Are you the author of the blog? If not, I can't think of a single reason you wouldn't link to an article from a dependable source instead of a trite opinion piece. An opinion piece posted after the Wired article it used as a source had been updated with the caveat that Facebook had reversed its position. Nice.Update: 1/7/12 5:30 p.m. EST: Facebook reversed its position on the acceptability of the offending image.
Your silly entry was posted on January 8th.
Claire has posted at least three posts from this blog (which she runs). The Facebook post, one about the Rapes kn India, and that the CDC is sexist. In the CDC article she signs it Claire, pointing to the OP as the author of the site. I'd provide links but I am new to Hubski and I am on my phone. So its kind of taking me a bit to get a hang of it.
I guess if you're not a fan that's what the "ignore" function is for. Right?
Welcome. We are going to begin working on a mobile app which could help. Till then if you ever have any questions, feel free to PM me.
Honestly, I'm not sure yet. Beginning stages. Working on API now.
A better question for mk. But in advance, thank you. I'm excited.
Not really surprised at this since Facebook is a large site. Hundreds of millions of people use it daily. It would make sense that not every picture or post will be moderated to the degree that one would like. I see profiles with pictures that are pretty sexually explicit and Facebook hasn't made any moves to delete the accounts. Also a photoshopped picture of a woman made to look like she is beaten up isn't too crazy. When you consider the fact that they allowed pictures of people openly ridiculing the #cutforbieber cutters (posted pics of bloody and cut arms) that happened the other day on Twitter. Point is, this isn't really an issue since no one was truly hurt (except maybe feelings) and the title was sensationalized. Just because this picture was not deleted it does not mean that Facebook is alright with violence.
It can be a slippery slope when you start censoring images of violence imo. It's certainly happened before and can have bad consequences. You end up with this: Instead of this: By the way, in no way do I think the photo of the woman should be celebrated. Just stating that it is a slippery slope.
I think I would have liked the bottom cover over the one that replaced it. It actually showed the band enjoying themselves. Anyways, you are right it is a slippery slope. Imagine someone photoshops a photo of a group of friends (the editor is also in the photo). He enhances it, makes it look better but it accidently makes one person slightly off color. Now if the "offended" person filed a complaint to Facebook to delete it and it does, what does that say to everyone? Free speech and freedom of expression is dead on this site. Continued complaints would probably arise and next thing you know, Facebook is an online version of Mao's China. It can cost the site money and it can be a public relations nightmare. Now I may not agree that this picture is alright but you have to look at it this way. It was meant as a joke (a tasteless one). Just how some men tell their lady friends to get back in the kitchen and make them a sandwich. This image macro was created to poke fun at a woman's "place" in a male domimated society. Then again I might be overthinking this and it could all just be a guy advocating violence against women. Who knows?
Beatles: They were really tired of photo shoots and were actually quite excited to use the props in the original picture (as you can see from their reaction). The replacement photo sucks and you can see the resentment in their faces. You may already know this but they were forced to stick the new photo over the old on some of the existing copies. I actually have one:
I do think the photo was advocating violence and perhaps it should be reported by the woman to the police? Not sure if FB has any recourse though? We shall see how they react.
Should have stuck with the old one. At least in that one they could pretend to still enjoy being the Beetles.
Record stores refused to sell it. They put paper over it and thought it was obscene. Isn't it amazing how much has changed? This image today is completely benign.
The only purpose for this kind of stuff is to shock and offend people. That end is meaningless and honestly, stupid.
Yep, could've done without that. But yes, that's the point.. a lot has changed.
It's possible they should have censored Ringo's haircut
-ha.(Facebook reversed its opinion before this blog entry was even posted, incidentally.)
Still, it's an interesting topic of discussion. As virtual spaces occupy more of our lives, what do they owe us? Anything? We can leave them whenever we want, but can we? Most people feel FB is a necessity. I certainly don't, but most do.
It's a sort of tired argument, I think. reddit went through it during the child porn scandal. Websites owe their users nothing, but the law everything. The Facebook as a necessity argument, on the other hand, fascinates me. My current job more or less requires Facebook, I think -- in fact I sat through a seminar just today, actually, on social media's impact on hiring decisions and it was heavily implied that the lack of a Facebook account was a strike against (I have one, relatively lightly used). So will that make it a necessity in the future -- the two things you need to get a job, Facebook and a social security number? What does that say? Lots to discuss there.