Quantcast

Facebook’s Breast Phobia Is Absolutely Ridiculous

More "obscene" content removed

Get the WebProNews Newsletter:
Facebook’s Breast Phobia Is Absolutely Ridiculous
[ Social Media]

Full disclosure: I’m much, much more socially liberal than the average bear. I won’t get into specifics about certain policy positions – but let’s just say that I fail to see how a little lightening up could do anything but help a society.

Having said that, I believe that you can be pretty socially conservative and still see that Facebook really needs to lighten up when it comes to nudity.

And no, I’m not suggesting that we turn the news feed into a porn tube or we turn the Timeline into an exhibition show. Let’s be real – this isn’t Myspace.

What do you think should be the line when it comes to nudity on Facebook? What do you think of their current policies? Have you ever had a post removed and you felt it was unjust based on their policies? Let us know in the comments.

All I’m suggesting is that we stop acting like the catalyst for the fall of our moral civilization is a 15-year-old catching a glimpse of a painted breast. I’ll now step down off the soapbox and get to the real story.

Parenting blog strollerderby (a Babble property) reports that Babble’s social media manager Andrea Zimmerman recently had a photo removed from her Facebook page. She received that standard rigamarole about Facebook’s nudity and pornography policy and the obligatory “do this too much and we’ll kick you off” warning. Many of us have seen this first hand in our many years of Facebooking.

The photo in question is of a fully nude woman with both breasts exposed. Both nipples are visible and the subject of the photo is touching herself. Check out the incredibly obscene photo below:

Are you as horrified as I am?

The photo, part of a pregnancy body art series, is about as un-obscene as it can get. In fact, it’s rather beautiful. But the problem lies with Facebook. It doesn’t matter that this depiction of nudity is what it is – and not some still image from Bangbus.

Facebook’s current policy says that the user “will not post content that: is hateful, threatening, or pornographic; incites violence; or contains nudity or graphic or gratuitous violence.” It goes on to say that a photo can and will be removed if it “contain[s] nudity, drug use or other obscene content. If the photo attacks another individual or group, it will be removed as well.”

Nudity, drug use, or other obscene content. When did nudity just automatically become obscene content?

Let’s take another photo example – this time one more personal to me. I shared an article of mine to my personal Facebook page as well as WebProNews’ Facebook page. The article in question was about Porn sites participating in the internet-wide SOPA protests. This was its lead image:

As you can see, the young lass in the photo is rather buxom, and her assets aren’t exactly hidden away. But as you can clearly see, no nudity in the classical sense. No more skin is shown in that photo than in a bikini shot the average college girl posts after Spring Break. Nevertheless, Facebook removed the entire article from both my personal account and the WebProNews account. They also temporarily suspended my account and gave me the whole community guidelines lecture. All for the above photo, let me remind you.

Facebook and breasts have already been in the news this week. Breastfeeding activists who say that Facebook has removed countless breastfeeding images of theirs scheduled “nurse-in” protests at Facebook offices around the world.

Facebook’s policy on that is that breastfeeding photos are allowed as long as they don’t show “an exposed breast where the child in not actively engaged in nursing.” The activists claim that Facebook is unable to keep up with their removals and are unjustly taking down images that do not violate the policy.

It’s totally understandable that many photos get removed in error. Just imagine the volume of photos that hit Facebook every day. Mistakes should no doubt be expected.

But could a laxation of policy alleviate a bit of the problem? If Facebook lightened up, just a bit, could it prevent images like my (clearly not nude) lingerie girl from being removed unjustly?

I’m fully aware that it is Facebook’s right as a company to set up their policies in any way they choose. And trust me guys, I don’t want to turn Facebook into YouPorn. I just want Facebook to stop acting like nude pregnant body art is obscene.

What do you think? First, what do you think the line is when it comes to images on Facebook? Secondly, how big of a problem is the fact that photos are being removed in error, having not violated Facebook’s stated policies?

Should Facebook create more specific guidelines differentiating nudity from pornography? Let us know in the comments.

Facebook’s Breast Phobia Is Absolutely Ridiculous
Top Rated White Papers and Resources
  • Chickmelion

    I think in all fairness the virus that spread through this site like wild fire early late November to early December, I believe might have a bit to to with this serious clamping down… That was a week straight of some hardcore nasty stuff flashing up on the status updates of a lot of my friends… It targeted the nerves of every age group you could think of… from news announcements and pic of Justin Beiber being sliced to pieced… to some triple rated “x” images of a variety of religious figures across a few religions.. right down to hard core porn… it was wicked stuff… and no doubt Facebook was inundated with
    hate mail and complaints…. do you suppose perhaps their current stand is as stiff because they are looking to recover face from this awkward moment in their history?

  • http://www.laymanwebdesign.com Obdurate

    Don’t we have enough nudity on the adult sites? Do we have to open up everything to photos of nudity?

    Can we have just one place where we don’t find it….. Please…..

  • John

    Since Facebook is a website and the webmaster can decide what they want done on their site, then whatever they say is what people have to deal with, but if they take things too far, they will loose visitors and that will hurt them.

    I see nothing wrong with the photos above, or breast feeding photos, or anything educational.

    I think facebook should just be strict with the public profiles, but if it’s private among friends then what is the big deal.

  • http://www.e-marketingpartner.com Bob Weber

    Pornography is notoriously difficult to define while nudity is relatively easy to define. The beautiful pregnant woman wearing only body paint is, by definition, nude. The woman in lingerie is,again by definition, not nude. I doubt we will see a change in this from Facebook because they have went with the easiest possible definition to enforce, and when you have millions of users that is the smart move. If Facebook were actually to adopt a more subjective view it would create a firestorm of people claiming EVERYTHING was pornographic and become a huge logistical nightmare for Facebook.

  • http://www.ibdkcmo.com Ray

    It’s inappropriate when members have no desire to view nudity on Facebook. There are more appropriate sites that people who want to view nudity and there’s no shock value if they choose to view it. The commentator is way off base on this one. Facebook isn’t a porno site. Other sites that are exclusively about nudity is more appropriate because people know what they’re going to see. Besides, Facebook has the right to ban anything they choose. It’s their business policy, if you don’t like the policy, don’t have a Facebook account. duh!!

  • Frank

    Cool. You mean posting nudity is a shorter and easier way to remove your account? They make it so stupid to remove yourself and now it’s easy! People… get out and socialize in person.

    • http://docsheldon.com Doc Sheldon

      @Frank
      Now, THAT’S thinking outside the box!! ;)

  • Walt Timms

    I guess I should stop looking for the Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Facebook page anytime soon.

  • Roy

    IMHO Facebook has pretty prudish standards, and I’d like to see them lighten up a bit.

    However, they have to draw a line somewhere and it could be argued that the line gets even “blurrier” and harder to define (& thus enforce) if they relax it.

    AND… Facebook is still Zuckerberg’s private playground, so you have to accept his TOS if you want to play there.

    I just don’t understand where he gets a team of like-minded Victorian spinster-biddy censors from. Who would want that job?

    Everything has it’s day in the sun – or it’s 15 minutes. If enough people become annoyed at Facebook that there’s a need/want/desire for a replacement then it will happen soon enough, and Facebook will join MySpace in the bit-bucket of irrelevance.

  • Me

    Someone once told me that the difference between pornography and art were the staples. Personally, I think the painted body pregnancy photo was artistic. But, I certainly don’t want to visit Facebook to see waggling penises, open snatches or hairy butt-holes. Boobs? What the hell… there’s plenty of guys I know whose man-titties put mine to shame but I would definitely draw the line at folks engaged in “coitus” ;)

  • http://www.jkershaw.info James Kershaw

    I don’t see anything wrong with exposing the naked body for art’s sake. The degree of inappropriateness is determined by the mind of the viewer and society’s rules and religious teachings. Some people try to make a show out of it by engaging in sexual behavior and even try to sell the movies/photos for profit. I’ve seen a lot of these movies. Some aren’t too bad but most of them are really bad. These days it seems you can’t find any good porn because nothing is left to the imagination. I don’t waste my time.

  • pb-box

    the next ist Porno and then Pedo´s

  • http://www.csparanormalresearch.com Angela Ashton

    They have moved several of my images and I don’t post anything vulgar or pornographic. The biggest thing for me is I keep getting grounded. I don’t think I ever got grounded as a child. I have over 1,000 friend requests waiting in my queue so I rarely request anyone. Facebook suggests friends daily and on the rare occasion I do click one. I was grounded for 14 days and as soon as that was lifted and I clicked another and am now grounded for 30 days…that’s 44 days I can’t request a friend, post on their wall or message anyone not on my list. SERIOUSLY? Isn’t this a social networking site?? Not only do I run a business from my page and need to send messages to customers at times, but I also run a social networking business that promotes Facebook. I think they need to stop running it like an elementary school and let it run for what it’s supposed to be….a social networking platform. It’s getting ridiculous.

  • TheUser

    F*** Facebook I don’t need their useless crappy service… I hope they get nowhere like MySpace…

  • Gary Sloughfy

    So we have people that are closet viewers, that only want it in their bedroom..And, People that believe Naked/Nude women should be posted everywhere. 1st one- Stop being anal. 2nd one- That means you shouldn’t have a problem with men putting pictures of their cocks everywhere, right? Or are you just closed minded?
    The REAL problem Josh? With MILLIONS of people posting pictures DAILY, how can ALL of them be looked at, and judged, whether appropriate or not? The internet, is like a book, a TV, the walls of the house, etc. In other words, with a public site, like Facebook, where YOUNG people are members… Ask yourself this, HONESTLY- Would you allow your 11 year old daughter, to hang a poster in her room, of a big stiff cock? Or, the 11 year old son, to hang a poster, a close up of a ladies hands spreading her pussy lips, allowing FULL view for him and his friends? There must be a limit, to what is allowed on some sites. You DO SEE in day to day life, and children see it too, women in very skimpy clothes(swimsuits & etc). You DON’T see them walking around NUDE.
    As for me, I loved the photo! Hell, having been into art for DECADES, I love the human form. It’s just…impressive. But it comes down to the basic, is she nude or not? If nude isn’t allowed, then it should be taken down. Maybe Facebook needs to come up with a filter, for ‘adult’ related material.

  • http://cass-hacks.com Craig

    One may wonder wonder whether or not there is a correlation between the US and the UK having the most sexually repressed and repressive societies also having the highest number of serial killers, the UK having more than the rest of the world combined, except the US and the US having about 3 or 4 times the UK.

    The more people try to ‘protect’ children from the world, the more they need to be protected from each other when they grow up.

  • http://www.howtobecomeanaffiliatemarketer.com Andre Daniel Rice

    Anyone who wants or sees this as anything sexual to me has been influenced by their surroundings to a blinding degree. A naked body is only part of sex and sexual desire. Therefore the question then becomes, why is a naked body that is expressed in a way non sexual being looked at as being just sexual. It seems a lot of us are operating on animalistic modality that has no control, respect or appreciation.
    I agree that Facebook’s policies seem a little politically correct concerning the photo. It’s only perverse humans who will see this as sexual. Children will not. Says a lot for our sexual education and perceptions, a lot of which is forced upon us by media.

  • SCWinner

    I support the FACEBOOK position. The rules are set…you should know the rules when you join…go someplace else to see or post things that FACEBOOK does not allow! That’s not “censorship” on FACEBOOK’s part…it’s simply setting a level of expectations by all parties who join & then enforcing those rules. Way to go FACEBOOK!

  • Jason

    No nudity means no nudity. Seems like the line is pretty black and white to me. What this is, is another classic example of a liberal writer trying to gray a line.

  • bob

    I think if people want to look at nude photos or post nude pics, that’s great. The art photos are beautiful. However, when it comes to porn, I don’t need or want others to choose that experience for me. I am capable of determining what, where, and when I want to look at porn, not just because someone on FB thinks it’s cool. That’s what can make some of those images demeaning or offensive especially to women because they are generally the main topic of porn photos. Porn has its place, it can be fun for men and women alike, but it becomes abusive when it is used to trick people into clicking on bad links (click jacking, or it contains malware, viruses, or is used in a phishing attack. Using porn to trick or hurt people IS wrong and shouldn’t be allowed, thumbs up to FB for making the effort even though some legitimate pictures may have been removed in the process.

    So some immature guy posts some dirty pics on FB, what does that say about him? Similar to the “religion is like a penis idea”; it’s fine to have one but don’t take it out and wave it in my face. If people want to view porn, fine, but don’t push it on everyone, we are quite capable of choosing our own, thank you.

  • http://www.endlessemergency.com Robert

    Facebook’s policy is ridiculous. However, what’s more ridiculous is Google / YouTube’s policy of allowing animal sex videos, like dogs having sex one million views plus, which they won’t remove despite repeated reports so their nasty content pops up among your site’s youtube offerings and then Google thinks (gets complaints) you have adult content so your site is moved out of their listings for moderate content into adult.

  • Jon

    At what point did people start feeling entitled to telling Facebook how to run their business? It’s a free service. You either accept how they run their site or move along. Facebook can censor whatever they want.

  • Storm

    Defining such things would mean that Facebook had to make value judgements about artistic merit. Something that the average reader of this column is also apparently incapable of doing.

  • typomonkey

    Well, she agreed to the site’s regulations. Like it or not, it seems fair to me. Also, they gave her a warning and did not over react.

  • Grayman

    While I agree wholeheartedly with your comments, and acknowledge that Facebook is draconian in it’s approach to photos, the larger question is HOW do we convince Facebook to relax their stance. No amount of breast-beating (pardon the pun) here will make them listen, so the argument just falls on deaf ears. Let’s hope someone at Facebook at some point develops some common sense.

  • Phil

    Mike, I respectfully disagree with you on this. Pushing the limits on the age old art/nudity/pornography discourse will always be in play. With Facebook craving a large demographic I believe that they can use serious discretion. There are other venues for the righteous ‘artists’ to exhibit female breasts, painted or otherwise, and other titillating images. I prefer to not be ‘exposed’ to either cheap thrills or naked art on Facebook. Juvenile, worn arguments to the contrary are just that IMHO.

  • dorseyw

    I personally don’t want to see nudity or pornography on Facebook. God created the human body, nudity is for husband and wife in marriage, not for everyone to see a persons nude body. I believe in morals, children look at Facebook.

  • http://cannes-or-bust.com/ Michael in Cannes

    Josh, I hate to break it to you but the problem is not with Facebook. It’s with the puritanical turn that American society has taken, where breastfeeding is considered at the very least embarrassing and obscene in some quarters. Don’t you remember Nipplegate? The reaction to that was laughable, yet is now apparently mainstream.

  • http://www.lovecoachjourney.com/ Nikki

    While I totally agree about protecting children — there is a simple solution which allows adults to share what they want and to protect children. One solution was mentioned — have an “office safe” option like they have on StumbleUpon. The other solution is for parents to be aware of who and what their children are connected to on Facebook. Monitor your own children – not the other adults. If I post something about a relationship topic on an account — and I do this a lot — then people have the option NOT to connect with me on Facebook. If someone sends me a friend request and I think they will be offended by the content I post, I send a short message before accepting their friend invite. Why not put an age blocking system on Facebook or a block like BlogTalkRadio uses. Users can choose not to see results for mature or unrated content — its just not this complicated. If you don’t want to see lingerie pictures – then don’t connect with people who post them. I get tired of seeing people post pictures looking down their shirt – so I delete them from my friends list if there are other things I don’t like or delete them from my newsfeed. Takes less than a minute and solves the problem.

  • http://www.BirthHypnosis.net Sarah Johnson

    As a birth professional I am very angry at Facebook’s attitude to any images related to breastfeeding.
    Breastmilk is not just “best” for babies, it is the normal choice and only women who have serious problems with breastfeeding need to choose formula milk. The constituents of breastmilk are completely inimitable and even change with the age and needs of the baby, which formula does not.
    I belong to a range of groups discussing breastfeeding and supporting new parents. The key word here is “supporting”. The most important issue around breastfeeding is that of acceptance and the slightest suggestion that it is in some way “dirty” really does put off thousands, maybe millions of young mothers who could be feeding their children properly. The subliminal message which mothers-to-be are getting from Facebook is that breastfeeding is somehow “strange” and this is a deeply powerful and damaging concept.
    In addition we need the freedom to show pictures where a baby is latching on to the breast correctly or incorrectly because many Western women have never seen breastfeeding done – they have no more idea how to do it than you would if someone gave you a bicycle for your birthday and you had never seen anyone riding a bicycle.
    The sexualisation of breasts as though they were a primary sexual characteristic instead of a secondary one – well, to me this reveals the fact that Facebook is run by young guys who weren’t adequately breastfed as babies, frankly. I think they have absolutely NO idea how much human damage they are doing.

  • http://www.australianholidayguide.com mark oliver

    People in the United States have always had a weird phobia or words and images of nudity and sexuality. They are happy to show graphic violence, but no nudity. So, I can show a scene in a movie where I blast a girl with a shotgun as long as she is not naked. That is just crazy.

    Here in Australia it is funny to see American TV shows with all the bleeps and then hear a similar conversation from Europe or Australia uncensored. We see many films on TV with sexual content. The United States is one of the least free media countries, which again goes against the ‘Home of the FREE and land of the brave’ dialog.

    Grow up! It just doesn’t matter. If you are worried about anything – censor the useless violence.

  • Anne

    What, are our comments being censored now? I posted a comment this afternoon, which was published. But now it’s gone! Maybe because I intimated that both Facebook and the author of this article don’t know the difference between a sexually provocative photograph of a nude or nearly nude woman and one that’s not?

  • Grandmum

    Lets just concider for a moment that my 6 year old grand daughter is looking at her mothers facebook page with her Mum and comes across the picture in question.
    I can tell you right now. I would be offended. There are TOOOOOO many other sites out there to share this kind of subject matter on. I applaud facebook that they are sticking to there rules.
    If you have a problem with them ~ then maybe MY SPACE is your PLACE.

    If you know the rules to the game and wanna play then don’t complain if you are penalized for breaking the rules while playing the game….

  • http://gfashion.infored.mx/ Jerry

    hypocrites
    Every body likes nudity
    What about the fashion business. Is that obscene?
    Facebook and other sites are just ridiculous.

  • Susan

    When anyone uses a particular website, they agree to that website’s terms of use policy. Facebook’s policy states that nudity is forbidden. It doesn’t qualify that word “nudity” as obscene nudity or painted nudity, artistic nudity, or anything else. Nudity is simply nudity. If you don’t agree with Facebook’s policy, then stop using their service. It is as simple as that.

    I’m not saying that you can’t petition Facebook to change their policy — just that you can’t legitimately complain about the removal of pictures containing nudity of any kind.

    Many website policies state that if you don’t agree to abide by it, then don’t use the website services. Many policies furthermore state that they can change the terms at any time, that it is your responsibility to keep updated on any changes, and that if you disagree with the changes, you must terminate your use of that website.

    Yes, by the phrase “and other obscene material” one can infer that Facebook considers any type of nudity to be obscene, but Facebook doesn’t qualify their use of the word nudity — it is simply “nudity”. Besides, the word obscene describes an opinion that would vary from person to person. That word needs to be clearly described in the terms — I have not taken the time to reread Facebook’s terms again, so I don’t know if they defined obscene or not.

    In any case, though, nudity is simply nudity in their terms (as the above article has quoted).

    It sickens me to see people complaining about something that they had legally agreed to in the first place. Just as ignorance of the law is no excuse from being prosecuted if you break it, you should never enter into a contract without fully reading and understanding it first.

    • Susan

      Furthermore, if the quote of Facebook policy has the correct punctuation, the “other obscene content” does not refer to nudity at all, for there is no comma after “drug use”. (I reviewed the above article right after my initial post.)

      This article states:

      ‘Facebook’s current policy says that the user “will not post content that: is hateful, threatening, or pornographic; incites violence; or contains nudity or graphic or gratuitous violence.” It goes on to say that a photo can and will be removed if it “contain[s] nudity, drug use or other obscene content. If the photo attacks another individual or group, it will be removed as well.”’

      If “other obscene content” was describing “nudity”, then there would be a comma after “drug use” as well.

  • Michael Cross

    Personally, I think they should have a sanitized version for kids, but its not like that’s going to happen. That being said, I like the fact that Facebook has policies on nudity. Yeah, breastfeeding is natural, nudity is natural, sex is natural … but it doesn’t mean everyone wants to see it. The fact is, if you don’t like their policy, find a different site. There’s nothing keeping you on Facebook if that’s what you’re looking for. If you want to look at naked pregnant women, women breastfeeding, or damn near anything else natural or unnatural, just Google it and go.

  • http://thefoothillspaper.com David DeMulle’

    We have the license for a music arrangement and we notified facebook that it was licensed to us and where should we send the license materials? They still pulled our upload stating “It is possible that you are using copyrighted music!” Well damn, that’s why we notified them that we did.

  • Stewart Rosenkrantz

    I’m sick of anyone who thinks they’re superior enough to determine what I can see. The only pornography is in the eye of the censor. They can’t stand that anyone can see these images. They’re just uncomfortable with sex.

  • http://www.helium.com/users/492551/show_articles Connie Kirkpatrick

    You are asking FB to become the moral police in situations such as this. Granted each item, article or photo, video or ??? should be taken on its own merit and judged accordingly. I had pics of my pregnant body taken with all three of my pregnancies. With each one I was gorgeous. :) I would not change the decision then. Course my ex has them hidden away or finally burned them. But, I loved showing off my pregnant body. I use to wear a bikini to go swimming and sunbathing. Those that objected were horrified by their own bodies, so why not mine.

    My point is to each his or her own. But, FREEDOM of SPEECH cannot be censored. Everyone has their rights.

    I do understand the strict rule. The FB authorities would be busy all day screening photos. There would be no time for anything else. Why not make an adult only content? Too complicated and to costly?

    Put pasties on those nipples and no one will complain. LOL A joke.

    Thank you for letting me share.

  • kera mchugh

    wow…
    Linda Smyth.. “basic lack of self-respect”? because I might actually like my body enough to have a photo taken of it in which not every square inch is covered, or that might suggest that i have healthy sense of my own innate sexuality? Granted, there’s a very fine line between pornographic and artistic images, and it’s often quite subjective, but hardly your place to determine someone’s level of self respect based on a photograph.

    ChrisCD.. “belongs to someone else”??????? what century do you live in?

    Leila – totally logical solution – facebook seems capable of forcing us to do all kind of other things, why not force underage users to not be able to see the photos, problem solved (until they go change their age, of course).

    I don’t get this idea that the human body is obscene. Seriously, we have some screwed up ideas here in north america. Thank you, mainstream media.

    Yep, facebook is free, why are we caring so much about their policies? Because, they seem to feel entitled to do whatever they feel like with the information with share – including make BILLIONS OF DOLLARS IN ADVERTISING – so maybe we should have a little more say in how policy is structured? Essentially we are stockholderd – tho we’ll never see a dime in dividends – but it’s OUR data that they are trading on.

    This issue will never be settled… but it sure does make for interesting comment streams!

  • http://www.chimineasonline.com Randy

    Nudity disguised as art is still nudity, and therefore provokes sexual thoughts. If it is viewed in a sexual manner it is therefore porn. No matter what your personal opinions are.

  • http://www.itprojectmanagementsingapore.com Peter Fowler

    I think that removal of any content in error is a concern as clearly the process or mechanism being used to filter and make decisions on suitability is flawed. This is a fundamental issue that Facebook should deal with immediately. On the subject of general appropriateness of images – I’m all in favour of allowing anything that is generally accessible through other publications such as newspapers, quality magazines etc. What’s the use in Facebook standing alone in a world of acceptance of such images? It does nothing to add credibility to the Facebook organisation, quite the opposite. If they are so concerned with moral standards then they should look elsewhere in how they manage their business. I hear things from other major IT organisations about Facebook that really concern me – breaches of our rights potentially. Sort these out Facebook!!

  • http://www.facebook.com/aragum Hans Upton

    We run a successful Community support page (“Arugam Surf”)
    This page attracted more than 100,000 Likes.
    A few times innocent surf photos were removed and once the entire page was blocked by FB.

    Below is the last incident, which we reported back in October last year.
    To this day, no response or answer has been received from Facebook.
    Text of our mail below:

    Dear Sean & Ms. Penelope,
    (We hope you are still with FB ),

    Re.: www.facebook.com/aragum

    Our remote, poor and troubled Arugam Bay Community has never forgotten your assistance just under a year ago.
    Indeed, our Community support pages are quoted widely and we have now already grown to over 60,000 Likes.

    There is just one issue which we need to resolve:

    Yesterday, an innocent photo of a Surfer Girl in a (OK: Tight) bikini on her own board -was removed by one member of your staff.
    I, as the creator and administrator, have been warned and blocked (again?).

    Whilst we respect your rules and guidelines none of us can actually understand your decision.

    Is it really the case, that a photo believed having been taken at an International Surf Competition, in a very conservative Country, violates your rules?

    In this case, events like our forthcoming lady’s Beach Volley Ball Commonwealth games 2012 will be at risk to be reported etc.

    Please clarify this matter for us, as we highly rely on Facebook these days.
    In a sort of Military Dictatorship situation it is essential to communicate to the free world.
    That is often done with seemingly unrelated posts and photos to attract wider attention. But the underlying purpose is to get a much more serious message across.
    (You will not know, but the Military demolished all of our houses and businesses last week in a crack down. We still consider what we can do without being shot or imprisoned……)

    Kind regards

    Hans Upton,

    from
    Arugam Bay
    Eastern Sri Lanka

  • http://sunnyfun.com Tom Mulhall

    I have a link to a photo that facebook deleted for “nudity” even though as far as anyone knows, Mary Clare could have been wearing a tube top, bikini top, dress, etc. behind the computer. It doesn’t even show cleavage!

    Facebook has long had this nudity and breast phobia and many times acts like 12 year old boys tittering in a corner looking at woman in old National Geographic Magazines. And since Facebook has no customer service department, there is no way to correct their mistakes or appeal decisions. I was banned from posting for 7 or 30 days, I forget which for posting this non nude “nude” photo.

    Tumblr, Twitter, Google, Yahoo and many more sites are able differentiate between pornography and nudity, why can’t facebook? They already know if you are 18 or older, and they even let facebook pages be 18 and over pages. So it shouldn’t be hard.

    Facebook says they don’t allow hate groups either. Yet there are I Hate Israel sites and I hate US sites. So basically, facebook doesn’t enforce their rules except for their fear of nudity and breasts.

    http://theterracottainn.blogspot.com/2012/02/web-pro-news-has-excellent-article.html

  • William

    Having had a sexual addiction, the buxom reclining beauty would have caused me problems at one time. The tastefully photographed pregnant woman would not have turned me on in such a way. It would have been just what it was meant to be a real ‘spiritually’ human moment. That is my experience. With that said, there are people who would(and will) “get off” sexually with the tasteful pregnant pose. But those types will “get off” with well endowed women fully clothed. How about the thought of removing all nudity, semi-nudity…Let’s just allow an avatar of a woman with a long sleeved blouse and floor length skirt with her hair in a bun.

  • Kris

    I think it’s just a matter of policy because of the fact that they do not want to get in a position where it becomes an argument and they’re suddenly having to make determinations on what’s “art” and what isn’t. I personally don’t blame them for having an across the board policy.

    Also, think about this, the only reason they even know about the photos is because one of your friends found it offensive enough to report it. That’s how they review photos in the first place.

  • Zorro

    This is ridiculous, seeing any part of a body is seen as something bad, but we are all allowed to view killings, murders and human body being cut up in movies and TV shows like CSI or Bones.

    This makes no sense at all, it is OK to desensitize our kids to horror and make them into killers, but heaven forbid they see a breast.

  • http://www.mortgage-investments.com Norman

    I don’t have any problem with anything Facebook does as I don’t have and never will have an account.

    I seriously believe one of the reasons that the Western world has fallen behind China is the billions of productive hours wasted looking at “friends” party, holiday, baby etc. pictures.

    If I want to contact friends I can send them an email. If I have taken some nice pics or a video I can send them the link to my flickr or youtube a/c. Or I can even pick up the phone and call them. There’s a novel concept.

    But as for checking in 10 times a day to see what my friends are doing… please, I don’t have time to waste like this.

    Why on earth do people want to share their private lives with strangers and become targeted by advertising?

    For the record I am an international businessman with homes and friends in four countries. And I STILL don’t need Facebook to stay in touch with them.

  • Kris

    Ironically, at least on porn star has a topless photo as her profile photo. Here: Luana Borgia

  • http://www.platinumprotradingsystem.com John

    Thank you for an interesting article. I hadn’t read the TOS and wasn’t aware of that policy. Guess I’d better not post those naughty pics of myself that I just took on the webcam.. and definitely not the video.

    To my mind, Zuckerberg’s painfully puritanical position is preposterous, potentially, if not positively pathetic, and probably the result of getting laid too little. Although one would think he wouldn’t have that problem given his financial circumstance. Whatever the case he is obviously a very confused man.

    When I see a nude woman I see one of the most stunning examples of God’s natural beauty in existence. That picture in particular is lovely given that she is one, embellished by wonderful artwork, and two, pregnant. How much more lovely can it get than that?

  • john

    I think FB cannot be strict enough. As one working with FB on a daily basis I’m tired of all those idiots using FB as a way to promote porn or using penis profile pictures. I can fully understand their policies regarding this matter and I would do exactly the same to protect my companies best interests. And this comes from a very liberal person but on FB there is just no space for anything like this.