Slashdot Mirror
Facebook Reports BBC To Police Following Publication's 'Sexualized Images' Investigation (bbc.com)
"Grave doubts" have emerged about the effectiveness of Facebook's moderation system after an investigation by the BBC last year revealed the social network was failing to remove sexualised images of children even after they were reported. Damian Collins, chair of the culture, media and sport committee, made the comments as he criticised Facebook's handling of the images, dozens of which were reported to the company by the BBC and fewer than 20% were removed. After the BBC sent evidence of the photos to Facebook, the social media company reported the BBC to the police for distributing the images, which had been shared on private Facebook groups intended for paedophiles. From a report on BBC: When provided with examples of the images, Facebook reported the BBC journalists involved to the police and cancelled plans for an interview. It subsequently issued a statement: "It is against the law for anyone to distribute images of child exploitation." Mr Collins said it was extraordinary that the BBC had been reported to the authorities when it was trying to "help clean up the network." [...] Information the BBC provided to the police led to one man being sent to prison for four years.
I take it FB is unfamiliar with the Streisand effect.
Why in the world did they send actual images?
There have been journalists who tried to cover this beat before and been charged with child pornography and sent to jail. Depending on who the prosecutor is, this is the untouchable story. There is no safe harbor when it comes to kids and sex.
The FBI is allowed to distribute child pornography. The BBC should have let the FBI handle this investigation.
Anytime you find kiddie images, you must immediately report them to the proper authorities or else you will face prosecution. Had the BBC not spent time trying to make someone look bad and instead reported these images to the police, the police would have then contacted Facebook who would have removed them in a timely manner.
Here's hoping there was a lengthy penalty by the police to said "journalist" for trying to manufacture outrage!
Fortunately, the both the BBC and the Facebook employee concerned, CEOP was then legally obliged to report itself to itself, resulting in an infinite loop...
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
> FTA: "It is against the law for anyone to distribute images of child exploitation.
Except they are *not* images of people exploiting children. They are pictures that young adults have taken of themselves and posted.
Standard teen facebook stuff that gets lots of likes and annoys their parents. Then the perverts copy the photos and add distasteful comments. In a hidden, private forum.
So what do you do? Where draw the line? Do we end up dressing out kids in burqas, or shrug and move on with our lives?
Because Slashdot isn't Putin's bitch. Wikileaks pretty much destroyed all of its credibility when it decided to get a fucking Russian-controlled Fascist elected as US president, because of a rumor that his opponent made a joke about "droning" Julian Assange. Fucking sell-out snowflakes.
Because Facebook said that before they'd grant an interview, they wanted some examples of the material they'd failed to remove.
Your link does not contain a single mention of "America", "USA" or "US", they do not ask the question you posted or anything similar, and "many did want it (Sharia law) in the US" is completely unsupported and unrelated to the article you linked.
The "Facebook censored me" is just complete bullshit, repeated again and again, usually in Facebook posts that state that "Facebook banned my post", but somehow always include the supposed banned post.
Facebook may have banned it if you preceded it with a stream of racial slurs, but they did not ban anything close to what you've posted here. It's an idiotic assertion, demonstrably false, since you can search for and find links on Facebook to this very article.
Sexualized Images is popo codeword for teen selfie in a bikini, or in lacey panties with butt facing the camera... probably with duckface. If it was real porn or nudity they would use different phrasing. Sexualized Images simply means normal pics with 'sexual' connotation, something all teens love to do.
They are pictures that young adults have taken of themselves and posted.
FTA:
Images appeared to be stolen from newspapers, blogs and even clothing catalogues, while some were photographs taken secretly, and up close, in public places. One user had even posted a video of a children's dance show.
TFA is not about "young adults" nor pictures "taken of themselves and posted." The only ages I see cited are 10-11. It's about pictures people have taken of children that are being treated as sexual.
He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
Many of the pictures, taken at face value, aren't sexually explicit. They are only being interpreted that way b/c certain pervs are sexually attracted to them. Short of creating a prison state, we will never get rid of this via criminalization. Trying to censor everything these people might use to satisfy their distorted sexuality is a fools errand, and will likely drag a lot of other people down needlessly as well. Consider by analogy Muslim countries that have gone so far to force all woman to wear veils to prevent sexual attraction by other men. What happens instead? The men just start focusing on the eyes.
:T:R:A:N:S:
The common language makes it easy to overlook significant cultural differences between the UK and the US. I believe one of them may have played a role here. In many places there is a tendency for mere technical questions of process to make people lose sight of the original sense (purpose and intent) of rules. (This is not one-dimensional. As a German I keep being surprised by how the balance works in the UK. Sometimes the balance in the UK is much more on the procedure side than I am used to, and sometimes it's much more on the sense side.)
It appears to me that in the US it is considered OK when rules and procedures are almost completely detached from their purpose, whereas in most cultures a relatively strong connection is required to give rules legitimacy. Some examples:
- It is legal for US prosecutors to seek the prosecution of people they know to be innocent. Some even use procedural tricks to ensure convictions of innocents. There are countless examples of this which do not draw much attention. Every one of them would make a huge scandal here in Europe.
- Instead of correcting the balance between the legislative power of the federal government and those of individual states, the US legal system is making use of absurd 'crimes' such as crossing state lines (or doing some harmless other thing that happens to fall under federal jurisdiction) while committing an actual crime.
- Gerrymandering is widely considered normal practice.
- Prisoners have become an important economic resource in the US, comparable to the former role of slaves.
- In the US, a pre-teen can become registered sex offenders with a ban on getting near schools for a minor 'offence' such as taking a nude picture of themselves or sexual experiments with another (even older) child. In the US, it is possible for two people to rape *each other* at the very same moment in time.
- In the US, companies that actually innovate can be completely annihilated by shell companies holding trivial and fraudulent patents.
I have heard that baseball is also symptomatic of this phenomenon, but as I never even tried to understand that, I can't claim that it is. Sometimes extreme excesses stemming from this approach make international headlines, such as when a kindergarten calls in the police because a four-year-old is throwing a tantrum, and the police takes the child to prison (obviously notifying the parents only afterwards). Or when a state makes insists on putting someone to death after his innocence has been established beyond doubt.
Here is how I think this applies to the current situation:
For someone in the UK it's clear that the goal is to prevent the abuse of children, or at least to prevent perverts from exchanging images that are problematic in one way or another. If you try to abuse technicalities for your own gain, you lose face. But for a huge US concern, losing face is not an issue any more than to a shameless liar-president. To them, any laws related to child abuse are just part of the myriad of rules whose purpose is to function as landmines. They act as a barrier to entry into lucrative areas of commerce: expensive legal advice is required to maneuver around them and deal with the occasional explosion. If a weaker competitor, such as a national tv broadcaster, does anything you construe as an attack (because thinking of the children is OBVIOUSLY just an excuse), then you are justified to play dirty
It's about pictures people have taken of children that are being treated as sexual.
Oh, so it's literally just thoughtcrime. Knowing this, I can't say I have much sympathy for the BBC.
Golly, you have issues.
The issues have been reported as Playboy, Hustler, and Penthouse.
It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
...and according to their definition you are now a paedophile. Don't you dare visit Forever21.com or any other clothing site. And remember to unfriend anybody under 18 from your friend list, you filthy Pedo!
"It is against the law for anyone to distribute images of child exploitation." ...said the company responsible for hosting and making availble those images.
Images of fine art in museums get deleted, but....
Don't step on the baby.
My work internet blocks Oglaf, so I can't find and link the strip in question, but a couple weeks ago my partner put the strip up on her Facebook page. A day later, the strip had been taken down because it was 'offensive'. It's a cartoon, and the punchline was basically that a guy fucks lemons. Woo. It's NSFW, I guess, but it involves two adults and lemons. It's really no big deal, and it's pretty funny.
I have friends that are models. Heaven forbid they show even the barest bit of nipple. Sometimes it doesn't even take that much. They have pictures taken down and temp-bans put on them.
So my question is who are they employing to scan these images, and why do they find partially clothed women more offensive than pictures of exploited kids?
The whole story was on BBC Newshour this morning:
After finding these images were still on FB, the BBC asked for an interview with FB to get an explanation of why this was still going on. FB then asked them, please send us the images you want to talk about. We want to see it before we say anything.
The BBC complied that request. And then got reported.
So FB ASKED them for the images, which were already present on FB. And instead of doing anything about the images, they went to the police with them.
FB, you are a fucking bunch of cowards and goddamn stupid too. You, by asking for the images, are guilty of the crime you sought to accuse the BBC of committing.
Sig for hire.
It's about pictures people have taken of children that are being treated as sexual.
The problem with an outcry over this is that we would effectively have to ban all pictures of people under the age of 18. If you photograph a tree and post it online, somewhere someone will treat it as sexual.
We are approaching the point where thought crimes don't even need to be the thoughts of the accused.
I generally assume that this is the case whenever I hear about this sort of thing (that they're making it sound WAY worse than it actually is). Inevitably I turn out to be correct.
Proud neuron in the Slashdot hivemind since 2002.
I do. I mean, of course a large country has a diverse population and no random person there is personally responsible for the worst products of that country, but collectively, countries need to own up to the the evil things they've produced, and for the US that's things like the Trail of Tears, the WWII internments, the Kent State Massacre, and Facebook.
How dare you post links to smut like that! /sarcasm
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?