So, Facebook have decided that sharing videos of beheadings is perfectly acceptable so long as you are doing so to show you disgust at them.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-24608499

But, they still won’t allow say, a photo of a nice pair of tits (is the nipple is exposed) or your gentlemanly bits.

And use the C word and if someone reports you the mods will be all over you like a bad case of herpes.

Now, I’m not sure whether I agree or not with their stance on beheadings per se but to allow something as gruesome as that but not allow the use of certain language or nuddy photos just strikes me as difficult to justify morally.

Should it be a free for all or nothing at all?

Where do you draw the line.

Cheers

Danny B

I guess it’s up to them, but I can think of few things I’d less like to see than someone having their head cut off. I’d like to think that it will result in a backlash, but given the narcissistic nature of Facebook users generally, it’s more likely to result in selfie decapitations.

Not you seems a very odd policy.

Cheers

Piggy Face

I think the ‘Christian Right’ in the US has huge influence.

They hope that by showing fundamentalists of a different religious persuasion being inhumane their own cause will be somehow strengthened.

But as noted above seeing a nipple or cussing is not Christian and is therefore to be banned.

I think they must read different Bibles to the ones I’ve seen.

“I think the ‘Christian Right’ in the US has huge influence.”

Any evidence of their influence over Facebook?

“I think the ‘Christian Right’ in the US has huge influence.”

Any evidence of their influence over Facebook?

three quarters of all people in the US consider themselves to be Christian.

I doubt FB sits down with the church to discuss values, however it would be odd if not offending Christians wasn’t high on the list of priorities.

I complained about a Christian right group that was very very homophobic and IMHO was clearly inciting hatred toward the gay community and within seconds I got a response saying the group broke no rules.

There are a number of them out there and they seem somewhat immune to what I at least interpret facebook guidelines to mean.

Have a search for Christians against [inset word here – abortion, homosexuality, gays – whatever) and see what is allowed under the banner of Christianity.

Cheers

Danny B

Makes me pretty uncomfortable – if they want to censor nudity or bad language, well, that’s kind of fair enough by me, if that’s what they want to do. But it seems a screaming great paradox to then allow graphiic videos of people being murdered. I mean, who are they trying to protect from boobies? Presumably young people, right? But FB then endorses the right of under eighteens to watch beheadings? And not just made-up, TV or film beheadings – it’s all a bit grim, for my money, and you can’t help but think there is at least the merest hint of an agenda behind it all.

you can’t help but think there is at least the merest hint of an agenda behind it all.

+1

Got to keep the masses onside.

Decapitation vs boobies. Hmmmm.

Pretty much what Pondo said. If they don’t want boobies on there then that’s fair enough, but their approach does seem rather arbitrary, and you can’t help but think there’s more going on behind the scenes.

I’m considering going Facebookless again, it’s an easy way of keeping in touch with people but it’s not like there aren’t other ways.

Bet the policy has been rescinded by the end of next week. No publicity is bad publicity etc etc as far as facebook goes.

By publicising the policy in their rules which permits the video to be published then facebook have given carte blanche to uploaders of controversial content like this. I can’t see it

I saw some dude pushing over a cosplay guy dressed as the Predator, onto a 5 year old kid. Then saw some guy that stole a motorbike get his fingers lopped off with an axe in two strikes.

I also typed in something in my status about the American presidency and it suggested I add Barack Obama as a friend.

Facebook’s a wrong ‘un. Plain and simple.

No publicity is bad publicity etc etc as far as facebook goes.

I disagree. Facebook doesn’t really promote itself to gain members. However, it could certainly lose members/shareholders/advertisers if it makes a bad and widely publicised move.

Oh, those Christian fundamentalists.

Reminds me of the very early days of the ‘net. Me & a mate were working at a Uni where access was new and completely open. We challenged each other to find the most vile pics and email them across.
I found a pic of a woman being over friendly with a dobermann pinscher and a fella having some malteser like items laid on his chest by a kindly lady.
Both were on the same Christian site, under the banner “THIS IS WHAT THE INTERNET WILL SHOW YOU!!”. Hilarious.

What if there was a video posted of a topless woman being decapitated, would that be ok? Or would they blur out the nips? 😕

Holy shit.

Now I’m usually open to both sides of a debate but **** me. You cannot have snuff videos on Facebook. That is an absolute disgrace. Never mind kids, it’s just wrong for anyone.

What the actual….?

I’m not on FB, but I do have to wonder what sort of outfit won’t let you show boobies, but will let you show a beheading. Something very wrong there.

Boobies don’t kill people, beheadings do. I seen it in a documentary on BBC2

peter file – so the answer is “no”, then?

Boobies don’t kill people

I’m prepared to volunteer if anyone’s running studies in this area.

What’s Google+ policy on showing violent murders?

peter file – so the answer is “no”, then?

Are you actually suggesting FB pays no attention to the moral code governing 75% of its US users?

I think we’re getting confused about terminology here. If you’re referring to “evidence” as being some hard copy, conclusive proof of something, then save for getting your hands on some confidential minutes or emails from board level in FB, I’d imagine that sort of thing would be pretty hard to come by.

I’m talking about evidence in its wider sense, that the actions of a company can demonstrate influence (or lack of) from third parties (whether users, potential users, advertisers, shareholders, governments, cultures, religion etc).

Anyway, since when did lack of evidence stand in the way of a healthy discussion around religion 🙂

Beheadings are ok but nudity might corrupt vulnerable people. …you really could not make it up!

Nice comment from George RR Martin on this sort of thing:

Boobies don’t kill people

I believe there was a case in America where a woman used her much-larger-than-average breasts to suffocate a man.

Also on that note I might start anonymously reporting people using the C word on Facebook just to cause some ballache.

Are you actually suggesting FB pays no attention to the moral code governing 75% of its US users?

Let me just clear something up. 75% of Americans may be Christian, but 75% are not fundamentalist right wing Christians. They are a lunatic fringe in much of the country, they just shout the loudest.

There is no single moral code uniting 75% of the country. Important to remember that.

That there is some proper ****ed up policy making

CFH invoking GLC 😯

I’ve heard that if you’re determined enough, you can find pictures of norks on the interweb

from the BBC story:

Advisers concerned

Facebook originally pulled decapitation videos after the Family Online Safety Institute – a member of its Safety Advisory Board – complained that they “crossed a line”.

The charity’s leader Stephen Balkam told the BBC he was surprised by the latest development.

“I would have expected a heads-up on this,” he said.

Having a laugh or what?!

Let me just clear something up. 75% of Americans may be Christian, but 75% are not fundamentalist right wing Christians.

oh aye, i’ll not disagree there. But the point is, when the church speaks in the US, people listen. If you’re a US business/spokesperson/politician and you want to appeal to as many people in the US as possible, pissing of the Christian church or Christian values is not a good idea.

Just so I’m clear, i’m talking about the banning of boobies here, not showing beheadings!

Most beheadings on facebook carried out by muslim extremists…check
The Jews hate the muslims….check
They like showing them in a bad light …..check
Mark Zuckerberg is a Jew

I’ve heard that if you’re determined enough, you can find pictures of norks on the interweb

This post is worthless without proof.

I’ll watch most things on the internet and most will be forgotten, but the beheading of one fella with a knife will haunt me for eternity. The only thing I’ve regretted seeing on the internet.

Apart from your Mum.

I’ll watch most things on the internet and most will be forgotten, but the beheading of one fella with a knife will haunt me for eternity.

Yup, you name it, I’ve seen it, and probably didn’t bat an eye. I watched just one beheading, it was one too many.

Northwind wins for best contribution to this thread.

I like your quote. 8)

Preston: Craig Slee Jailed for Putting Taliban Beheadings on Facebook

[quote]Craig Slee, 32, of Preston, was jailed at Preston Crown Court for five years for four offences under the 2006 Terrorism Act, including encouraging terrorism and dissemination of terrorist publications.[/quote]

Det Chief Supet Tony Mole: “The power of the Internet and social networking sites is vast and extends worldwide, so while Slee may not have been planning any sort of attack, he could easily have influenced someone else with the propaganda he was uploading.”

Same material, same media, same method of sharing, same potential audience. The difference is in intent. Does intent really have sod all to do with anything when the video is the core message?

I note from the4 f/book PR droid that you can only show such videos if it clear that you find them abhorrent.

I wonder therefore if I were to post a video of me and Mrs D having a bit of rumpy pumpy but noted that I disgust myself when doing it that’s ok.

Share so long as you are not enjoying!!

Boobies don’t kill people, beheadings do. I seen it in a documentary on BBC2

😆