Sadly Facebook lets terrible clips return to social network

[SOFTengCOMPelec]

News story on the BBC about this

This is so sad. It is giving terrible terrorists and criminals, a free advertising network. Which might make them more likely to do these activities.
Crazy.
This may result in Facebook being blacklisted and/or shunned/rejected, by a number of different entities (my own speculation).

Quote is from link above. The actual article has much more details, and viewer comments.

Facebook is allowing videos showing people being decapitated to be posted and shared on its site once again.

The social network had introduced a temporary ban in May following complaints that the clips could cause long-term psychological damage.

The US firm confirmed it now believed its users should be free to watch and condemn such videos. It added it was, however, considering adding warnings.

 

[Nebor]

I don't think posting beheadings is going to win terrorist organizations any friends.

 

[SOFTengCOMPelec]

I don't think posting beheadings is going to win terrorist organizations any friends.

I don't think they are trying to win friends.

I think they are trying to scare people, into doing whatever the terrorists want.

This now gives terrorists (and others), more advertising space to scare/upset/blackmail people/religions/countries into performing the terrorists wishes.

Worse still, it might give them further incentive to perform these crazy/sickening acts more frequently.

 

[SheHateMe]

As if these videos aren't on Liveleak already.

 

[SOFTengCOMPelec]

As if these videos aren't on Liveleak already.

Yes, there are bad places on the internet, where bad stuff can be found.

BUT decent websites, which Facebook should of been (in some peoples opinion), should NOT be a paddler of such horrible material.

A poor innocent person (usually) lost their life in a horrible fashion, to make the video. It is being VERY rude and horrible to that person (disrespectful to the dead), to further spread their sad demise.

 

[gevorg]

the internets are getting more shocking and nasty, just like Youtube nudity

 

[Pray To Jesus]

Yes, there are bad places on the internet, where bad stuff can be found.

BUT decent websites, which Facebook should of been (in some peoples opinion), should NOT be a paddler of such horrible material.

A poor innocent person (usually) lost their life in a horrible fashion, to make the video. It is being VERY rude and horrible to that person (disrespectful to the dead), to further spread their sad demise.

Actually, it is VERY disrespectful to cover up their death and pretend nothing happened. Out of sight, out of mind.

 

[SheHateMe]

Yes, there are bad places on the internet, where bad stuff can be found.

BUT decent websites, which Facebook should of been (in some peoples opinion), should NOT be a paddler of such horrible material.

A poor innocent person (usually) lost their life in a horrible fashion, to make the video. It is being VERY rude and horrible to that person (disrespectful to the dead), to further spread their sad demise.

Facebook is too fucking big to be able to see what every single person is posting.

That's why there is a report button.

All types of messed up shit gets posted on FB (including CP...Ive had a run in with this). Report it, Hide it. Continue your life.

 

[SOFTengCOMPelec]

Actually, it is VERY disrespectful to cover up their death and pretend nothing happened. Out of sight, out of mind.

Valid point.
But it is too late to ask the deceased for their wishes on the matter. So it is probably prudent to take the safe assumption that they did not consent to or want their demise being freely shown on Facebook. For all and sundry to watch as entertainment.
Therefore, it is safest to NOT show it anywhere, except law enforcement/government, who can hopefully take action so the awful terrorists can be brought to justice.

Facebook is too fucking big to be able to see what every single person is posting.

That's why there is a report button.

All types of messed up shit gets posted on FB (including CP...Ive had a run in with this). Report it, Hide it. Continue your life.

Yes it is very difficult to Police the internet. But it would be good, if Facebook should at least have policies in place, banning such material.

Potentially as technology progresses, automatic implementation of these rules, would become increasingly practicable.

 

[Theb]

No one uses Facebook anymore anyway. It's all about Tumblr and Instagram and probably some other websites I'm too old to know about. An Al Shabob Facebook page would be about as cool as an Al Shabob Yellow Pages ad.

 

[AViking]

No one uses Facebook anymore anyway. It's all about Tumblr and Instagram and probably some other websites I'm too old to know about. An Al Shabob Facebook page would be about as cool as an Al Shabob Yellow Pages ad.

How old are you?

 

[Pulsar]

Valid point.
But it is too late to ask the deceased for their wishes on the matter. So it is probably prudent to take the safe assumption that they did not consent to or want their demise being freely shown on Facebook. For all and sundry to watch as entertainment.
Therefore, it is safest to NOT show it anywhere, except law enforcement/government, who can hopefully take action so the awful terrorists can be brought to justice.

Yes it is very difficult to Police the internet. But it would be good, if Facebook should at least have policies in place, banning such material.

Potentially as technology progresses, automatic implementation of these rules, would become increasingly practicable.

I realize you're from the UK and all, and you have some different viewpoints that Americans do when it comes to freedom. They're already censoring your internet, after all.

Censorship is bad. I don't care if it offends your sensibilities. It SHOULD offend your sensibilities. It SHOULD outrage you. And it SHOULD be in the public domain where people see it and understand exactly what is going on.

Censorship isn't policing. That's a bastardization of terms. Restricting information flow under the guise of 'protection' just leaves us ignorant and stupid.

 

[SOFTengCOMPelec]

I realize you're from the UK and all, and you have some different viewpoints that Americans do when it comes to freedom. They're already censoring your internet, after all.

Some good points. The significant differences in attitudes between the level of censorship required, between countries, such as the UK and US are entirely reasonable. Because we have developed relatively independently as countries for a long time.

The internet censorship (in the UK) is coming initially in the beginning of 2014 (for new ISP customers), and for all at the end of 2014. (I think).

By default it will be switched on, but customers can easily request its disabling for their account.
It is intended primarily to protect children.

I agree with protecting the children, but think there were better ways of handling it, without this mass censorship "porn" filter, in the UK.

Censorship is bad. I don't care if it offends your sensibilities. It SHOULD offend your sensibilities. It SHOULD outrage you. And it SHOULD be in the public domain where people see it and understand exactly what is going on.

Censorship by and large, is problematic, and can contribute to significant hardship for the countries population.

E.g. How long would the North Korean population be happy under their leader, if they knew what the rest of the world was really like ?

Censorship isn't policing. That's a bastardization of terms. Restricting information flow under the guise of 'protection' just leaves us ignorant and stupid.

Somehow their needs to be some kind of peaceful balance between complete lack of censorship and extreme censorship. Otherwise children can be harmed by what they see, illegal/problematic/pirated/disturbing material would freely flow across the internet.

Recent developments, such as the activities of the NSA coming out in the open, show that too much censorship, would be likely to be a bad thing.


I still tend to think that Facebook should prohibit videos which would be too bad to show on the TV (or some applicable worst level).
But your good arguments have partly swayed me, in your favour.

Since many/most of the people on this forum, are technically savvy, if not outright computer experts, we can well appreciate that the internet may well be very difficult to 100% police/censor in practice.

 

[Pulsar]

Some good points. The significant differences in attitudes between the level of censorship required, between countries, such as the UK and US are entirely reasonable. Because we have developed relatively independently as countries for a long time.

The internet censorship (in the UK) is coming initially in the beginning of 2014 (for new ISP customers), and for all at the end of 2014. (I think).

By default it will be switched on, but customers can easily request its disabling for their account.
It is intended primarily to protect children.

I agree with protecting the children, but think there were better ways of handling it, without this mass censorship "porn" filter, in the UK.




Censorship by and large, is problematic, and can contribute to significant hardship for the countries population.

E.g. How long would the North Korean population be happy under their leader, if they knew what the rest of the world was really like ?




Somehow their needs to be some kind of peaceful balance between complete lack of censorship and extreme censorship. Otherwise children can be harmed by what they see, illegal/problematic/pirated/disturbing material would freely flow across the internet.

Recent developments, such as the activities of the NSA coming out in the open, show that too much censorship, would be likely to be a bad thing.


I still tend to think that Facebook should prohibit videos which would be too bad to show on the TV (or some applicable worst level).
But your good arguments have partly swayed me, in your favour.

Since many/most of the people on this forum, are technically savvy, if not outright computer experts, we can well appreciate that the internet may well be very difficult to 100% police/censor in practice.

You'd have to define 'tv'. In the US, Cable TV packages can include hardcore porn. In Canada, after certain times full frontal nudity is allowed (stumbled on that one accidentally a while back on channel 9 from Windsor). We have over-the-air channels here, but while 'sex' and bad language are heavily regulated on those channels violence is not. Crazy huh? Back when the American was beheaded several news stations showed the youtube clip nearly it its entirety.

I would argue, too, that it's really up to parents to monitor and control what children see. Most schools have independent implementations of content control to protect the students. I think filtering and protection needs to happen at the family level. Not at the national, corporate, or international level.

I've seen the type of content that's on Facebook, and I don't intend on allowing my kids to use it before they are in high school. At that point, we'll have a discussion and they can sign in if they want, because there's no way you can protect them from it at that point.

 

[Doppel]

Not sure what I think of it. I hate the fact that in 2013 any time there is news of something, with a video, it's almost always censored and so I immediately have to go to liveleak because it's the only site with the balls to show it. I don't search out death videos and gore pictures (and I know some sites on the net are dedicated to them), but yes in some cases I think censorship materially changes what the content is about. It dulls it down.

 

[SOFTengCOMPelec]

You'd have to define 'tv'. In the US, Cable TV packages can include hardcore porn. In Canada, after certain times full frontal nudity is allowed (stumbled on that one accidentally a while back on channel 9 from Windsor). We have over-the-air channels here, but while 'sex' and bad language are heavily regulated on those channels violence is not. Crazy huh? Back when the American was beheaded several news stations showed the youtube clip nearly it its entirety.

There are other censorship laws in the UK, you may not be aware of.
If something is too bad/xxx/violent/etc then it can be declared illegal, under relatively recent "extreme" video laws.

E.g. If you had in your procession, violent rape video(s), you could go to prison for it. (I'm not 100% clear on what exactly is, and is not allowed, apparently I am not alone in being unsure).
Unfortunately the authorities can decide to declare it 'extreme', hence is is illegal.

TV comes into this, because if something is too extreme for showing on public TV, then that is the threshold for making it extreme. (It is also allowed to be as bad/xxx/etc as one can buy in a licensed xxx shop).

I think that the UK and US have the rules in opposite directions.

I.e. In the UK, even on public TV (at a suitably late time, e.g. 2 AM), just about any XXX could be shown (but maybe NOT that strong, I am not sure). Including xxx shop stuff.
But violence is censored.

But in the US (it's the other way round, partly). I understand that xxx is more limited on TV, but violence is relatively unregulated.

I would argue, too, that it's really up to parents to monitor and control what children see. Most schools have independent implementations of content control to protect the students. I think filtering and protection needs to happen at the family level. Not at the national, corporate, or international level.

I've seen the type of content that's on Facebook, and I don't intend on allowing my kids to use it before they are in high school. At that point, we'll have a discussion and they can sign in if they want, because there's no way you can protect them from it at that point.

I agree. The family/Parent(s) should take responsibility for protecting their children from seeing excessively violent/xxx/harmful stuff on TV/video-games/etc.
But if the government can offer schemes which help parents be able to do this.
Such as advice on how to make a PC, child safe/friendly.
Then that is a good and helpful/useful thing (I guess).

-------------------------------------

As is probably the case in the US, what is really going on here (UK censorship) is probably mostly an attempt to win future votes, rather than doing something which is really helpful and useful.

------------------------------------

There is also a real danger (my opinion), that if internet organizations, push, and push, at the boundaries too much. Then sooner, or later it may actually cause a significant loss of free speech freedom lose by the wider population(s), because it will push/force the authorities to pass draconian Internet (and other mediums) censorship laws.

 

[her209]

Free speech FTW. No one is holding a gun to your head to watch/look at death/gore videos. Don't like me? Don't watch em. Got fucked up friends that post that content? Unfriend them.

 

[SOFTengCOMPelec]

BBC report on Facebooks U-Turn

Apparently Facebook (after reading this thread, hopefully, lol!) have made a U-Turn decision, and removed a recent execution of a women video. This represents a change of policy (U-turn).

Facebook has removed a video clip showing a woman's decapitation and issued new rules about what can be shared on its site.

The U-turn comes two days after the BBC revealed the firm had dropped a ban on clips showing extreme violence.

That move was criticised by the British prime minister and the company's own safety advisers.

Facebook now says it will still allow some graphic content but will take a more comprehensive look at its context.

It outlined its revised policy in a press release.

"First, when we review content that is reported to us, we will take a more holistic look at the context surrounding a violent image or video, and will remove content that celebrates violence," it said.


A Facebook page that hosted a decapitation video now says it is unavailable
"Second, we will consider whether the person posting the content is sharing it responsibly, such as accompanying the video or image with a warning and sharing it with an age-appropriate audience.

"Based on these enhanced standards, we have re-examined recent reports of graphic content and have concluded that this content improperly and irresponsibly glorifies violence. For this reason, we have removed it."

The announcement follows a series of flip-flops by the company.

 

[SOFTengCOMPelec]

Free speech FTW. No one is holding a gun to your head to watch/look at death/gore videos. Don't like me? Don't watch em. Got fucked up friends that post that content? Unfriend them.

I think there needs to be some kind of balance, too much free speech, can be problematic.

E.g. Would it be ok for a group on Facebook to open up, named after their terrorist organisation, showing pictures of their victims, while they execute them, to help advertise their group, and spread terror ?

What if a *special interest* group* opens up with videos of interest to certain elements of the population, such as xxxexecutionsxxx (No such thing I hope, but the name hopefully conveys the point I am trying to get across).