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.

27 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 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.
    5. 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!

    6. 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.
    7. 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=-
    8. 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
    9. 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?
  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 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.

    2. 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.

    3. 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.

  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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!

  6. 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 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.

  7. 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
  8. 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.

  9. 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.
  10. 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.
  11. 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.
  12. 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.