Cool post man... Doesn't Facebook revolve around the whole notion of its users 'reporting' offensive or explicit content? Either way, it's absolutely bogus if the moderators are reading too far into that sort of thing. And obviously that woman made her profile public, right?
marsha
· 6 months ago
I'm not so sure it's wrong to eliminate all totally visible breasts in any photo regardless of the context. You already stated one reason is deleting good photos by mistake, which is due to the sheer volume of photos that are screened. You have to give Facebook or any site a little credit for having their policy which keeps material from becoming inappropriate. Just because we don't think a photo is sexual doesn't mean someone else will interpret the same way. I don't think Facebook is trying to be insensitive to breast cancer or breastfeeding - I'll give them a little leeway.
Yuping Liu
· 6 months ago
Glad Facebook corrected its original decision. Censoring information is always a tricky business. Social media help publicize wrong decisions in this area much faster. So from this perspective, we are all participating in censoring now.
Lo in SoJo
· 6 months ago
"Facebook may have successfully expanded beyond its college roots, but its content policies remain woefully immature."
Truly says it all.
Jillian C. York
· 6 months ago
Why is it so difficult for Facebook to have a policy such as Flickr's (where photos are rated by type?) And, on a closed profile, why should they remove photos at all? Isn't it me sharing amongst my friends?
Reminds me of how Walmart used to "disappear" photos when being developed.
Analisa Roche
· 6 months ago
Thank you for writing about this. I was unhappy about the breastfeeding picture ban, and I think the ban on Sharon's surgery photos was also ridiculous. Love the closing sentence - it's an excellent summary of Facebook's outlook!
Bas
· 6 months ago
Well, I guess they must believe Facebook members are crazy perverts for seeing breastfeeding and cancer scars as something sexual.
Mojo Yugen
· 6 months ago
So they're tits right? Does Facebook really need to protect us against tits? Where is George Carlin when we need him? Facebook, get over it.
Victoria
· 6 months ago
I agree with the "un-ban" of the scars, but I also agree with the ban on breast feeding. Apparently, I am not a reasonable person because of this. There are websites dedicated to the fetish of breastfeeding, so this would be sexual content.
The last sentence is a good summary of Facebook. Wish they would follow through on their privacy policies, though.
Gislaine
· 6 months ago
C'mon, lady! If you call breastfeeding a "fetish", I'm sorry to tell you that you really are not a reasonable person! Remember that if you are alive today it's because at some moment of your life, at least once, you mother breastfed you.
Deb
· 6 months ago
Victoria - there are websites devoted to foot and rubber fetishes as well, does that automatically mean all photos of feet and rubber gloves are sexual content?
Our society has a tragedy - of babies denied health and normal development, and of women made to feel like their bodies don't work. Much of that is because women have not been allowed to grow with breastfeeding and see it as normal ( http://fusionparenting.wordpress.com/2009/05/30... ), which is why it has been confused with sexuality by so many people. Just because a few people think it is sexual that is their situation to deal with, not for the rest of us to hide from them. The same way I don't hide my feet just in case.
We need to get to a point where we don't even notice breastfeeding because it is expected.
misterbill
· 6 months ago
The problem is, if they don't block it, you'll get these stupid Attorneys General in the US who get all up in arms over something like this, and they go after Facebook for showing inappropriate content (and then they take credit for saving the public from said "bad" content). So Facebook ends up running scared and blocking stuff that makes no sense.
Blogistory
· 6 months ago
what a big misconception... :(
Mike McDermott
· 6 months ago
Glad to see Facebook rolled back the decision. Let's give them the benefit of the doubt that they removed it by accident. Since I was not a "friend" of someone with either this photo or a video of breast feeding I cannot say whether it was offensive. Don't you have to be a friend of someone to see their photos and movies? I guess these poor ladies found out who their real friends were.. Kudos to both of these brave women for their unique yet inspirational cause.
Ana
· 6 months ago
Facebook.com is nice social network rightnow and also i've found a new social networking in the web it's http://www.hunkababe.com..so far it's nice social network also..
joycekane
· 6 months ago
_ Blackwhiteconnect.c'om __ An exclusive online community designed to help diversely ethnic singles meet new friends, make great dates, and build lasting interracial relationships. Meet like minded singles who are looking to date outside their race. U can just check it out and decide whether u want in.Hope u can join this big family.
Roel
· 6 months ago
In this case I'm seeing a challenge of cultural differences for Facebook.
As a European (from the Netherlands) I understand the American response of Facebook. Some things, like pictures with tits or nipples seem to be considered 'not suitable' in the US, even when it's not in a sexual or pornographic context. Facebook might be American but since Facebook is being used across different cultures, it's hard to determine what the leading culture should be.
Dutch users would probably have allowed both the pictures and the video. Cultural difference; we never would have made a big deal about the nipplegate thing with Janet Jackson during the Super Bowl of February 2004.
Interesting case; different rules on Facebook for different cultures? Or one leading culture with it's own values, derived from which culture?
Beth
· 6 months ago
I think the mixup is nudity vs. pornography. There is a major difference between the two! I could never understand the fuss about women breast feeding in public places, it's a natural and healthy occurence.
Medela
· 5 months ago
This issue has grown big and I'm happy with the result, Facebook listened to the protesters. Breast feeding is totally not obscene.
Isis
· 3 months ago
I don't know why some of women just want to show off for no reason.Sharon's case is an exceptional one.If a photo is there for some relevant reason then it's okay.
All Comments
Truly says it all.
Reminds me of how Walmart used to "disappear" photos when being developed.
The last sentence is a good summary of Facebook. Wish they would follow through on their privacy policies, though.
Our society has a tragedy - of babies denied health and normal development, and of women made to feel like their bodies don't work. Much of that is because women have not been allowed to grow with breastfeeding and see it as normal ( http://fusionparenting.wordpress.com/2009/05/30... ), which is why it has been confused with sexuality by so many people. Just because a few people think it is sexual that is their situation to deal with, not for the rest of us to hide from them. The same way I don't hide my feet just in case.
We need to get to a point where we don't even notice breastfeeding because it is expected.
Kudos to both of these brave women for their unique yet inspirational cause.
As a European (from the Netherlands) I understand the American response of Facebook. Some things, like pictures with tits or nipples seem to be considered 'not suitable' in the US, even when it's not in a sexual or pornographic context. Facebook might be American but since Facebook is being used across different cultures, it's hard to determine what the leading culture should be.
Dutch users would probably have allowed both the pictures and the video. Cultural difference; we never would have made a big deal about the nipplegate thing with Janet Jackson during the Super Bowl of February 2004.
Interesting case; different rules on Facebook for different cultures? Or one leading culture with it's own values, derived from which culture?