Today, as mere formality, Facebook’s VP of Communications and Public Policy Ellliot Schrage made it official. Facebook has officially chosen to adopt the proposed changes to its policies.

“While participation in the vote was minimal, this experience illustrated the clear value of our notice and comment process. Your substantive feedback on our proposals during the seven-day comment period, along with discussions with our global regulators, resulted in clarifications and revisions to those proposals. For example, we added new language to clarify our proposed updates on sharing information with our affiliates and our privacy controls. After considering these factors, we have decided to adopt the proposed updates to our SRR and Data Use Policy.” he said in a Governance note.

The final tally was 589,141 against the changes and 79,731 for. That’s a total of 668,872 total votes, or less than 1% of the total Facebook users base. The results would have been binding if 30% of Facebook users would have participated.

Schrage says that Facebook did their part to inform users of the vote, a statement which will see no argument here. It turns out that users simply aren’t that interested in policy changes or keeping their ability to vote intact.

“We made substantial efforts to inform our users and encourage them to vote, both through emails and their news feeds. Despite these efforts and widespread media coverage, less than one percent of our user community of more than one billion participated. As stated in both policies, the results are advisory unless more than 30% of users vote”

As mentioned before, this is merely a formal announcement from Facebook, as we all knew what the results were going to be from day one. Facebook says they will attempt to solicit even more user feedback on proposed policy changes, and “explore and implement new, innovative and effective ways to enhance this process in order to maximize user engagement.” But the vote is now dead. Now, we can move on.

Voting is over in Facebook’s third (and final) Site Governance vote. With just under 700,000 votes cast, Facebook users overwhelmingly voted against proposed changes to Facebook’s SSR and Data Use policies, as well as the decision to remove the current voting system for site governance. But in the end, the turnout was simply too low for it to matter.

It’s not like we expected a different outcome. We knew that users would vote against the changes, and we knew that the vote would not receive enough participation to make itself binding. With the current (soon to be dismantled) Site Governance Vote structure, 30% of Facebook’s 1 billion+ users would have had to vote in order to make Facebook act on the will of the user base. Since somewhere around 0.7% voted this past week, the results are simply advisory. Of course, advisory means that Facebook can simply ignore them.

We knew all of this because Facebook’s “democratic” Site Governance vote was set up to fail. The structure simply doesn’t allow for success. It’s not a lack of promotion on Facebook’s end that makes it this way. Another way of saying that is to say that Facebook isn’t trying to hide the vote. They sent out emails to every registered user reminding them to cast their vote. They allowed users to share the fact that they voted with their friends from inside the Site Governance Voting app. They made several public blog posts on the topic, which linked users to additional information on the changes to the policies.

But mobilizing over 300 million people to vote on something that is pretty much immaterial to their daily lives is a task, to put it lightly. Previous Site Governance votes generated 665,000 and 342,000 votes, respectively – and this third and final vote eclipsed those numbers. But despite a record turnout, we still needed over 299 million more users to vote in order to give the vote meaning – which is virtually impossible (and always was). The early pace of participation hinted that the turnout would top one million – but it obviously slowed down in the final days.

Where do we go from here? Facebook will still solicit user feedback on future policy changes. They’re going to hold Q&A sessions with policy people and may end up involving users in the process more than they ever have. But the vote will be gone. The vote that 99% of Facebook users didn’t care about enough to make a few clicks.

So, most people won’t miss the vote. The vote never really meant anything, anyway. Plus, Facebook had a point when they said that the vote triggering mechanism (7,000 comments) was outdated and ripe for manipulation.

But in the end, we can say that Facebook successfully eliminated voting that doesn’t matter with a vote that didn’t matter. Now, let’s move on.

Yesterday we told you that most Facebook users were voting against the proposed changes to Facebook policy, which include additions to the SSR and Data Use policies, as well as the abolishment of the current voting system. We also told you that it doesn’t really matter, as there’s no way that enough people will vote to make the results binding. Facebook requires that 30% of the member base (roughly 300 million, currently) vote, otherwise the results are simply advisory. And in this case, “advisory” simply means Facebook gets to do what they want and push the new policies through.

The last Site Governance vote, which took place in June, saw 342,632 participants. By 3pm ET today, the number of participants on the current vote had already topped 300,000 – and it’s only day three. Facebook users have until December 10th at 3pm ET to cast their vote. So if the participation rate stays roughly the same, just over 1 million users will end up taking the time to vote.

As you can see, the users that have already voted are overwhelmingly voting no:

Although the vote is on pace to best the previous level of participation by over 200%, it will still only account for around 1% of all Facebook users.

Facebook is sending out emails to all of its members reminding them of the vote, but barring some sort of Stanford band-level miracle, this will be the last time that Facebook users will ever be able to vote on proposed policy changes.

Like previous Site Governance votes, Facebook is letting users weigh in on proposed changes to the site’s governing documents. The big difference this time is that Facebook is also letting users weigh in on whether or not this should be the last time they get to vote on these types of changes. Facebook wants to get rid of the roughly three-year-old system that allows users to trigger a vote on policy changes with a comment threshold, saying that the site has “outgrown” the system.

Have you participated in a Facebook Site Governance vote? Do you even care? Let us know what you think in the comments.

Apart from the voting mechanism, Facebook wants to change their policy on sharing data with affiliates, as well as Facebook Messages and data visibility on users’ Timelines (for more on those policy changes, check here). As expected, the early vote looks to swing hard toward “nay” on these changes. But with Facebook’s current Site Governance voting structure, users simply have no real chance in affecting the company’s policy.

That’s where Facebook and its users can agree: the voting system is flawed and the site has most definitely outgrown it. From Facebook’s point of view, the 7,000 comment threshold designed to trigger a vote lends itself to manipulation by over-zealous privacy advocates. And they’re right – it’s happened before. The last Site Governance vote back in June was triggered in large part by the efforts by a privacy group called Europe v. Facebook, who flooded the policy proposals with comments to force the vote.

That vote saw a whopping .038% participation rate from Facebook users. Because of the low turnout, Facebook was able to push the proposed policy changes through even though a majority of users voted against them.

And that’s the other reason why the current voting system is broken. Once a vote is triggered, users have about a week to cast their vote. Facebook then requires that 30% of the active user base vote in order for the results of said vote to be binding. If fewer than 30% vote, the results are merely “advisory.” Read: Facebook can ignore them altogether.

Since Facebook has over 1 billion MAUs, that means that over 300,000,000 users would have to vote in order for Facebook to be held to the will of the user base. Last vote saw 342,632 participants. I’m sure you see the problem here.

That’s why it’s incredibly unlikely that the current Site Governance vote, no matter how it turns out, will be a binding mandate from the people. There’s just not enough interest in the process. As it stands, Facebook’s voting system is too easy to manipulate and so demanding as to render it worthless.

In June, when the vote received such a low participation rate, Facebook defended their 30% threshold, saying,

“We made significant efforts to make voting easy and accessible – including translating the documents and voting application into several of the world’s most popular languages and providing extensive notice through users’ news feeds and desktop and mobile advertisements. There has also been widespread media attention and coverage of our notice and comment and voting process.”

At the time, Facebook said that they would “review the process to determine how to maximize our ability to promote user engagement and participation in our site governance process in the future.” And as we now know, that review led to the conclusion that the whole thing be scrapped in favor of a more involved user feedback program for proposed policy changes.

That brings us the the current vote, in progress. After nearly a day of voting, users are overwhelmingly against the new policies. Here’s what the vote looks like right now:

Although 58,000 votes in less than 24 hours seems like a lot of interest, you have to realize just how small of a chunk of the entire user base it really is. Considering Facebook has 1 billion active users, the current tally represents .0058% of all users. That has to somehow make its way to 30% by December 10th. I think it’s safe to say that it’s highly unlikely, if not impossible.

So, Facebook’s new privacy changes and the abolition of the voting process will go through as planned. While the current voting system is obviously worthless, I don’t think that a voting system is worthless. One that made it harder to trigger a vote, but easier to make that vote binding sounds like a pretty good option – at least to try. In reality, generating enough interest in something like a Site Governance vote would always be a difficult venture. But eliminating the vote entirely is sure to piss people off.

The only problem is that it’s not going to piss off nearly enough people for it to matter.

What do you think? Should Facebook get rid of the voting mechanism for proposed policy changes? What kind of system do you think would work best? How could the company prevent manipulation but allow users to have their voice heard? Let us know in the comments.

A couple of weeks ago, Facebook announced that they wished to eliminate the current process of voting on proposed governance and policy changes. They claimed to have “outgrown” the system, which triggers a vote on any change if a 7,000-comment threshold is reached. In lieu of this voting system, Facebook has suggested open dialogue sessions and Q&As with privacy officers.

The 7,000-comment threshold was quickly hit on this post, which triggered the vote that begins today. So yes, users now get to vote on whether or not to strip themselves of the right to vote.

“Some of you were concerned that by ending the vote mechanism, you were losing your ability to shape the policies that govern Facebook. To be clear, our goal in modifying our site governance process is to make sure that we receive feedback from you in the best, most productive way possible so that we can be responsive to your input. Many of you provided us with ideas on how we could continue to meet that goal. You pointed out that our decision to update the process gives us an opportunity to innovate and search for new and better ways to enhance participation. We agree and will incorporate your suggestions into creating new tools that enhance communication on Facebook about privacy and governance,” says Facebook in an explanation of changes posted today.

Other than the voting mechanism, this current Site Governance vote covers data sharing with affiliates, changes to Facebook Messages, and changes to data availability with regards to the Timeline. You can check out Facebook’s explanation of these policy changes here.

To vote, held on over to the Governance Voting app. In order for a vote to be binding, 30% of Facebook users have to participate. That’s roughly 300 million users. If fewer than 30% turn out to vote, the results are simply “advisory,” meaning Facebook can do what they want. considering a whopping 342,632 users (.038%) voted in the last Site Governance vote, it’s safe to say that these changes will probably be pushed through in a week’s time.

You have until December 10th at noon PT to cast your vote.

In the end, you have to cut Facebook some slack. Just think about how difficult the task of moderating all of that content must be. Of course, no amount of discerning eyes could adequately cycle through the billions and billions of links, photos, and videos shared each and every day. Facebook continues to rely heavily on user reporting, and its crew of moderators at multiple global offices have a tough job – mainly determining what content violates Facebook restrictions, however convoluted they may be.

Having said that, it’s always funny when Facebook bans content that has no reason to be banned. The latest case involves this image, which features a nude women reclining in a bathtub.

Except there’s no nudity or even any suggestion of sexual activity. Here’s the image:

Did it fool you? Yes, what appears to be an exposed breast is actually just the woman’s elbow. Doesn’t matter, however, as Facebook removed the content anyway.

The image was posted by the Theories of the deep understanding of things page, who decided to troll the social network in order to test its photo removal policy.

“So, Here’s last night’s FB alertness test results: FB moderators can’t tell an elbow from a dangerous, filthy, uncanny and violent female breast>> no questions were asked and the post is down> Imagine our surprise >” they said in a post.

Apparently, they set out to provoke Facebook and succeeded.

Facebook’s current policy bans “Any obvious sexual activity, even if naked parts are hidden from view by hands, clothing or other objects. Cartoon/art included. Foreplay allowed (kissing, groping, etc.) even for same-sex individuals. Naked ‘private part,’ including females nipple bulges and naked butt cracks; male nipples are ok.” Arty nudity is OK, but breastfeeding images are still a no-go. It looks like elbows are on the no-post list as well.

Like I said before, policing all of that content must be a nightmare. Back in September, Facebook mistakenly removed a New Yorker cartoon, which contained the most harmless depiction of female breasts imaginable (two black dots for nipples). After public outcry, Facebook made this statement:

“Recently, we mistakenly blocked a cartoon as part of our efforts to keep the site safe for all and quickly worked to rectify the mistake as soon as we were notified. Facebook is a place where almost a billion people share click more than a trillion links a day. Our dedicated User Operations Team reviews millions of pieces of this content a day to help keep Facebook safe for all. Our policies are enforced by a team of reviewers in several offices across the globe. This team looks at hundreds of thousands of reports every week, and as you might expect, occasionally, we make a mistake and block a piece of content we shouldn’t have. We have already taken steps to prevent this from happening in the future and we sincerely apologize for any inconvenience.”

In short, Facebook and its content moderators make mistakes. It’s inevitable. But a slight relaxing of the aforementioned content policies probably wouldn’t hurt. It would definitely result in less ridiculous removals like we see in this case. Then again, nobody wants Facebook to turn into YouPorn.

Since 2009, a vote is triggered on proposed policy changes if the proposal receives a certain amount of comments (7,000). The last Site Governance vote was triggered by a coordinated campaign from privacy groups to force a vote on proposed privacy policy additions. They succeeded in triggering the vote, but failed in mobilizing enough users to participate int he vote to force Facebook to go their way.

Now, Facebook wants that trigger to go away, saying they’ve outgrown it.

Here’s what VP of Communications, Public Policy, and Marketing Elliot Schrage had to say today:

Our goal has always been to find ways to effectively engage your views when we propose changes to our governing policies. That commitment guided our decision in 2009 to launch an unprecedented process for user feedback. When we held our second global site governance vote in June, we indicated that we would review our site governance process in light of the growth of both our community – to over one billion users – and our company – which is now publicly traded and accountable to regulators around the world. Our intention was to make sure the process still served its original purpose.

As a result of this review, we are proposing to restructure our site governance process. We deeply value the feedback we receive from you during our comment period. In the past, your substantive feedback has led to changes to the proposals we made. However, we found that the voting mechanism, which is triggered by a specific number of comments, actually resulted in a system that incentivized the quantity of comments over their quality. Therefore, we’re proposing to end the voting component of the process in favor of a system that leads to more meaningful feedback and engagement.

In lieu of voting on future changes to policy, Facebook wants to focus more on comments and open dialogue with users. They say they’ll be launching a “Ask the Chief Privacy Officer” feature that lets users submit questions and comments to Erin Egan via Facebook’s Privacy page. Egan will also host various privacy, safety, and security webcasts via Facebook Live.

Facebook wants users to comment on the proposed changes. If they get 7,000 comments, users will be able to vote on the right to keep being able to vote. The tricky part is not getting 7,000 comments, however – it’s meeting the minimum threshold for voter participation.

You see, to make a vote binding, 30% of all Facebook users must participate in the vote. If you do the math, that’s roughly 300,000,000 of Facebook’s 1 billion users.

To make a long story short, that’s not likely. For the last Site Governance vote, a whopping 342,632 Facebook users voted, roughly .038%. That last vote centered on some proposed changes to Facebook’s Data Use and SSR policies.

Yes, you’re reading this correctly. Facebook is having a vote on whether or not you should be allowed to vote anymore, and the results are all but already determined.

These proposed changes also include a few updates to the Data use Policy, but the big thing here is voting on the right to vote. What’s up with that? Well, it’s clear that the mechanism to trigger votes is not proper for a site of over 1 billion. With a 7,000-vote threshold, anyone can trigger a vote, really. Plus, Facebook users may bitch about Facebook stripping their right to vote, but as I mentioned before – nobody really voted last time. Maybe Facebook should simply make it harder to trigger a Site Governance vote. That way, people would still have their vote but would be more invested in the issues at hand.

What do you think?

You can comment on the proposed changes as well as find links to those proposed changes here.

In a move of local censorship, Twitter has apparently blocked German users from accessing the tweets of an account said to belong to a neo-Nazi group.

According to the New York Times, Twitter has blocked the account @hannoverticker, wich belongs to the group Besseres Hannover. In English, that translates to “Better Hannover.” German authorities had requested that Twitter simply block the account entirely, but Twitter has apparently acted upon their self-expressed ability to censor content locally without affecting the content globally.

Should Twitter (and other sites like Facebook and Google) act as policemen for their content? What, if anything should be censored? Is any censorship a slippery slope to more censorship? Let us know what you think in the comments.

Back in 2004, a German appeals court upheld a ban on web sites disseminating neo-Nazi information.

This marks the first time that Twitter has used this controversial measure. Here’s what Twitter General Counsel Alex Macgillivray had to say in a tweet:

Follow @amac

Alex Macgillivray
@amac

We announced the ability to withhold content back in Jan. We’re using it now for the first time re: a group deemed illegal in Germany.

 Reply  ·  Retweet  ·  Favorite
11 hours ago via web · powered by @socialditto

Twitter gave itself the ability to locally censor content on their site back in January. Here’s what they had to say about the new policy:

Until now, the only way we could take account of those countries’ limits was to remove content globally. Starting today, we give ourselves the ability to reactively withhold content from users in a specific country — while keeping it available in the rest of the world. We have also built in a way to communicate transparently to users when content is withheld, and why.

We haven’t yet used this ability, but if and when we are required to withhold a Tweet in a specific country, we will attempt to let the user know, and we will clearly mark when the content has been withheld.

This was seen as a modification, if not a clear reversal of Twitter’s firmly-held beliefs on free expression. Before, Twitter had stated that “our position on freedom of expression carries with it a mandate to protect our users’ right to speak freely and preserve their ability to contest having their private information revealed.”

Responding to criticism of the policy, Twitter CEO Dick Costolo said that users shouldn’t worry about it.

“It will simply allow the company to transparently deal with valid government requests to remove certain content,” he said. He also added that there had been “no change in our stance or attitude or policy with respect to content on Twitter.”

Users from other parts of the world can still view the account and its tweets. Although blocking the account in Germany is better than simply deleting the account, I’m sure that many Twitter users and activists will see this as a loss for free speech.

It’s important to note that this is only the first time that Twitter has used their newly-given powers of local censorship. Twitter has banned content on a global scale before, at the behest of governments. Back in February, Twitter removed a parody account of French president Nicolas Sarkozy after receiving requests from people closely tied to his camp. They defended this act of censorship by claiming that the account violated Twitter’s policy on fake and parody accounts – mainly that the account didn’t contain enough identifiers signaling its status as fake.

Of course, we noted that there are dozens of parody accounts out there that have been up and running for years – many of which fail to provide much information distinguishing them from the real persons.

Also, this comes on the heels of news that Twitter is under fire in France over an anti-Semitic hashtag. In that case, anti-racism groups say that they may pursue legal action against the social media company. Twitter has seen its share of hastag-related quandaries, for example a massive backlash against one particular tag, #reasonstobeatyourgirlfriend. In that case (and in many others) Twitter has employed a hands-off policy.

And it’s not just Twitter that has dealt with requests for censorship from specific countries. In August, Indian officials asked Facebook to remove content from its site that they claimed sparked a mass panic and exodus of tens of thousands of people from cities in the northeast part of the country. Apparently, it was rumors of some sort of violence in the area that sent people fleeing. In that case, Facebook gave its rote response of “we will only remove content that specifically violates our terms.”

But Facebook doesn’t always take that route. Back in March of 2011, Israel’s Minister of Diplomacy called on Facebook to promptly shut down a page called Third Palestinian Intifada. Facebook eventually took that page down, as the concluded that it did in fact violate their terms (it incited violence). More recently, Australians asked Facebook to remove pages that targeted the country’s Aborigine population. Facebook also complied with that request.

Google, of course, gets hundreds of takedown requests from governments every year. One of the most recent and highly-publicized examples came from Brazil, when the company refused to take down what a Brazilian judge deemed “derogatory” YouTube videos of a local political candidate. After a scuffle between Google’s Brazilian head Fabio Coelho and the law, Google finally caved an took down the “offending” videos. But on the flip side, Google has refused to take down the infamous “Innocence of Muslims” video that sparked violent protests across much of the Middle East.

The point is, web censorship is tricky and is not always handled in the exact same way by companies.

Twitter’s policy is different than most other properties because it allows them to block certain content locally, but not globally. Do you think that local censorship is a better alternative that simply removing the content altogether? Being a private company, Twitter has the right to do this. But should they?

Or is the limitation of free speech unacceptable, even when it comes to hate speech that a country has deemed illegal? Let us know in the comments.

Reddit has seen its share of controversy regarding the content of the links posted to the site. Earlier this year, it was the r/jailbait subreddit that drew media scrutiny. On that subreddit users posted photos of minors, often accompanied by sexual provocative language. The photos regularly featured the minors in sexually suggestive poses, but site moderators upheld a strict no-nudity policy. Even so, the subreddit toed the line of child pornography – enough so to force reddit to make a sweeping policy change that banned any and all suggestive or sexual content featuring minors. r/Jailbait was shut down, but plenty of other subreddits popped up in its place.

Now, it’s another subreddit that has made the news. A substitute teacher in Georgia has been accused of submitting photos of students to r/creepshots (NSFW).

Creepshots hosts user-submitted candid photos of attractive women. “Creepshots are CANDID. If a person is posing for and/or aware that a picture is being taken, then it ceases to be candid and thus is no longer a creepshot. A creepshot captures the natural, raw sexiness of the subject without their vain attempts at putting on a show for the camera. That is the essence of the creepshot, that is what makes a true creepshot worth the effort and that is why this subreddit exists,” explain the moderators.

According to FOX Atlanta, the teacher has been relieved of their duties and is no longer on the substitute rotation in the school district.

r/Creepshots moderators have acknowledged the story, saying,

“Unfortunately, we have again made the news in a sadly negative light as a teacher was rightfully arrested for posting pictures of his students on our beloved subreddit. Please do not post any pictures of anyone under the age of 18, at all. The pictures will be immediately removed and we’ll also report you to the Admins straight away (who may take it even further and contact local law enforcement agencies).”

They have also posted a defense of the subreddit, comparing it to the activities of paparazzi sites like TMZ:

While there will no doubt be many complaints and moral outrages about this subreddit and how the theme of this subreddit is disgusting, etc… there is absolutely no difference between the types of images that are submitted on r/CreepShots, and between what paparazzi photographers do, around the world, for thousands of newspapers and magazines every single day. Some of the biggest sites on the internet, like TMZ.com rely on candid snaps of celebrities otherwise they wouldn’t even exist. Take your indignation there first.

People constantly have their pictures taken, without their consent, and used in publications without their knowledge. When you are outside and in public space, you do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy.

Also, please note: the moderators in this subreddit are very active and we regularly remove rule-breaking/illegal submissions. However, removing a thread only removes it from the public listings of the subreddit so that it no longer shows up. It can still be accessed through a users profile page, or if someone else has the link. This is not our fault, but a Reddit issue which is common to every single subreddit. We do report images to Imgur for removal, but can’t do anything about whether the images are removed from there or not.

There is nothing illegal about this subreddit, whatsoever. Creepy, sinister, skin-crawling and generally downright distasteful… yes.

But nothing illegal.

While posting photos of minors is an obvious violation of reddit’s aforementioned policy, what about photos of adults? Do the members of r/creepshot have a point? Is what they’re doing any different from a tabloid magazine?

According to the New Yorker, who has taken to calling to event “Nipplegate,” the following Mike Stevens cartoon prompted a temporary ban for violating Facebook’s community standards on “Nudity and Sex”:

UPDATE: I’ve received this response from a Facebook spokesperson:

“Recently, we mistakenly blocked a cartoon as part of our efforts to keep the site safe for all and quickly worked to rectify the mistake as soon as we were notified. Facebook is a place where almost a billion people share click more than a trillion links a day. Our dedicated User Operations Team reviews millions of pieces of this content a day to help keep Facebook safe for all. Our policies are enforced by a team of reviewers in several offices across the globe. This team looks at hundreds of thousands of reports every week, and as you might expect, occasionally, we make a mistake and block a piece of content we shouldn’t have. We have already taken steps to prevent this from happening in the future and we sincerely apologize for any inconvenience.”

Yep. That’s it. We haven’t tastefully cropped the cartoon to remove the giant penis, hardcore depiction of actual intercourse, or tasteless borderline child pornography. It appears that those two little black dots that form the woman’s nipples were simply too hot to handle for Facebook and its outsourced content moderators.

According to a content standards manual that manifested earlier this year, the cartoon technically violates two sex & nudity restrictions outlines by Facebook:

“Any obvious sexual activity, even if naked parts are hidden from view by hands, clothing or other objects. Cartoon/art included. Foreplay allowed (kissing, groping, etc.) even for same-sex individuals.

Naked ‘private part,’ including females nipple bulges and naked butt cracks; male nipples are ok.”

So, the two lines used to indicate males nipples are fine, but the two rounder dots used to indicate female nipples are not fine. If the cartoon had included two lesbians making out and grabbing each other’s crotches, it may have been allowed to stand, however. Makes sense.

The Facebook terms of service touches on banned content, but in a more general manner:

You will not post content that: is hate speech, threatening, or pornographic; incites violence; or contains nudity or graphic or gratuitous violence.

Not much of that there, either.

I’ve written about Facebook’s breast phobia before, after the network removed an article I had posted on the site because it violated their rules on sex & nudity. They also suspended by account temporarily. The article in question contained an image of a buxom blond in lingerie, but no nipples or other private parts.

And definitely no “bulging nipples.”

Facebook has fought users on this for awhile now. One notable case involved breastfeeding activists, who felt that Facebook’s ban on breastfeeding photos not only lacked common sense, but was offensive to all the mothers out there who don’t think breastfeeding equates to pornography.

By the way, Facebook’s content guidelines still ban breastfeeding photos that contain any sort of “extraneous” nudity, such as having a breast exposed that’s not actively being used by the child. “Our policies strive to fit the needs of a diverse community while respecting everyone’s interest in sharing content that is important to them,” said Facebook at the time. They also noted that most content removals only occur after they have been flagged by a Facebook user first.

Facebook has teetered back and forth on the “art” angle of nudity, banning some and reversing their decision and allowing other examples.

I know that it’s probably wrong to blame Facebook every time something as ridiculous as a black dot in a cartoon gets content removed. Content is flagged all of the time and people make mistakes. But lightening up, just a little bit, probably wouldn’t make things worse.