Devious Facebook censorship

by

I was banned by Facebook, and content removed, accompanied by the threat of a permanently disabled account, because of the above photos, apparently because I violated their TOS. This is simply not true, and I believe this is more likely to be a case of the morally hypocritical puritan minority imposing it’s views on the rest of us yet again. It’s not sufficient to lie down and accept the administrative choice in this case because FB says one thing and does another, all at the behest of somebody who decides to complain because they see something they disapprove of.

 

This is censorship of the worst kind. Let’s take a look at Facebook’s actual TOS: Facebook’s very own Community Standards includes this text under the nudity section: “…we aspire to respect people’s right to share content of personal importance…” and here is the relevant section:

Nudity and Pornography * Facebook has a strict policy against the sharing of pornographic content and any explicitly sexual content where a minor is involved. We also impose limitations on the display of nudity. We aspire to respect people’s right to share content of personal importance, whether those are photos of a sculpture like Michelangelo’s David or family photos of a child breastfeeding.

Setting the standards for style. In the two examples above, one is a hike in which I participated in the alps. This is documentary and surely of personal importance? The other image records a highly interesting Art installation by the photographer and artist Spencer Tunick, in the centre of the city, hosted by the opera house to celebrate the beginning of the Opera season in Munich. How much more related to personal importance and to modern Art is it possible to get, and still be regarded as pornography by Facebook admins?

Paul Rapoport has more of the same type of Facebook lying, and abuse of their authority with regard breastfeeding images, to provide shamefully filtered content, (where Facebook lies when they incorrectly say they do not censor such images), can be seen in multiple examples here.

Please feel free to share links to this page as far and as wide as possible, with a view to letting Facebook realize they need to accommodate the harmless views of their users, and to not impose a puritan minority view on the rest of us. If their mission statement, (Facebook’s mission is to make the world more open and connected), then they are failing by engaging in such disgraceful censorship.

15 thoughts on “Devious Facebook censorship”

  2. I posted nude photos with no problem. I just not posted public, but for friends inside a list i called “naturist”, I did not have any problems. This actions were started with someone complaining about your public posting. That is.

      • Richard:

        Even my daughter, that i assume is used to my love of being naked, but she lives with me and many times complains about my nudity – specially if i wander round the apartment naked – imagine to make it public.
        So, the same happens to flickr and so on. That is why a network like this was created, right?
        For me, as example, most of my friends know that i am naturist, but they will not like to see me nude everytime on facebook, that is more a kind o connection network, to find old friends, in my case.
        Thanks

        • Luis, I’m NOT suggesting *you* must post your naked images publicly. 🙂

          I am suggesting that if *we* want to make a difference, then *we* need to stand up and post publicly. This may include you, or this may not include you, I have no idea. Letting the world know you are a naturist is an entirely personal decision and there is no suggestion that we must all do the same thing. And yes, the Naktiv site was created in direct response to the draconian censorship on Faceache.

          However, the Naktiv site was not created to be a private place where nobody can look inside, it was created with the express purpose of enabling people to network and to *share* their information (if they so wish) with others all around the internet (if they so wish). The site has privacy settings for those who do not wish to share their information, of course.

          R.

    • A suggestion for those who post nude, albeit anonymous photos of themselves.
      1. Use a camera that does not use GPS, so that location of the photo is missing. I commonly use two cameras on hiking trips. The first is my iPhone, and I use it fix the photo location on a map.
      2. The other is my Canon pocket camera, soon, I hope, to be replaced. This camera is not connected to GPS and does not have any other metadata associated with the image other than camera info. With this camera I shoot high resolution photos that can be posted with the internet, with at least my minimum privacy retained.
      3. You can use a photo imaging program such as Corel’s Paint Shop Pro 2018 to access the image data, add copyright information and/or remove what data you want.

      • Unfortunately, to the isolated snowflakes in Facebook Towers, nudity is not harmless – it is the spawn of Satan, which makes it all right to get lots of big guns (which are, of course, harmless, guns don’t kill people etc) and blow it away —- yeeha!!

  8. Facebook sucks. Their standards and administration is evil.

    I’ve been checking out MeWe.com and GAB (https://gab.ai/home) as alternative sites. GAB allows all forms of nudity. They only want it to be marked “Not Suitable for Work” (NSFW). That lets people surf at work without nude photos on their work screens. GAB doesn’t let you make groups without a $6 per month payment though. But there is not GAB jail. I’ve been in Facebook Jail too many times.

Leave a Comment

New Report

Close