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.

The point is, most people would agree that they don’t want Facebook turning into a porn site. There are plenty of young kids on the site – sometimes younger than 13 (even though Facebook policy forbids it). But sometimes the policies that are supposed to be there for protection end up going just a little too far.

According to some activists, this is precisely the case when it comes to breastfeeding photos. Apparently, Facebook is a little overzealous when it comes to removing images of new mothers feeding their babies.

The campaign to get Facebook to ease up a bit is spearheaded by breastfeeding activist Emma Kwasnica. According to her, Facebook has wrongfully removed numerous pictures and blocked her account on multiple occasions for the simple act of posting breastfeeding photos.

Facebook’s policies state that “you will not post content that: is hateful, threatening, or pornographic; incites violence; or contains nudity or graphic or gratuitous violence.” They also clarify that photos will be removed if “they contain nudity, drug use or other obscene content. If the photo attacks another individual or group, it will be removed as well.” Currently, Facebook’s specific positon of breastfeeding photos is the they are cool as long as they don’t show “an exposed breast where the child in not actively engaged in nursing.”

The problem then, is that many mothers like Kwasnica feel that Facebook isn’t playing by the rules of their own policy and are removing breastfeeding photos too indiscriminately. She says that Facebook has basically told her sorry, they can’t keep this kind of thing from happening on a regular basis.

“It is obvious to me now that Facebook really has lost control of their network, especially when their written policy clearly states they support the sharing of breastfeeding images, yet they say they cannot control the actions of their employees who keep removing breastfeeding images and who block accounts of the users who post them – usually ‘in error.’ This is exasperating to me,” said Kwasnica.

Her and other frustrated mothers just want Facebook to leave all breastfeeding photos alone.

There is an official Facebook group that serves as the open petition to Facebook. It’s called “Hey Facebook, breastfeeding is not obscene. Here, users share their photos and discuss the position that breastfeeding is part of their life, so they want to share it with their friends on Facebook.

One user posed the question “why is there a need to post a pic of someone breastfeeding on Facebook in the first place?” to which hundreds of commenters replied. Many of the mothers feel like it is akin to sharing something beautiful like a picture of a sunset. Others feel that people post pictures of their food all the time, and these are simply images of their baby eating.

On Monday, breastfeeding activists are holding a global “nurse-in” at Facebook offices around the world. Here, women will go and sit outside the offices and breastfeed as a way to protest Facebook’s policies. Here’s an image posted to the nurse-in Facebook page from a protest in Paris:

In the end, whether or not you believe that people should be posting breastfeeding photos on Facebook is irrelevant. It doesn’t matter what kind of “nudity” or “semi-nudity” that it is – we all know that Facebook can be a tad draconian with their regulations. And I’m of the opinion that the atrocious grammar and alternating capital/lowercase typing that has become an accepted part of Facebook communications are much more damaging to the mind of a 14-year-old than a breastfeeding baby on a slightly exposed nipple.

By the time the SOPA Opera tool moved over to Pro Publica, the amount of opponents of the legislation had grown – but just a bit. The support was still overwhelming – at 80 to 31. TechCrunch captured this screenshot on January 18th (the day of the intern-wide SOPA Blackouts):

Then something big happened. The internet collectively freaked out over SOPA and PIPA for an entire day. You remember Wednesday, right? Wikipedia was blacked out and Google’s homepage logo was covered with a giant black censor bar. Tons of other sites went dark for the protest and internet users took to Twitter in droves.

And that protest appears to have visibly shifted Congressional support of SOPA / PIPA. Seriously, look for yourself:

Notice: It’s pretty much inverted. Support for SOPA in the House of Representatives has taken the biggest hit. As it currently stands, only 26 confirmed supporters of SOPA exist. There are now 100 confirmed opponents. Bill author Lamar Smith has said he plans on bringing SOPA back to the table in February, so it will be interesting to see what transpires in the House over the next few weeks.

In the Senate, it’s a bit of a different story. There have been some changes, but support still outweighs opposition 37 to 22. There have been some key defections in the past couple of days – most notably Senators Orrin Hatch and (bill cosponsor) Marco Rubio. The biggest news came just today as Senate Majority Harry Reid announced that he is postponing a procedural vote on PIPA “in light of recent events.”

There’s no telling how this move could shake up the Senate support of PIPA.

The pre-SOPA Blackout and post-SOPA Blackout visualizations are stunning. Even if you could make the argument that support for the legislation was already waning, Wednesday’s internet protests can at least be called a catalytic enzyme or something like that. Whether the protests were the direct force that swayed many members of Congress or they just happened at the perfect time, it’s hard to deny that they signal a turning point in the legislation.

It’s a positive sign that the internet community has Congress thinking about the legislation and wanting to make changes. Internet users must be vigilant – amended version of these bills will emerge for consideration again. Remember, “postpone” and “delay” don’t mean “kill.”

In a statement, Reid said “In light of recent events, I have decided to postpone Tuesday’s vote on the PROTECT IP Act.”

From the Senator’s Twitter feed:

This comes less than 24 hours after top Republican Senator Mitch McConnell called for the PIPA vote to be delayed. He urged the Senate Majority to shelve the bill until more study can be done.

Support for both PIPA and SOPA has been waning, and it looks like Wednesday’s internet-wide protests have had a major impact on the Congress as a whole. On that day, Republican Senator Marco Rubio (a co-sponsor of the legislation) dropped his support.

Some traditional media enterprises have embraced new media with great success. Others, however, have not had the same experience. One of the biggest blows, if you will, to traditional media has been that consumers have become reporters themselves. We have seen how powerful these reports have been in events involving the Middle East, the death Osama bin Laden, and more.

Today, consumers no longer have to wait until designated times to get their news and information. Not only that, they don’t even have to visit specific news sites to find out what’s going on. News today is easily accessible wherever consumers are.

How do you consume news? Do you utilize traditional media forms, or do you rely on new media outlets? Let us know.

The big question in all this is, how will media continue to evolve? This is exactly what the FCC and the FTC sought out to do some 2 years ago. When the effort began, it seemed to lean heavily in the direction of saving journalism, namely, struggling media enterprises. In 2010, the FTC released its “Potential Policy Recommendations to Support the Reinvention of Journalism,” which was received with much criticism.

Since then, the FTC has not been involved with the effort. The FCC, however, recently released its own “Future of Media” report called “The Information Needs of Communities: The Changing Media Landscape in a Broadband Age.” This report was met with both criticism and praise. Most of the criticism came from the left, and the praise came from right wing groups that want to preserve the First Amendment.

Speaking about the report, Adam Thierer, a senior research fellow with the Technology Policy Project at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University, told us the report was a “welcome relief.” He said, “It shied away from the more extreme types of proposals that we had heard some academics put out there in the past.”

The report focuses on the abundance of media and how consumers can access this wealth of information with as little as a click of a mouse, but it didn’t actually call for any drastic recommendations. It did note that traditional media institutes are struggling and that high-quality journalism was hard to find, even in this age of abundance. However, consumers now have choice, which was something that was strictly limited before.

The FCC admits that getting both really high-quality journalism and giving consumers options is a difficult challenge. Although the commission did not provide a solution to this dilemma, it did advise the media to continue experimenting with processes and systems.

Media reform group Free Press strongly opposed the report and called it a “major disappointment.” In a press release, President and CEO Craig Aaron said, “The report discusses many important ideas, but where the FCC actually has the power to help local communities, the agency abdicates its responsibility in the areas.”

Free Press, along with many other media reform organizations, hoped that the report would call for more aggressive policy proposals to ensure quality news and information for local communities.

“If the FCC decides to relax, waive, or ignore its own rules that prevent the formation of local media monopolies, it may temporarily help pad the profits of the large conglomerates, but it will not cure what ails journalism or the media industry,” said Aaron. “The only way to ensure vibrant, quality journalism-and a healthy democracy-is to engage the public so starved for meaningful local news and information today. We hope that this report can still serve as a catalyst for better public policy to address the serious problems the document identifies.”

On the other side of controversy, Thierer said, “There’s an important wall in America, a wall between, if you will, press and state… that wall is rarely breached, and it should not be breached so easily just because there’s a time when the media is struggling in this country, as they are today.”

“This debate has a level of elitism at the margins at times where some people say, ‘You need to eat your greens and find the good journalism,’” he said. “Living in an age of abundance in the Internet and digital world… we can spend a lot of time online – probably messing around, watching and listening to all sorts of stuff, including a lot of nonsense – and not always consuming that which others think is best for us. But the question is, how do you force them to do that?”

He also asks the question, “Do you want a massive bailout of failing journalistic enterprises?”

From a practical standpoint, Thierer believes that if the government begins to impose policy on the media, it will only lead to more policies. While the government could bring some improvements to the media sector, he doesn’t think that it should be able to force what it thinks users should consume.

“Information technology is moving way too fast for our federal regulators to keep up with it,” he said. “We live in gut-wrenching, interesting, disruptive times… some of this experimentation and evolution is just going to have to play itself out… there isn’t any easy answer.”

Do you think the government needs to step in to help improve the media sector?

Does America need a federal privacy law? Share your thoughts.

Advocates of the bill say it would enforce protection for consumers’ digital data and would also limit how large companies collect and utilize information. Those who oppose it believe that it would have a negative impact on the future development of the Web.

“The reality is, I don’t think we’ve yet determined that there is a clear market failure or harm that needs to be addressed through preemptive, prophylactic forms of regulation such as the McCain/Kerry bill,” said Adam Thierer.

Thierer is a senior research fellow with the Technology Policy Project at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University. He believes that a “hands off the Internet” policy is a better approach for the Web.

Up to this point, the U.S. has relied on a model that lets users work out problems in the marketplace through experimentation. Other countries, however, have extensive privacy regulations that govern their information flow.

Thierer, and others that oppose the bill, believe it would create an “information control regime.” He also pointed out that there are tools already available that ensure for the same privacy measures that the bill would enforce on a federal level.

“An important thing that’s often overlooked in this debate is how few people actually really care enough to actually do these sorts of things… that’s not a market failure, it’s just a choice consumers have made,” he said.

Supporters of this “privacy bill of rights,” as this bill is being called, believe it should include a measure that stops companies from tracking online actions. Incidentally, Congresswoman Jackie Speier introduced the Do Not Track Me Online Act of 2011, which specifically covers online data collection.

Just as opponents to the “Do Not Track” bill believed that it would harm the online advertising industry, opponents to the McCain/Kerry bill believe it would have a similar impact. Many of the free services that consumers use daily are possible because of online advertising. If advertising were limited, companies would likely have to charge for services such as email and social networks.

“What is it that powers the Internet? It’s information and advertising,” said Thierer.

One further issue that opponents bring up is the fact that this bill could lead to more regulation for the Internet.

“Where we begin with certain types of rules and regulations is not where we always end,” he added.

Interestingly, Microsoft, eBay, HP, and Intel have all voiced approval for the bill. What’s even more intriguing is that Google and Facebook, who are both mega influencers, did not join this tech group of supporters.

Do you believe in a “hands off the Internet” approach, or do you think the McCain/Kerry privacy law would be beneficial?

Do I sound upset? I am. You see I have a child that loves Facebook. Because I am involved in the industry I have been able to lock down my child’s profile to the best of my ability. The friends of my child though now have lists of other kids that are on display for everyone to see. That everyone includes those with good intentions and those that see the new Facebook ‘privacy’ as a pervert’s WalMart SuperCenter of data to carry out their deviant needs. Over reaction? When it comes to the safety of a child be it mine or anyone else’s there are no over reactions.

So how does Facebook suggest you move forward? According to a TechCrunch report one option is to violate the Facebook’s own ‘voted on’ terms of service.

At least, that’s what Barry Schnitt, Facebook’s Director of Corporate Communications and Public Policy, told the Wall Street Journal in an article this evening. From the story:

Facebook also made public formerly private info such as profile pictures, gender, current city and the friends list. (Mr. Schnitt suggests that users are free to lie about their hometown or take down their profile picture to protect their privacy; in response to users’ complaints, the friends list can now be restricted to be viewed only by friends).

Back to my real life example, the WSJ article makes the point

But those who want a private experience on Facebook will have to work harder at it: if you inadvertently post a comment on a friend’s profile page that has been opened to the public, your comment will be public too.

Now you have to police whether your friends are private with their profiles if you say something to them that you would rather not have broadcast. This could get complicated quickly. So complicated, in fact, that some may throw their hands up and just walk away.

As for the ‘lie to protect’ policy. Mr. Schnitt backpedaled fast in an attempt to avoid a media snit about his intentions.

I think WSJ is paraphrasing. What I said is profile picture and current city are optional. You don’t have to include a profile picture or you can include a picture of your dog or anything you like. Similarly, you don’t have to indicate your current city or you can indicate that your current city is “Atlantis”, “Valhalla” or, again, anything you like. We hope people will use accurate information if they are comfortable doing so because that information helps them to be found by their friends, which is part of the point of joining the site.

So let’s sum this up. Facebook puts a default ‘privacy’ policy in place that is private in name only. They claim that 50% of the users have already made changes to their privacy profiles (which is difficult to believe but I will give the benefit of the doubt). That only leaves about 175 million people walking around with their Facebook kimono wide open to the world.

Is there anything good coming out of this? Is the need to have real time data and marketing information worth the risk of being ‘wide open’ with your data? Of course, there is the option to not be involved at all which is a valid argument. If that were the case though, and a lot of people walked away, then just how valuable does that Facebook data become when it only represents a certain kind of user? Is this the start of Facebook’s move to a MySpace type of case study in what not to do to stay on top of the social media world?

So your thoughts are welcome and desired. Be warned: We expect you will tell the truth but what’s a few lies between friends?

Comments

It’s like they read the comment section of the Google Public Policy blog post about all this the other day. Their letter reflects some of the anti-Google sentiments there—especially the undercurrent of “Why are you stifling competition, Google?”:

Of course, as a company whose motto is “don’t be evil,” Google should have no objection to abiding by the Internet Policy Statement and other net neutrality principles it advocates with respect to Google Voice and all of the Internet-based services, applications and content that it offers. And as an agency committed to “preserving a free and open Internet,” the Commission should show no hesitation in ensuring its Internet principles are applied evenhandedly to the “network providers, application and service providers, and content providers” – including Google – who are expressly subject to them today.

As the Wall Street Journal aptly reported, however, the call blocking incident with Google Voice has exposed Google’s true agenda for adulterating the Internet Policy Statement: “The Internet giant wants cumbersome [net neutrality] rules applied to everyone—except Google.” In other words, Google wants the Commission to rig the game in its favor by rewriting the Commission’s broadband principles to cover only broadband Internet access providers, while giving Google a free pass to discriminate against whatever calls, websites, applications or content it pleases.

Don’t hold back, AT&T. Tell us how you really feel.

As I said MOnday, “While it’s no surprise to see AT&T and Google on opposite sides of a neutrality battle, the roles they’re cast in this time are at least a little humorous—Google as the one trying to restrict access and AT&T as the fair-minded, open-access alternative.”

What do you think? Is Google trying to evade neutrality, or keep costs down? Is AT&T the disadvantaged underdog or are they just trying to maintain their stranglehold?

Full text of the letter:
at-t letter to FCC over Google Voice Oct 14

Comments

Now before going into this and making comparisons between the two reports I think it only fair to share a comment from one of our readers to the report regarding the USMC policy. Commenter Jason said

This ban has slowly been implemented across all Department of Defense systems. This is not just a Marine ban. This is strictly for government systems and in no way affects the systems used for morale. They are not saying the Marines cannot access Facebook or MySpace or Twitter on their time. They are saying that Marines cannot access these Social Networking sites while at work.

While deployed there is plenty of access to morale systems that can be used when off duty. I suppose it is one of those things where you have to be there to understand. This is being overhyped.

All service members are allowed to use any social networking site they choose. This article simply states that on government systems they will be blocked. It’s the same as your office blocking access to chat or porn or any other site that is NSFW. Or that they deem a waste of company resources or a threat to the security of the business.

Admittedly, I do not know the credentials of our commenter but it does sounds reasonable that the initial reaction to the ban may have been overstated or at least misunderstood.

According to the Telegraph the British military’s take on Twitter at least is quite different. Once again this is not a ‘critique’ of what is right or wrong in the use of social media by the military anywhere. What we look to explore is how social media is viewed and its ultimate impact on how we communicate which eventually impacts how we do business online.

So the British policy is categorized as a liberalization of the use for British troops which apparently had been tighter until now.

Ministry of Defence (MoD) said that British troops are no longer required to seek permission to use the sites but asks personnel to use common sense over the amount of detail revealed.

The MoD said it would actively sponsor soldiers who are willing to tweet or blog about life in the military, with tips for engaging an online audience.

“This about troops having a little more freedom, a little more autonomy. The MoD’s new common sense guidance allows service personnel to talk about themselves and their work online, within limits and with advice to protect their security, reputation and privacy”.

That does read a bit differently than the USMC’s policy for sure. Some might argue that it gives too much autonomy to each soldier but we would need to learn what the guidelines are in detail before saying that the British military is truly providing complete freedom. It doesn’t seem that British troops have social media ‘carte blanche’ when reading between the lines of their statements. Policies are only good as they are enforced so we’ll need to see this in action before a fair assessment can be made.

What are your thoughts on this and social media policies in general? How do you suggest that each organization arrive at the rules and regulations that can make social media effective while simultaneously ‘keeping the peace’?

Comments