seeing that there is anything sexual anywhere ever? Of course not.
      Should kids be given an explanation about what sex is? Definitely.

      Are kids going to be traumatically scarred by seeing an anatomically correct statue on Facebook? Only if you have utterly and miserably failed in preparing them for the Real World.

      --
      -=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
    12. Re:Remember this when they decide fake news... by haruchai · · Score: 2

      It's just a step to the left. -PCP

      Jump to the left, then a step to the right is how it goes. Or should I say "went"?

      --
      Pain is merely failure leaving the body
    13. Re:Remember this when they decide fake news... by Zak3056 · · Score: 2

      The narrative is that Ashcroft lost to Mel Carnahan, but Ashcroft was really running against Jean Carnahan, Mel's wife (who the governor announced would be appointed in the event that Carnahan won). There's really no effective campaign strategy against a recent widow whose name isn't even on the ballot.

      Not that I think Ashcroft should have won, or that he was a good AG, but the "haha, he lost to a dead guy" bit really irritates me given that the actual situation was much more complicated than that. When it's followed up by the suggestion that he was unqualified for an appointed office for that reason, it's hard to take someone seriously.

      --
      What part of "shall not be infringed" is so hard to understand?
    14. Re:Remember this when they decide fake news... by Highdude702 · · Score: 1

      "He's right you know" - Morgan Freeman Meme

    15. Re:Remember this when they decide fake news... by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      Should kids be sat down and made to watch hentai? Of course not.

      Yeah, I totally agree. Kids, and probably young adults, should stick to ecchi.

    16. Re:Remember this when they decide fake news... by Deadstick · · Score: 1

      Give it a real test. Run an article about the statue of Hermaphroditus in the Louvre.

    17. Re:Remember this when they decide fake news... by someone1234 · · Score: 1

      You know that sculptors use models... and the model for that particular sculpture is a "long dead dude".

      --
      Patents Drive Free Software as Hurricanes Drive Construction Industry
    18. Re:Remember this when they decide fake news... by Maritz · · Score: 1

      Aw diddums, your bullshit that everyone was taking at face value will now be questioned. Poor guy.

      --
      I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
    19. Re:Remember this when they decide fake news... by Maritz · · Score: 1

      Neptune is a "long dead dude"? Neptune?

      Well said, brother. Neptune is alive and well and will deal with all you fucking heathens soon enough. With his trident.

      --
      I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
    20. Re: Remember this when they decide fake news... by Maritz · · Score: 1

      If you like it, it's true, if you don't, it isn't. That's why you twats have the biggest cunt of an incoming president since fuck-knows-who.

      --
      I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
    21. Re:Remember this when they decide fake news... by DutchUncle · · Score: 1

      Jump to the left, then a step to the right is how it goes. Or should I say "went"?

      No, it still goes. ;-) And if you ever have a chance to see "Saucy Jack and the Space Vixens", take it.

    22. Re:Remember this when they decide fake news... by DutchUncle · · Score: 1

      Speaking of "uptight pricks" . . .

    23. Re:Remember this when they decide fake news... by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      If you don't know the name of the bit you just pointed at - that was hurt enough.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    24. Re:Remember this when they decide fake news... by GonzoPhysicist · · Score: 1

      That's not a very good example of "fake news". The Russia-hacking-the-votes narrative is people misinterpreting the story (about a subject most people know nothing about), but I never saw a news report that stated that Russia tampered with vote counts.

      --
      horror vacui
    25. Re:Remember this when they decide fake news... by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Also, it wouldn't particularly surprise me to find that Russia had hacked vote counts, although I've seen no evidence of it. It's something that could happen, and that Russia might well do.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    26. Re: Remember this when they decide fake news... by erapert · · Score: 1

      I didn't say that those "actual objections" were something I completely agreed with.
      But I'm glad that you understand and agree with my argument against reductionism.

    27. Re:Remember this when they decide fake news... by erapert · · Score: 1

      But notice how you made an actual argument against the actual positions of the "uptight pricks in the suburbs" rather than defending or continuing on with a bunch of reductionist bullshit.

      I do agree with much of what you said.
      I just wanted to put an end to the fallacy of reducing everything to the point that everything is nonsense.

    28. Re: Remember this when they decide fake news... by lucien86 · · Score: 1

      Why do I get the feeling I am listening to a bunch of people using the word 'reductionism' without actually understanding what it means. Reductionism requires and is - logical reduction to first principles. The logic must be complete and have a solid base - a base of known and tested truth. Using 'reduction' without understanding that is like using the word 'rape' the way SJW feminists use it. :)

      --
      Below the speed of light Special Relativity is one of the most accurate theories in physics - above the speed of light..
    29. Re: Remember this when they decide fake news... by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      That's why you twats have the biggest cunt of an incoming president since fuck-knows-who.

      No...Hillary lost... /joke

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    30. Re:Remember this when they decide fake news... by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      -1 troll, I don't agree with your assessment!

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    31. Re:Remember this when they decide fake news... by peawormsworth · · Score: 1

      "plunging necklines is not allowed"?? They did not really say that. hahahaha

  2. This is an automatic process by JcMorin · · Score: 4, Informative

    As they said in the article they are processing million of images and that's expected to have some false positive. There is no way in the world a human can review every single photo posted. I think it's a story out of nothing special.

    1. Re:This is an automatic process by xxxJonBoyxxx · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Ditto. This crap belongs on Yahoo "News", not Slashdot. "OMG - view this one weird picture Facebook banned"

    2. Re:This is an automatic process by omnichad · · Score: 4, Insightful

      A false positive that hasn't been seen by a human should be reversible by the poster and restored immediately. It can be added to a queue for human review in the meantime.

      Facebook has so many options for getting this right.

    3. Re:This is an automatic process by isj · · Score: 1

      It isn't the first time that facebook censored photos of statues, eg. The Little Mermaid http://www.independent.co.uk/l...
      Or the famous Vietnam war photo: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09...

      So they clearly need to improve the system, whether that is fine-tuning image recognition algorithm or educating ignorant reviewers.

    4. Re:This is an automatic process by stephanruby · · Score: 2

      But was it really a false positive?

      Reading their own criteria, it doesn't look like it was a mistake.

      The usage of images or video of nude bodies or plunging necklines is not allowed, even if the use is for artistic or educational reasons.

      The only mistake here is that this particularly well-known statue generated enough outrage with the public, that it became an issue.

      Had the statue be a lesser known piece? I'll bet we wouldn't even be having this discussion.

    5. Re:This is an automatic process by stephanruby · · Score: 2

      Also, Facebook can just put an age/regional requirement on the picture (in addition to adding the functionality you describe). After all, they have that information on their users. There is no reason to block it outright.

    6. Re:This is an automatic process by omnichad · · Score: 1

      How do you "abuse" it? I said it should only happen to automated flags. If it gets flagged for human review, it could even jump to the front of the queue and go back down again very quickly. That doesn't mean you have to stay eligible for that reversal capability if you've shown a repeated failure to understand the content guidelines.

      If you don't get notified when your post is taken down, then the response priority goes to the people who are paying attention and are aware that their post was flagged - a small percentage. The majority will probably stay down or the person decides they don't want to fight it.

    7. Re:This is an automatic process by lgw · · Score: 1

      It's not about trusting, it's about limiting the scope of what humans must review. Auto-flag everything that looks sketchy. If the person who posted the image takes not further action, the image is blocked. If the person who posted the image is willing to take a minute to justify the image, put it in the queue for human review - obviously posters who abuse this get banned promptly.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    8. Re:This is an automatic process by ClickOnThis · · Score: 1

      You forget that Facebook has more -- far more -- users posting pictures than it has staff to review them. Allowing users to override an image filter invites the users to abuse the override whenever they get flagged. They'll treat the override as just another step to perform in order to post the picture.

      The current system allows flagged photos to be reviewed. The content can be restored if the flag is a false positive. And a user can be sanctioned if they trigger too many true positives.

      Facebook has a legitimate concern about users potentially distributing pornographic material with their service. They would rather block-and-review than let someone override and allow such distribution, even temporarily. The hassle of having false positives reviewed is a trivial inconvenience for users who receive Facebook's service for free.

      --
      If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
    9. Re:This is an automatic process by tepples · · Score: 1

      That doesn't mean you have to stay eligible for that reversal capability if you've shown a repeated failure to understand the content guidelines.

      They'll treat the override as just another step to perform in order to post the picture.

      Read again: Repeat troublemakers would lose the override.

    10. Re:This is an automatic process by ClickOnThis · · Score: 1

      That doesn't mean you have to stay eligible for that reversal capability if you've shown a repeated failure to understand the content guidelines.

      They'll treat the override as just another step to perform in order to post the picture.

      Read again: Repeat troublemakers would lose the override.

      That's not good enough. Read my post again for the reasons.

      --
      If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
    11. Re:This is an automatic process by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Yeah, in Facebook's defense, the statue is, in fact, sexually explicit.

      I don't care for Facebook's censorship, but then I don't care for Facebook, either.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    12. Re:This is an automatic process by DRJlaw · · Score: 1

      As they said in the article they are processing million of images and that's expected to have some false positive. There is no way in the world a human can review every single photo posted. I think it's a story out of nothing special.

      The fact that they use an automated process that might make mistakes does not excuse a human-generated policy that wholeheartedly embraces such "mistakes":

      The company added: "The usage of images or video of nude bodies or plunging necklines is not allowed, even if the use is for artistic or educational reasons."

      It can't be a "false positive" if your actual policy is to apply it to art and educational materials. It's an actual positive in response to an actual policy that is arbitrarily rescinded on an ad hoc basis if the target can generate sufficient negative PR.

    13. Re:This is an automatic process by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      No, the article states that the poster tried to get it reinstated, and received a reply from Facebook that it would not be reinstated because it violated their ad policies.A human reviewed it and decided the material wasn't suitable for Facebook.

    14. Re:This is an automatic process by isj · · Score: 1

      The crux of the matter is the intent of presenting the photo. I don't think an algorithm will be able to tell anytime soon.

      Facebook's other problem is their global reach. What is perfectly natural in one region can cause offense in another. So they go for the lowest common denominator so they won't get blocked in conservative countries. But that causes liberals as myself to see it as censorship. I think instead they should filter content based on the viewer so people who get offended can chose to not see it.

    15. Re:This is an automatic process by Blaskowicz · · Score: 1

      Unless you subscribe to the SCOTUS "you know it when you see it standard" its pretty explicit.

      The facebook lawyer told us we need some sort of warning, so if you feel offended by the following picture don't look at it. Thanks!

    16. Re:This is an automatic process by fuzznutz · · Score: 1

      I am torn over this issue. As a conservative, I do think the prevalence of pornography and the accessibility of these images is harmful to society on the whole.

      As a conservative myself, I yearn for the good-old-days back in the seventies when you could buy Playboy at the magazine rack of your local supermarket, streakers would crash sporting events, and you didn't get put on sexual predator registries for life and banned from ever living near schools or parks just for taking a piss in public.

      Generations will look back at our folly and judge us like we judge the witch hunters of the seventeenth century.

    17. Re:This is an automatic process by Askmum · · Score: 1

      I am torn over this issue. As a conservative, I do think the prevalence of pornography and the accessibility of these images is harmful to society on the whole.

      As a conservative myself, I yearn for the good-old-days back in the seventies when you could buy Playboy at the magazine rack of your local supermarket, streakers would crash sporting events, and you didn't get put on sexual predator registries for life and banned from ever living near schools or parks just for taking a piss in public.

      I guess there are 1970's conservatives and 1940's conservatives. :D

    18. Re:This is an automatic process by Maritz · · Score: 1

      nothing better to do than find reasons to be offended.

      lol, like for instance losing your life because you saw some tits? Muricans... cool with someone getting their head hacked off on the timeline, less keen on bare midriff on the timeline. You're more like the Victorians than the bloody Brits are.

      --
      I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
    19. Re:This is an automatic process by fuzznutz · · Score: 1

      I guess there are 1970's conservatives and 1940's conservatives.

      1940's or 1880's? When we question the fitness for display of a public statue of a Greek god, I think the common sense of the people has jumped the shark. In twenty years, will we be calling for Victorian morals and demand public displays of pianos and tables have their legs covered for modesty?

    20. Re:This is an automatic process by Askmum · · Score: 1

      I do see a general trend in that direction, and that worries me also. Forget about puritan America (that is a lost cause anyway), I see similar trends in Europe. Morals were definitely a lot looser in the 70's, both in Europe and the US. A number of countries in the Middle East have already suffered this trend.

    21. Re:This is an automatic process by DutchUncle · · Score: 1

      Maybe the artist was laughing all the way to the bank about having gotten porn displayed in public by calling it "Neptune" instead of calling it "My boyfriend Fred".

    22. Re:This is an automatic process by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      > As a conservative, I do think the prevalence of pornography and the accessibility of these images is harmful to society on the whole.

      What a wonderful sentence. In one sentence you summed up everything wrong with America today. You hold that porn is harmful - but offer no evidence whatsoever to counteract the overwhelming scientific evidence that, not only is it harmless, it's actually HEALTHY.

      Your basis for this claim is "As a conservative" - you believe this, not because of any rational reason, simply because that is the view of your tribe. You accept this view because you are conservative and it's a conservative view.
      Now it's true that there is a similar thing on the liberal side, but it's measurably and massively smaller. The right has it's wingnuts and the left has it's moonpies - but the moonpies are a tiny fringe while on the right the tendency to accept ideology over scientific fact is far more prevalent and indeed, is the mainstream.

      This is the right's version of identity politics. I believe what my tribe believes. I adore tradition without being critical of it (that's a formal fallacy by the way) and I always imagine the past was better than the present (and that is, at least in part, sustained by never, ever asking what the past looked like if you weren't MY ancestors).

      And that is what just gave the presidency to the single most dangerous and least capable candidate to ever hold that office.

      Nevermind the abundant and overwhelming scientific FACT that immigrants CREATE more jobs than they take - we want them gone (but we won't take the jobs they were doing afterwards because it STILL pays too little for us). And when they are gone and we're ALL out of work and sitting in the second great depression (because there can literally be NO other outcome from a mass deportation program in the 21st century)... we'll somehow convince ourselves it was the liberals fault. After all we already believe that unemployment went up and the stock market went down under Obama - reality has no place in our decision making process. We believe this, because our tribe, the people we trust, believe it - and we never question them, or wonder if whoever told THEM was honest.

      This, right here, is why we're heading towards world war 3 at breakneck speed right now.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    23. Re:This is an automatic process by fuzznutz · · Score: 1

      Maybe the artist was laughing all the way to the bank about having gotten porn displayed in public by calling it "Neptune" instead of calling it "My boyfriend Fred".

      Does it matter? Does being Fred make it evil while "Neptune" or "David" is artistic? Is the human body so filthy that it automatically becomes pornography when viewed? If so, why do we put up with all of these other animals running around in nature without a stitch of clothing hiding their indecency, where children can see? Put 'em all in jail. Make 'em register as tier 3 sex offenders for life.

    24. Re:This is an automatic process by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      After all we already believe that unemployment went up and the stock market went down under Obama - reality has no place in our decision making process.

      This right here is why Trump was elected. Unemployment HAS gone up under Obama, regardless of what all the official statistics would have you believe. The problem is that the "official" numbers don't separate by region or locality. In the rural areas, unemployment has indeed gone up, badly. In the big liberal cities, it hasn't. Red-state dwellers and other ruralites don't care about the latter, any more than they care about the unemployment numbers in China or South Africa.

      Also, the unemployment numbers don't reflect labor force participation, which is why they're complete BS.

    25. Re:This is an automatic process by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      When you're asked a question and you get it wrong saying "It is only wrong because of things I don't care about" makes you MORE of an idiot, not LESS.

      Your "explanation" also fails to account for the false belief that the stock market has gone down. It's not like Bummsville, Idaho has it's own stock market so the people there can pretend that the one in New York doesn't matter.

      Now -there's a lot of truth to the claim that the decline of rural economics had a lot to do with the anger that drove Trump into the white house - clearly it was sufficient that his utterly overt racism, sexism, rapeyism, corruption, constant lies and frankly dangerous derangement could all be overlooked (which to me is impossible by somebody who isn't ALSO racist, sexist, rapey, dishonest and bigotted - overlooking it MAKES YOU PART OF IT) but there's a problem: the blame was misplaced and the cure was wrong.
      The president deals with economic issues on a national level - as affected by GLOBAL geopolitical matters. It is impossible to do that AND do something about the unemployment rate in coaltown, Virginia. The president has to consider 350 million citizens - of which 66% live in those big cities. His capacity to deal with local economic issues is extremely limited. That job belongs with your mayors, your state legislators, your governor. They have the local knowledge, they make the local laws, they should be fostering the environment for improving local lives.

      If the average numbers for the country as a whole has improved - the president has done a fine job, and no president CAN do more than that since their power simply do not (and never can be allowed to) extend that far.

      Somebody here on ./ once defended the electoral college on the basis that "San Francisco shouldn't get to dictate to the entire country". But he is wrong - because "San Francisco" and it's like represent two thirds of all Americans. That IS America. The rural parts are a minority and their backwardness is by choice - and has been a major reason for their decline. On the contrary, coaltown Virginia should not get to dictate to all of America.

      And finally - there is the fact that Trump is not going to do anything for the people who voted for him. He may take a protectionist approach to China (his choice for trade secretary suggest he'll actually follow through on that one)... but that would put MORE people in America OUT of work. Even if he saves some jobs, the jobs lost to the massive economic decline that follows would outnumber that by several thousand to one.
      What about immigration, even just the illegal kind ? If Trump follows through on the policies he promised - that would cause an immediate second great depression. Which is why every indication is that he has no intention of doing anything about that. Hell he appointed the CEO of Karl's Jr. to his cabinet: a man who hires almost exclusively illegal aliens and has spent his life lobbying to keep doing that, who has repeatedly and publicly stated that he PREFERS illegal aliens over Americans since they dare not try and negotiate a better deal and the barest scraps he can toss them. He is the worst kind of person whether you love or hate immigrants - because he defends having a flood of them in order to exploit their desperation. Trump put him in cabinet. So much for his promises there.
      Trump won't keep any promises he made to the rural communities, not one with the SOLE exception of those from which he, himself, personally can make a profit (and if half the rest ends up unemployed to make him that profit he won't care).

      Hell he won't even do the mass deportation thing he promised. He can't, there CANNOT be another operation wetback. Do you know why ? Because we have 70 years of supreme court rulings since Eisenhower and they have made it absolutely clear that the constitution applies to everybody within the borders of the US - whether a citizen, a tourist or an immigrant, legal or otherwise. The supremes have declared that you cannot do a raid to check fo

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    26. Re:This is an automatic process by DutchUncle · · Score: 1

      No, being Fred doesn't make it evil; but somehow being Neptune makes it high art. Even more so for female nymphs and goddesses being an excuse to display the female form divine from the Renaissance through Victorian times.

  3. The Problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    The problem isn't with Facebook. The problem is with society's inconsistent and contradictory values. In fact, I'd bet a significant percent of the United States would object to the Neptune statue while another significant percentage would not object to nude women. It is impossible to please both sides on this titillating issue.

  4. So, lemme get that straight... by Opportunist · · Score: 4, Funny

    A picture of a guy with his wang out is only ok on Facebook if it's rock hard?

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    1. Re:So, lemme get that straight... by houstonbofh · · Score: 1

      But Bronze hard is ok...

    2. Re:So, lemme get that straight... by Stan92057 · · Score: 1

      well according to their TOS neither is allowed. so theirs that..

      --
      Jack of all trades,master of none
    3. Re:So, lemme get that straight... by fermion · · Score: 1

      If you want to test this theory, you could try posting this.[nsfw, but not goatse, but is a goat.)

      --
      "She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
    4. Re:So, lemme get that straight... by thomn8r · · Score: 1

      ...and tiny

    5. Re:So, lemme get that straight... by Deep+Esophagus · · Score: 1

      You joke, but I really wonder about the double standard. They would have us believe that pictures or statues featuring full frontal nudity are for whatever reason inappropriate. OK, I can live with that. I know what it's like to be a parent waiting to have "the talk" with my kids on my timetable, not when some random social media site decides it's time.

      And yet... it's somehow magically inoffensive if that giant schlong is centuries old? Allow nude art or don't allow it, but don't try to have it both ways just because a ninja turtle signed the work.

    6. Re:So, lemme get that straight... by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      That's the way it's been for a great many years. It can't be porn if it's by someone really famous. Even though the exact same work, if made by someone not so well-known, would be restricted.

    7. Re:So, lemme get that straight... by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      A giant schlong? Pffft. Child porn isn't offensive if hanging in a church. Just paint some wings on the naked kids and call them Putti and you're fine.

      Not to mention the infamous blowjob window. SFW? You decide, it's a church window, how NSFW could that possibly be?

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  5. Don't Worry by Comboman · · Score: 4, Insightful
    "The usage of images or video of nude bodies or plunging necklines is not allowed, even if the use is for artistic or educational reasons."

    But don't worry, hate-filled racist "jokes" and biased fake news stories are still A-OK. Facebook has it's priorities straight.

    --
    Support Right To Repair Legislation.
    1. Re:Don't Worry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      As long as it brings in the page hits they don't care.
      Carry on. Not news.

  6. Know it when they see it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    If "the usage of images or video of nude bodies or plunging necklines is not allowed, even if the use is for artistic or educational reasons", then how was taking down that photo a mistake? That's exactly what it is.

    But hey, wouldn't want people to see censorship for what it is, so better make an exception real quick!

  7. Re:How is this 'stuff that matters' ? by NatasRevol · · Score: 1

    If you don't think providing biased news to a billion people that matters, log the fuck off.

    --
    There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
  8. Plunging necklines? by shaitand · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Seriously? Puritanbook.

    1. Re:Plunging necklines? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yes. And nipples. That's why religious folks don't breastfeed or they cover the infant's eyes to that it can't see those filthy disgusting *gasp* NIPPLES!

      Because the child will be irreparably harmed if it should see a *whispering* N-I-P-P-L-E.

      It's better to distract them with a nice wholesome video game where they can blow fake people's heads off.

    2. Re:Plunging necklines? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You're calling babies "human larva" and you're trying to chide people who couldn't care less about breastfeeding in public for having and "irrational psychological roadblock"?

      Where's the Fry meme of "not sure if serious"?

    3. Re:Plunging necklines? by tepples · · Score: 2

      Some people aren't trying to protect the children, they actually don't find human larva and all things related to them beautiful

      Minor nit: Nymphs, not larvae. Humans metamorphose incompletely.

    4. Re:Plunging necklines? by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      You're not talking about a universally appropriate place, but a personally approved place. Your opinions are not universal.

    5. Re:Plunging necklines? by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      Nymphs doesn't have the same insulting connotations as larvae, and as someone who works around children professionally I want to give them all the insulting connotations I can achieve.

    6. Re:Plunging necklines? by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      Do you eat YOUR lunch in the shitter ?

      Then you don't get to ask my kid to do that either.

      Thank god I live in a country where you expressing that TO a breatfeeding mother in public is a crime and you will get fined for it. She has a right to feed her child whenever, where-ever she needs to. You do NOT have a right to object to it. If you're a public business (like a shopping mall) you can't even complain if you OWN the place she's doing it in. It's considered harassment to ask her to cover up, or in fact to bother her in any way.
      There is no more healthy way to feed an infant than breastmilk, and it's to the advantage of everybody if we make it as easy as possible for all mothers to use this method - because their healthier children means shorter wait times for us at the doctor, and cheaper medicines when we get sick - since there isn't the added the demand of a billion sick babies.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    7. Re: Plunging necklines? by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      Sure. My wife is a nude model. Her nips, ass, pussy whatever you want to look at is all over the web if you know where to look.

      She started after we met - and I encouraged her, it made her happy, she enjoyed it, it turned her on - and I got the benefits of her coming back from shoots all revved up.

      Not everybody thinks nudity is a big deal or sex is something shameful or private.

      However, no, you can't have any of my mother's pix (if such exist, I've never asked) because - and here is the clincher - unlike my wife, she has NOT consented to letting strangers see them.
      My wife agreed to that, she is happy with that. THAT is what makes it okay. It's okay, if the person whose body it is is okay with it being seen. Nobody else's opinion matters.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    8. Re:Plunging necklines? by Stinky+Cheese+Man · · Score: 1

      Thanks for the link -- I enjoyed it. To say that Christians are against breast feeding is simply nonsense. It is not even unusual to see mothers doing it discreetly in church.

      Possibly NSFW link: 31 Beautiful Paintings of Mary Nursing the Baby Jesus".

  9. Re:How is this 'stuff that matters' ? by shaitand · · Score: 1

    I think filtering the news YOU deem inaccurate from a stream that goes out to billions of people rather than topics and stories trend naturally matters.

  10. Is nudity allowed or not? by Stan92057 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    what they should be sorry for is the continued confusion of their very confusing nudity TOS rules. They say no nudity for any reason,then say sorry for removing a nude image....Is nudity allowed or not. Have the balls to enforce the rules you create zook or change them. Any problems FB has in this matter are of their own making by being balless cowards. I would hate to be working on thier abuse team.

    --
    Jack of all trades,master of none
    1. Re:Is nudity allowed or not? by The-Ixian · · Score: 1

      I agree with you. However, I don't know what a zook is...

      --
      My eyes reflect the stars and a smile lights up my face.
    2. Re:Is nudity allowed or not? by Stan92057 · · Score: 1

      Mark Zuckerberg = Zook or zook the crook...depending on your point of view

      --
      Jack of all trades,master of none
  11. I don't get the double standard by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Logic tells me a schlong is a schlong.
     
    Sculpture or real, it should either be ok to post it or not okay to post it.
     
    Personally, I think the over-reactive attitude we here in America have about human body parts is annoyingly illogical.
     
    They have ads and movies with (omg, quick, cover your eyes!!!) bare breasts for everyone to see in parts of Europe, and the people in those countries seem to do just fine.

  12. An understandable mistake by Cro+Magnon · · Score: 4, Funny

    They meant to block a statue of Uranus. They just got the wrong god.

    --
    Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
    1. Re:An understandable mistake by jfdavis668 · · Score: 1

      No, they got the wong god.

    2. Re:An understandable mistake by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      Uranus nude is NOT something I want to see.

      --
      Table-ized A.I.
  13. In Facebook's defense by elrous0 · · Score: 3, Funny

    When Lena Dunham saw how thin Neptune was, she reported it for fat-shaming.

    --
    SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
  14. ridicolous by PaoloAgati · · Score: 1

    hooray for AI...

  15. Facebook Is Sorry by ItsJustAPseudonym · · Score: 1

    That is all.

  16. Automatically plunging necklines by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    So, you're good with "plunging necklines" being something that must be hidden from your poor, frightened eyes?

    Facebook is your basic double-padded room for hysterical body-shamed twerps.

    You be safe, now. And remember: if you're anywhere but on SafeBook, For Dog's Sake, CLOSE YOUR TENDER LITTLE EYES!

    1. Re:Automatically plunging necklines by coastwalker · · Score: 2

      Ultimately this is why young people will avoid Facebook if they are not doing it already. It will become an echo chamber for the old.

      --
      Facts are history now plebs have politics for religion on social media.
    2. Re:Automatically plunging necklines by CaptainDork · · Score: 1

      Facebook is the standard for social media just as Google is the search engine of choice.

      There are alternatives in tandem, but "avoid" != "abandon."

      --
      It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
    3. Re:Automatically plunging necklines by fuzznutz · · Score: 1

      Ultimately this is why young people will avoid Facebook if they are not doing it already. It will become an echo chamber for the old.

      This is already happening. Facebook is what mom and dad or grandma and grandpa use to share recipes and pictures of their dog. My daughter deleted her account after the election because of all the post election bickering. My younger kids have mostly abandoned theirs. Most of the still-in-school crowd has moved on to Instagram and Snapchat.

    4. Re:Automatically plunging necklines by DutchUncle · · Score: 1

      The funny part is, I avoided Facebook until a group that I participate in, and the band my son was in, exclusively used a Facebook page instead of creating their own web page. I tried convincing both publicity people that they were going backwards, like to the Compuserve walled garden days, and of course they didn't understand the "archaic" reference - after all, isn't everybody on Facebook? So now I know a handful of young people who use Facebook only to read announcements.

    5. Re:Automatically plunging necklines by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      However, I can use Bing instead of Google whenever I want. Facebook is where my friends and family are. It would do me little good to join another social network.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    6. Re:Automatically plunging necklines by CaptainDork · · Score: 1

      However, I can use Twitter instead of Facebook whenever I want.

      --
      It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
    7. Re:Automatically plunging necklines by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Sure, I can use Twitter. However, I have friends, and I have relatives I like, and a large number of them are on Facebook. I use social media to connect with people I want to stay social with, and dropping Facebook would lose the social advantage of social media.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  17. The Puritans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Their dead hand still rules American culture from the grave.

  18. "even if the use is for artistic or education" by wisnoskij · · Score: 1

    So why did they unban the image then?

    --
    Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
    1. Re:"even if the use is for artistic or education" by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      Facebook's process is actually quite simple:
      1. Users flag images.
      2. If enough users flag an image, it goes to a drone - a human employee who works according to a very strict checklist that is designed to avoid all subjective judgements, so that drones are interchangeable. Picture shows exposed genitalia or female nipples? Check, banned.
      3. If enough outrage results, the decision gets reviewed by someone higher up the chain, or has the authority to authorise exceptions. This is where the decision is made that it can't be porn if it's by a famous artist, or that a photograph of a naked child is ok if it's s famous war photo.

  19. Mission Creep? by richardkettle4 · · Score: 2

    Look, Facebook is not a media or news outlet. It simply allows users to share content. True, different countries have different rules to what is legal. But once Facebook thinks that it should control content, it is on a downward spiral.

    1. Re:Mission Creep? by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      Facebook doesn't want to be a media outlet, but they have little choice in the matter now: They don't write the stories, but they decide which stories get read, and they have to deal with the issue of keeping their service free of inappropriate content when the definition of inappropriate varies wildly.

    2. Re:Mission Creep? by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      If Facebook didn't control content, it would be dead. Even excluding illegal content, there's stuff that would offend so many people as to make Facebook commercially unviable. Given a public forum with sufficiently many people, someone's going to try to post stuff that will offend lots and lots of people, and unless that person is stopped somehow the forum will be abandoned. I've seen it happen in Usenet, back in the 90s.

      In this case, the offending content wouldn't have bothered me, but nudity does bother lots of people, so Facebook execs think they're better off censoring it than not. There's pictures that would bother me, typically involving violence. If I couldn't reliably get on Facebook without seeing pictures of adequately dressed people being tortured, I'd never come back. Facebook has to draw the line somewhere, and where they draw it is not so much a matter of principle as a matter of business.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  20. Re:Be wary of what you ask by fuzznutz · · Score: 1

    Since nips ain't no big deal can you send me a pic of yours and especially your mother's, wife's, or girlfriend's which ever is more applicable?

    Most probably after we sent a pic of ours, you will have plucked your own eye out of their orbit, and ran away screaming off.

    The goggles. They do nothing.

  21. missed the memo? by micahraleigh · · Score: 1

    Replacing women with masonry seems like a peculiar cause for liberal slashdot.

    Oh, that's right. Liberals only pretend to care about women.