Facebook apologises for removing breast cancer awareness video • Hacker News Board

Re: Facebook apologises for removing breast cancer awareness video

#91

Post by protomyth » Fri, Oct 21, 2016, 10:48 PM UTC

kodis wrote: post #64

sfaf wrote: post #54

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.

I watched that Superbowl half-time show with my two young at the time children. What I remember was that although I barely noticed the one or two seconds of exposed nipple, I was really hoping that I wouldn't have to explain the need for the erectile dysfunction medicine which was being advertised later in the show.

The K-Y commercials they were running scared me in that regard. I was ready with the "Ask me again in 10 years". They have to advertise too.

Re: Facebook apologises for removing breast cancer awareness video

#92

Post by jacalata » Sat, Oct 22, 2016, 12:15 AM UTC

vkou wrote: post #29

witty_username wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not "should"; that's how it is. Facebook isn't your country.

It's also 'illegal' for women to have their faces covered in some countries. Does this mean that there should be no pictures of women on Facebook?

Really? Where?

Re: Facebook apologises for removing breast cancer awareness video

#93

Post by vmasto » Sat, Oct 22, 2016, 2:12 AM UTC

TheSpiceIsLife wrote: post #80

vmasto wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or maybe shows how difficult that task is. Have you made an implementation that successfully distinguishes the two?

Yes, my brain. Developed it in house. A couple of collaborators I guess. 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.

That is not what parent was saying. And your brain is not your own implementation.

Re: Facebook apologises for removing breast cancer awareness video

#94

Post by gjolund » Sat, Oct 22, 2016, 3:41 AM UTC

kodis wrote: post #64

sfaf wrote: post #54

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.

I watched that Superbowl half-time show with my two young at the time children. What I remember was that although I barely noticed the one or two seconds of exposed nipple, I was really hoping that I wouldn't have to explain the need for the erectile dysfunction medicine which was being advertised later in the show.

Her nipple ring was pretty cool. My girlfriend got one like it not long after.

Re: Facebook apologises for removing breast cancer awareness video

#95

Post by kajecounterhack » Sat, Oct 22, 2016, 9:43 AM UTC

TheSpiceIsLife wrote: post #74

kajecounterhack wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This. Porn detection algorithms still have a hard time distinguishing educational imagery. It was just an FP.

Stop calling naked female breasts "porn". 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.

1. I didn't call naked female breasts porn, I only said that classifiers have a hard time identifying what is porn vs educational imagery. One example if you think about it is that many simple classifiers utilize skin color. More skin color, more likely to be porn. So yeah, even if you don't want to consider just naked female breasts porn, your classifier might still make that mistake.

2. As someone who works in abuse, defining porn is really nuanced. You don't get to define porn for yourself, and while I actually do agree with where you stand on cultural norms in general, when it comes to offering public services you actually have to just go with what people find acceptable per country / comply with laws. So in some countries what would be called porn isn't considered that in others (topless women in Europe, or bikini-clad women in USA).

You can argue that all countries shouldn't body shame women or set rules for what they can and cannot wear / especially with double standards vis a vis men. (And I personally hold that view too.) But that's a societal issue / opinion and not related to having to define service behavior, which exists in society and has to comply with its whims.

Re: Facebook apologises for removing breast cancer awareness video

#96

Post by witty_username » Sun, Oct 23, 2016, 5:14 AM UTC

vkou wrote: post #29

witty_username wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not "should"; that's how it is. Facebook isn't your country.

It's also 'illegal' for women to have their faces covered in some countries. Does this mean that there should be no pictures of women on Facebook?

It's upto Facebook what they want to do.

Re: Facebook apologises for removing breast cancer awareness video

#97

Post by Joof » Mon, Oct 24, 2016, 5:06 AM UTC

darklajid wrote: post #84

Joof wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I had the unique opportunity of visiting a nudist event recently. While children weren't allowed, some of the people had grown up in nudist communities. They are incredibly capable people with no trauma; nudity itself just isn't damaging -- not all nudity is sexual.

Loved your anecdote and this culture is at least somewhat common in my home country. That said, I'm not convinced that sexuality on its own is damaging either. I'm not sure if you implied that with the second half of your statement/the nudity vs sexual distinction.

Tried not to imply it, but still distinguish it as a separate concept. Probably failed. I'm trying to convince people one step at a time.

Re: Facebook apologises for removing breast cancer awareness video

#98

Post by vkou » Tue, Oct 25, 2016, 4:38 PM UTC

jacalata wrote: post #92

vkou wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's also 'illegal' for women to have their faces covered in some countries. Does this mean that there should be no pictures of women on Facebook?

Really? Where?

Burkas, burkinis in France. (It's a bit more complicated then that, hence the scare quotes.)

Depending on who you ask, it's either because of some hand-waved nonsense about public safety, or because liberal Western values include telling women what they can and cannot wear.

Re: Facebook apologises for removing breast cancer awareness video

#99

Post by vkou » Tue, Oct 25, 2016, 4:43 PM UTC

clort wrote: post #49

vkou wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually, in the best case, the criterion for taking things down is a few people silently and anonymously clicking the report button. In the worst case, it's their NSFW algorithms identifying a nipple in the picture, with no regard for context.

just btw it would not be anonymous. If you are on facebook, you are logged into facebook, and they track every click.

It's anonymous in the same way that people complaining to the FCC about someone saying 'fuck' on television is.

Unlike the poster whose content is taken down, the reporters do not become part of public record. (I am not saying that they should.)