Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

SHERWICK

Why Does Facebook Allow Decapitations And Not Nudity?

Recommended Posts

WTF is wrong with them?!?!?!?

must be an American thing:

Decapitations and Torture = Good

Nudity = Evil Pagan Thing

I'd have thought this footage would fall foul of UK law. Why aren't the police heading over to Facebook in London and nicking a few people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

WTF is wrong with them?!?!?!?

must be an American thing:

Decapitations and Torture = Good

Nudity = Evil Pagan Thing

+1 million

A society that works itself into a frenzy about sexual imagery but allows snuff movies to be viewed on social media has got some pretty fundamental problems.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/colinfreeman/100242547/as-a-former-kidnap-hostage-i-want-to-know-why-does-facebook-think-its-ok-to-show-beheading-videos/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

+1 million

A society that works itself into a frenzy about sexual imagery but allows snuff movies to be viewed on social media has got some pretty fundamental problems.

I'm quite sure the sort of Americans who "work themselves into a frenzy" about sexual imagery would not want their kids seeing snuff movies either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm quite sure the sort of Americans who "work themselves into a frenzy" about sexual imagery would not want their kids seeing snuff movies either.

Sadly obviously not as Facebook appears to ban all sexual imagery including nipples but not beheadings because it thinks a substantial; section of its user demographic is more shocked by the former than the latter (or perhaps more cynically that nipples are ten a penny on the internet so there is no advertising money to be made from adding to the stock of them).

The Telegraphs chief foreign correspondent was pretty corruscating about the inanity of Zuckerberg and Company's reasoning on this matter

"Facebook has long been a place where people turn to share their experiences,” Facebook said. “Particularly when they're connected to controversial events on the ground, such as human rights abuses, acts of terrorism and other violent events.”

Right. So the people getting beheaded are "sharing their experiences", are they? Surely it's just the beheaders doing that, isn't it? And beheading someone on film and putting it on the internet is just "controversial", right? As opposed to one of the most grotesquely barbaric acts possible? And how can it possibly not count as "glorifying violence", which is one of Facebook's current criteria for removing videos?

The answer, according to Facebook, is that "people share videos of these events on Facebook to condemn them". Yup, that's right, thumbs down all round. In other words, we are invited to think that that somewhere out there, these videos are posted by some serious human rights discussion group, where they swap comments on how terrible it all is. As opposed to going "LoL, see how that guy's head spurted".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sadly obviously not as Facebook appears to ban all sexual imagery including nipples but not beheadings becaiuse it thinks a substantial; section of its user demographic is more shocked by the former than the latter.

The Telegraphs chief foreign correspondent was pretty corruscating about the inanity of Zuckerberg and Company's reasoning on this matter

But doesn't zuckerberg have a history of doing what the hell he likes and sod the users?

I vaguely remember reading of facebook outing a load of dissidents in Iran by changing the privacy setting without warning - which must have been nice for them!

Facebook is one of the businesses, where they don't care what the users think. If they don't like it, they can always go back to myspace.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the clip that started this current controversy was a beheading by a mexican drugs gang. However, there have been many clips too of Syrian 'opposition forces' butchering people.

While people sharing this stuff merely to say, 'Wooah, sick dude' is disturbing there are reasons sometimes to get the word out about political issues by posting graphic content. Therefore I tend towards zero censorship even though I wouldn't want to see these clips myself.

Indeed, the internet's spotlight on the nature of Syrian opposition has forced the mainstream media to change their tune - now talk is not of bombing on behalf of undefined 'opposition rebels' fighting the bad guy Assad but the need to 'reach out to moderate elements'. The internet is doing its job more or less. The mainstream media spouted war propaganda.

Anyway, it's all on YouTube so I'm not sure why the focus is on Facebook.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why should they 'ban' anything?

Its not totalitarian censorship mad camer-twats personal photo album, is it?

Its a billion or so people exchanging whatever communication they each choose to exchange.

The point is Facebook clearly does try to regulate and ban somethings but not others. It is clearly happy with the idea of censorship but makes some bizarre choices about what it censors.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • The Prime Minister stated that there were three Brexit options available to the UK:   211 members have voted

    1. 1. Which of the Prime Minister's options would you choose?


      • Leave with the negotiated deal
      • Remain
      • Leave with no deal

    Please sign in or register to vote in this poll. View topic


×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.