Facebook doesn't like breastfeeding pics

[Bob S.]

Facebook has made news by removing some pics of mothers breastfeeding claiming that too much of the aureola was showing in some photos. They said it violated their "policy on obscene, pornographic or sexually-explicit material" according to the Asiaone Digital (http://digital.asiaone.com/Digital/News/Story/A1Story20081229-111017.html) story.

Immediately after one mother had her photo removed twice and Facebook threatened to delete her account, she created a protest Facebook account and on Dec 27, 11,000 other mothers flooded the site with similar pictures of themselves breastfeeding.

The story at cnet (http://news.cnet.com/8301-17852_3-10129731-71.html) gives a link to a few photos that were deleted from Facebook.

Bob S.

[Stu2630]

I think the below comment sums it up for me:

Facebook provides a free and public service that is completely optional, if people find the terms of their services to be unacceptable they are free to discontinue their use of the service. Considering Facebook has over 150 million active users, it seems somewhat foolish to think a group of 85,309 people will actually change policy. Good luck.

Stu

[Sigmund]

Well that's just silly.

[Naturist Mark]

I think the below comment sums it up for me:
Facebook provides a free and public service that is completely optionalStu

In that case no one should be offended by non sexual nursing photos on pages they have the option to not view. So what is the problem?

[Fitz1980]

Facebook is not a public service. They are a business that sells members to advertisers, that's how they make money. They can do what they want but they really should listen to their customers.

[brucie]

Well that's just silly.

and immature.

[usuallylurk]

It's silly and immature, I will agree with that.

But, also, the group that's crying "foul" is exploiting this for their own publicity, AND, they are attempting to use the "victimization" card in the process.

The "(we) are victims here" shtick is, unfortunately, used by nudists far too often. A few years back, a friendly article in the New York Times discussed a youth nudist camp session that was going to take place in Virginia. This well-intended publicity splurge resulted in the Commonwealth of Virginia banning nudist youth camps, and *SOME* nudist leaders rode the publicity rocket for every mile that they could. Florida was a whole different story (the Foley caper, no legislation ever passed there), but a similar campaign was conducted there.

They were on CNN, FOX news, you name it, they were there, crying "oohh woe is us, we are victims...." and then went with the nudist message.

By contrast, in Texas, the "ban youth camps" movement was quietely lobbied down in the legislative committee, to the credit of TNS.

Unfortunately, a year later, the Virginia assembly then decided to take it one step further, and attempted to pass a law barring anyone under 18 from attending ANY nudist function in the state. That one was halted -- behind closed doors, and after a costly lobbying effort.

This Facebook incident seems to be carrying a similar "look at my cause" aroma to it.

Usually the "me as victim, I'm being picked on" publicity angle doesn't work. It raises empathy among a group's supporters, but it doesn't do so among the general population. It DOES provide a short window of opportunity to educate people about your cause, but it really doesn't win people over.

And, it's already been said but it bears repeating = Facebook is a FREE service for users. It is privately held, and, just like, say, clothesfree.com, they can set any standards they wish to.

[Fitz1980]

But, also, the group that's crying "foul" is exploiting this for their own publicity, AND, they are attempting to use the "victimization" card in the process.

The "(we) are victims here" shtick is, unfortunately, used by nudists far too often. A few years back, a friendly article in the New York Times discussed a youth nudist camp session that was going to take place in Virginia. This well-intended publicity splurge resulted in the Commonwealth of Virginia banning nudist youth camps, and *SOME* nudist leaders rode the publicity rocket for every mile that they could. Florida was a whole different story (the Foley caper, no legislation ever passed there), but a similar campaign was conducted there.

They were on CNN, FOX news, you name it, they were there, crying "oohh woe is us, we are victims...." and then went with the nudist message.


This Facebook incident seems to be carrying a similar "look at my cause" aroma to it.

Usually the "me as victim, I'm being picked on" publicity angle doesn't work. It raises empathy among a group's supporters, but it doesn't do so among the general population. It DOES provide a short window of opportunity to educate people about your cause, but it really doesn't win people over.

It will win some over, while causing others to become more against them. But you don't get anywhere without stepping on a few toes. When gays, blacks, Jews & atheists first came out with "hey look at us, we're here and you are going to have to deal with it" that pissed off a lot of people but it had to be done to get a foot in that door.

And, it's already been said but it bears repeating = Facebook is a FREE service for users. It is privately held, and, just like, say, clothesfree.com, they can set any standards they wish to.


Yes, but it's in the business of pleasing the user because that's how they make money. And even though they are a free service they are for sure a business, they sell ad space to businesses that target their free users. It's absolutely our right as the customer to tell them that we don't like what they are doing and if they don't amend their polices we will take our business elsewhere.

[Naturist4Ever]

We had some interesting comments here lately wrt to similar policies on youtube, with the observation that (for youtube) if the material was of an "eductional" tone, there was apparently no problem. Indeed, some of the youtube videoclips on vagina exams are as explicit as it can be. In the end it may not be at all about "facebook sets the standards" but what legally limits can services like this set in the first place. Maybe in the US the limits are far less regulated than in some european countries, for example (e.g., gender discrimination that is the norm in the US when it comes to nudist clubs is just not allowed in the europe (except for the UK which apparently has some loopholes)).

In many ways, and for many people, explicit pics of breastfeeding (or videos for that matter) are a welcome educational addition for removing some of of the apparent taboos around this extremely wholesome activity.

[usuallylurk]

It will win some over, while causing others to become more against them. But you don't get anywhere without stepping on a few toes. When gays, blacks, Jews & atheists first came out with "hey look at us, we're here and you are going to have to deal with it" that pissed off a lot of people but it had to be done to get a foot in that door.


Yes, but it depends on a few things. When you're talking about a public institution, and you have the benefit of the law of the land backing you up, you have a better chance of succeeding. Topfree pictures on Facebook? You're talking apples and oranges.

Some nudists like to compare their "plight" with the civil rights movements. But being nude in public is not a "civil right".

And whether they're ticking people off or not is not the issue here.



"Yes, but it's in the business of pleasing the user because that's how they make money. And even though they are a free service they are for sure a business, they sell ad space to businesses that target their free users. It's absolutely our right as the customer to tell them that we don't like what they are doing and if they don't amend their polices we will take our business elsewhere.

That is correct. Of course, in some instances, they may tell you = "Take your business elsewhere, then." And if your business amounts to what we would call a yellow hole in the snow, then they CAN justify it, because if they changed their policies to allow those pics, then they may lose more business than they'd gain from your group.

Sometimes those in the clothes-free / optional / nude movement think that we have massive economic power and can influence corporate and public policy by flexing our muscles.

But frankly, nudism (and the breast-feeding movement vs. Facebook) using economc threats, is basically Popeye without his can of spinach. And you cannot beat up Bluto on your guile alone.

[Stu2630]

usuallylurk

Some nudists like to compare their "plight" with the civil rights movements. But being nude in public is not a "civil right".

:applause:

I have said that many times and been berated for it.

Stu

[usuallylurk]

I'm not anti-nudist, obviously, but I am a realist.

I am not in disagreement with the cause; however, there are better ways to get the point across than picking a fight with Facebook, and then exploiting the publicity that comes with it.

[nakedstudent]

I have an account at facebook and as far as I'm aware, any picture that is deleted from the site was done so from the "report photo" feature that allows users to report offensive material.

[Ren]

When someone posts pictures on Facebook, they appear in a feed of everyone they know. Same for if you write on someone's wall. I know some people who were trash talking someone else and that third person wrote to them that they had read the whole thing. So, I can see how that is a freedom issue on both sides --- sometimes it's not optional to view.

I put it this way - if I'm nude in my house and you're looking through the windows and complaining, you have the problem. But, if I show up at your door nude and you start complaining, I am the problem.

So, you know, I think respect on both sides is needed and mass hysteria will never be taken seriously. Neither should knee jerk reactions. I think both sides look bad in this case.

[usuallylurk]

"So, you know, I think respect on both sides is needed and mass hysteria will never be taken seriously. Neither should knee jerk reactions. I think both sides look bad in this case."

.. it looks like the pro-breastfeeding group are the people trying to generate mass hysteria here....

[walter05]

Facebook is under intense international law enforcement scrutiny.

There have been instances where kids have been solicited, sexually assaulted, and worse.

While under this scrutiny, the management of facebook is wise to be extra careful.

[Fitz1980]

Facebook is under intense international law enforcement scrutiny.

There have been instances where kids have been solicited, sexually assaulted, and worse.

While under this scrutiny, the management of facebook is wise to be extra careful.

Yea but what does pics of a mother breastfeeding her child have to do with any of that? Yea kids have been solicited by sexual predators and than assaulted over facebook so shouldn't Facebook be doing more about the jailbait that's posting naked picks where they have one hand covering the nips and the other in front of the vaginal area (which are totally allowed based on their guidlines) and leave the breastfeeding Moms alone?

[walter05]

Given the amount of law enforcement scrutiny, there may be some paranoia. But it is understandable.

Walter

[bare-belly]

I have seen the pic in a news article, and it is not obscene. No nipple or areola is showing at all, the baby's head covers everything they could(or would) find objectionable. Their removal of the pic is sheer foolishness. Look for yourselves!

http://www.tgdaily.com/content/view/40789/117/

Bare-Belly

[nickuma09]

insofar as facebook is a 'private' company (some of their earliest financiers have NSA connections), they can moderate the content however they deem fit. that said, i've seen photos in my former students' albums that, even with clothing on, are borderline softcore porn...so their standards do seem a little off.

[Pete Knight]

A lack of common sense is the problem here, a bare nipple is not pornographic in all situations, it takes someone with a little common sense to decide which is which. As has been mentioned, some pictures, although clothed, are bordering on pornographic, where was the common sense then?

The basic rules are applied basically, no interpretation of context, therein lies the problem.

Pete Knight

[simonsebs]

Irate mothers breastfeed outside Facebook's headquarters to protest "nudity policy" (http://www.tgdaily.com/content/view/40789/117/)

Here's an update to the story.