(Dagbladet): – Facebook justify it with the fact that they should prevent people from inadvertently become the subject of infringing material. I don’t understand how it is possible. With my profile when I’m just out to friends and followers, not to the insanely kristenkonservative of 120 years in Kuala Lumpur, says Rolness to the Newspaper.
Sociologist and writer Kjetil Rolness has been banned from Facebook for three days, as a result of that he has shared the article “This is the 10 worst record covers” from the newspaper iTromsø, written by Helge Skog and Egon holstad has been. In the current article, you will find a bildekarusell with almost 60 images, taken from different record covers through the ages. Inngangsbildet to the case is a picture of a woman with bare breasts.
- “Richly” illustrated
Rolness posted this morning a post via forfatterkollega Tom egeland’s account, where he says that he is banned, and explain their views on the matter:
the Article was “richly illustrated” with a billedkarusell. This was the invitation: “Press your way through the carousel below for spiritual joy and a sense of what it is to have malignant and extremely aggressive cancer in the eye.” It is like we connaisseurer of the bad taste like to enjoy with, write Rolness.
Tom Egeland was even banned from Facebook in september when he let out the iconic photo of vietnamese children fleeing from a napalmangrep, it was quickly removed from the social media as a violation of the nakenreglene. Egeland was later also banned.
To the Newspaper elaborates Kjetil Rolness what he thinks about the ban. He believes Facebook has neither taken into consideration to context or to the subject of the spread in this case, and compare the article with satire.
In principle, open Facebook up for nudity in satire, but in practice they do not. They make it as easy as possible for themselves, and settles on a standard that corresponds to the most conservative environment in America in 1952. To align itself with it, is a little sad, ” says Rolness, and points out that he himself in 2003 gave out a book that dealt with the pornodebatten, and which was illustrated with some hardpornobilder.
- at The time there was no one who responded. And now we sit here and are being punished for having shown a tit – from a disc cover from 1957!
- Poorly done, Mark!
the Author believes this will be manifested in the newspapers, who no longer can share articles with material that tilfedigvis nudity on Facebook.
- most newspapers will use Facebook to get traffic, but to do it may be to use such illustrations. It is self-censorship based on Facebook’s standard, ” he says.
at the same time, he believes Facebook had not needed to punish him so hard.
- another thing is that they turn down on this, and remove the post. A completely different thing is straffenivået. That I without warning have been thrown out in three days is a little severe punishment, perhaps, says the author, before he adds:
- This was poorly done, Mark!
the Tits edited out
In the picture carousel with almost 60 even, some have nudity or are explicit in a different way, were thus the image of the woman with the bare breasts from the cover of the album “My Pussy Belongs to Daddy” all the way in the front. To see the other pictures, one must click into the case and further in the picture carousel.
In the case the journalists pulled out each of their five absolute “favorites” – among these are: Sverre Kjelsberg “the Dream e’ free,” The Louvin Brothers “Satan Is Real”, Ted Nugent “Scream Dream”, Rod Stewart “An Old Raincoat Won’t Ever Let You Down” and Millie Jackson “Back to the S**t!”.
For that, not the photos would be offensive for those who came of the matter, had the journalists behind the case chosen to edit the image so that the tits were not visible from Facebook.
- Yes, I cropped it so the breasts of a woman, on one of the nearly 60 platecoverne in the picture carousel, not would be shown. I know that there is a strong inherent anxiety for kvinnebryst in american society, writes holstad has been in an email to the Newspaper.
But it was obviously not. Holstad has been telling that the case has been removed from his private wall – with the warning that he also came to be banned if he didn’t go through the entire clipboard to guarantee that he had several nude photos.
I have now done, so I’m not banned. Rolness, on the other hand, has run and posted to the talks between iran before too, so it punished him also for past sins, ” he explains.
- This is both entertaining and annoying at the same time. Entertaining, because the americans are so at timid to nudity, and of course annoying when such relatively innocuous matters are removed from the main distribution channel for affairs, says the journalist, who now has sent an open klagebrev to Mark Zuckerberg.
“This is the 10 worst record covers” was one of iTromsøs most read and shared in the course of the weekend, before Facebook censored it.
- Can be more stivbente than we want
the Newspaper has tried to contact Facebook via Facebook, but has so far not received any response. In their guidelines reviews however, Facebook nudity so:
- We remove the images of people that show genitals or that focus on completely bared butts. We also limits some pictures of kvinnebryst if they show the nipple, but we do always pictures of women who are breast-feeding a child, or showing the scars after the mastectomy. We also allow images of paintings, sculptures and other art that depicts naked figures. Restrictions for the display of both nudity and sexual activity also apply to digitally created content, unless the content is published for the purpose of teaching, humor, or satire to make, writes Facebook in its guidelines.
Facebook writes further that the guidelines their sometimes can be a bit more stivbente than they want, and it can end with that they limit the content shared for legitimate reasons.
” We are working constantly to get better at evaluating this content and to enforce the standards, they write.
No comments:
Post a Comment