71–80 of 99 posts
Every time I see these I think the same thing: this shouldn't be an issue. If we weren't allowing so few players to define so much of our experience of the internet, it wouldn't matter that much what any single one of them decides to censor. Hopefully it will be that way again someday.
Just imagine the harm seeing a breast can do to a vulnerable young child. /s Facebook needs to literally grow up, removing porn is one thing but clinical images, mothers feeding their children and such should not even be up for discussion. It's a fine line between protecting your users from seeing offensive content and outright censorship, good to see them doing the right thing in this case, pity it is still on a 'ca…
We need to stop calling naked female breasts "porn".
For the simple reason that, well ... they're fucking not.
How the fuck can the naked humam body be offensive. Since it's a purely historico-religious ideology, it equates to "God made a mistake".
What nonsense.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The weird thing is I'm around a lot of conservatives in a conservative place in this country, you know, the people who supposedly are the ones getting offended. I haven't found one damn person who thinks Facebook is doing the right thing. I'm really trying to find these offended people, but I cannot. The Vietnam photo censorship was met with quite a bit of confusion since I think most folks misremember it being our h…
Do you remember the super bowl janet jackson fiasco? There were millions of people outraged by an accident and it almost wrecked her career. It's issue like this that mean that Facebook has to build aggressive adult filters that will have false positives. Because frankly the cost of a false negative is much much bigger than a false positive.
And for men to get around topless in solidarity.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> pity it is still on a 'case-by-case' basis instead of a healthy review of their policies. They reviewed their policies over a year ago and images of breasts are allowed if they're breastfeeding, or after mastectomy (either reconstructed or tattooed or just left) or raising awareness. http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2015/03/16/breastfeeding-fac... https://www.facebook.com/help/340974655932193 https://www.facebook.co…
This. Porn detection algorithms still have a hard time distinguishing educational imagery. It was just an FP.
There is no picture of naked female breasts (breats only) that can be argued to be pornographic.
To call naked female breasts "porn" is to perpetuate female subjugation and body-shaming.
Just imagine the harm seeing a breast can do to a vulnerable young child. /s Facebook needs to literally grow up, removing porn is one thing but clinical images, mothers feeding their children and such should not even be up for discussion. It's a fine line between protecting your users from seeing offensive content and outright censorship, good to see them doing the right thing in this case, pity it is still on a 'ca…
Why can't Facebook filter out whatever they want to filter out? I mean, you wouldn't want to see penises all over your feed, and not everyone necessarily agrees with you about the appearance of breasts(except me, I want more breasts on my Facebook), so I can understand why Facebook would make such a decision without necessarily deeming it as wrong. Nobody has to use Facebook. And their main criterion, "is the interne…
I mean, every time you see a male dog there's a penis getting about with it, we don't seem to mind those.
Probably because dogs haven't had the Church tell them their bodies are shameful for a thousand years.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Swizec, you're disappointing me with these comments. It's maybe related to how your culture views these things but women breastfeeding in public is (and should be) perfectly normal anywhere and if it makes you feel uncomfortable then I suggest the problem is on your end. As for you scratching yourself: that is not something for which there are no alternative options, however, breastfeeding a newborn happens frequentl…
> If the lady is comfortable with it and you're not you could simply ignore them? Which is what I would do. Politely ignore it. And that means I'm uncomfortable. I don't tend to politely ignore things that I am comfortable with. That said, I think we're missing the point. Why is the mum of a newborn in the office in the first place? She should be enjoying her many weeks (52 would be great) of paid maternity leave. An…
And ? You're an adult and should gather the knowledge of personally dealing with discomfort. The world isn't a liberal arts college campus.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do you remember the super bowl janet jackson fiasco? There were millions of people outraged by an accident and it almost wrecked her career. It's issue like this that mean that Facebook has to build aggressive adult filters that will have false positives. Because frankly the cost of a false negative is much much bigger than a false positive.
The correct method of resolving this historico-religious female-breast-shaming is for all famous women to immediately cease wearing any type of clothing that covers the breasts. Weather permitting. And for men to get around topless in solidarity.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why can't Facebook filter out whatever they want to filter out? I mean, you wouldn't want to see penises all over your feed, and not everyone necessarily agrees with you about the appearance of breasts(except me, I want more breasts on my Facebook), so I can understand why Facebook would make such a decision without necessarily deeming it as wrong. Nobody has to use Facebook. And their main criterion, "is the interne…
> Why can't Facebook filter out whatever they want to filter out? Why can't people let Facebook know what should and shouldn't be filtered? Facebook already have policy that breasts are ok when they're raising awareness of breast cancer or being used to feed children, so facebook is ignoring their own existing policy.
No. We need to reject this ideology. It is wrong wrong wrong.
We need to stop perpetuating this lie.
Naked human bodies are wholey unremarkable in the strongest sense.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
P0rn is illegal in many countries. Facebook wants to do business in these countries, hence aggressive filtering and minimum liability.
Does Facebook have a representation in those countries? Besides that, we're not talking about porn. Unless you want to see breast cancer videos and mothers feeding their children as porn but that would be a perception error, the label simply does not apply.
That can't be right.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It also shows just how bad Facebook is at machine learning (among the other top machine learning companies). They can't even distinguish "cartoon breasts" from real breasts? Just look at this video, and see how ridiculous it is that Facebook had an automated tool that would take that down: https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=9&v=a7836jKqJag
Or maybe shows how difficult that task is. Have you made an implementation that successfully distinguishes the two?
The implementation that would successfully distinguish between the two is one that doesn't. It would allow both, and not apologise for it.
Naked female brests are not porn.