After a lengthy internal review, Facebook has decided that users can post and share videos of beheadings. Users cannot, however, post images or videos containing a woman's fully exposed breast.
So when you post a video of a woman being murdered, make sure she's appropriately clothed, ok?
#2
Charlie Don't Surf
That's keeping with the standards of American society mostly, so sadly, not surprised.
#3
GasBandit
Much as I hate to back Charlie, I gotta.
The act of murder, in which less than 1% of americans will ever take part? PG.
Hack up teenagers with an axe? PG-13.
One stray nipple? R
Unobstructed visual depiction of the physical act of love, in which 99% of americans WILL take part at some point in their life? NC-17.
#4
PatrThom
I'm sure their stance will change if people start to post pictures which glorify/fetishize the act of beheading.
The act of murder, in which less than 1% of americans will ever take part? PG.
Hack up teenagers with an axe? PG-13.
One stray nipple? R
Unobstructed visual depiction of the physical act of love, in which 99% of americans WILL take part at some point in their life? NC-17.
I know that, but I can't stop my mind from going "But what if... How about... Maybe if...."
Every. Damned. Time.
#12
Dave
There's a slippery slope argument that can be raised with both sex and violence when it comes to things like websites. Seems to me that beheadings are pretty far down the slope...not that I'm naive enough to think it's the bottom. I can see why they decided not to post nudity as Facebook is open to most any ages, but the allowance of beheadings is just criminally stupid in my opinion.
#13
strawman
As soon as a parent successfully sues facebook or google for damage to their child,it'll come down.
My best guesss would be that something like violence or a beheading could be politcially relevant and spark conversation. Whereas nudity is mostly just there to look at and there's porn sites for that.
My best guesss would be that something like violence or a beheading could be politcially relevant and spark conversation. Whereas nudity is mostly just there to look at and there's porn sites for that.
My best guesss would be that something like violence or a beheading could be politcially relevant and spark conversation. Whereas nudity is mostly just there to look at and there's porn sites for that.
The people of FEMEN would like a word.
And breast feeders.
And every damn baby picture ever (oh yes, pictures of 2 year olds count as "nudity" for FB)
And...
Well, no, I don't want to go on. I can understand not allowing porn, perhaps even (though that's a cultural thing) full frontal nudity. Breasts? Most of the people have'm, guys. Gunshot wounds, chopped off arms, headshotted babies, decapîtated dogs,...I've seen plenty of graphically violent crap I *really* wouldn't want a 5 year old to see on public pages of FB, and not get taken down.
Again, it's the famous American puritanism, along with considering violence normal and weapons something to worship. You know we all think your culture's a bit messed up, right?
Again, it's the famous American puritanism, along with considering violence normal and weapons something to worship. You know we all think your culture's a bit messed up, right?
Pff. Are you kidding? They have less than ten thousand barrels per day of oil production capacity. They consume more than 622 thousand barrels a day.
Of course if they had held onto Congo maybe they'd have something. A large portion of the manhattan project, including the bombs dropped in Japan, used uranium ore mined from the then Belgian Congo.
#25
PatrThom
Forget about oil!. What about cocoa butter slavery? Aren't they like the DeBeers of chocolate over there?