Never Too Sure About Its Own Decisions, Facebook Now Re-Bans Beheading Videos
After flipping to ban brutal, gruesome decapitation videos six months ago and then flopping to allow such videos to appear in the 'book yesterday, Facebook has flipped again (or is it re-flopped?) in less than 24 hours and will reinstate its previous ban on such decapitation videos.
By Sadho Ram — 22 Oct 2013, 10:51 PM — Updated almost 11 years ago
Never Too Sure About Its Own Decisions, Facebook Now Re-Bans Beheading Videos
It's an ugly tug of war between free speech, censorship, horrifying content, etc. that can sort of dictate what people see in their feeds.
aljazeera.comFacebook, which lifted its initial ban of the decapitation video because it believed that Facebook is used to share experiences of controversial events, is now telling AllThingsD that it's "strengthening the enforcement of [Facebook's] policy".
dailymail.co.ukThe abrupt flip-flop came a day after a public outcry over news reports that Facebook, the world's No. 1 social network with 1.15 billion members, had lifted a temporary ban on images of graphic violence.
"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," Facebook said in a statement.
thefrontierpost.com"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," the company said.
in.com
While Facebook polices its site to remove pornography, hate speech and other forbidden content, the company must also make a judgment about when certain images, such as video of violent attacks, are in the public interest.
In Facebook's world, a beheading is OKAY but an exposed nipple is not. Here's how.
The social media behemoth has decided that a 13-year-old – for that is the permitted minimum age of a Facebook user – can watch a video of a decapitation, but must be protected from the potentially scarring effects of seeing a breastfeeding mother and child briefly pause for breath.
freep.com
The site, which is open to anyone over the age of 13, had banned footage of decapitation on its site in May citing concerns that it would cause long-term psychological damage!
Image via dailymail.co.ukHow else to read its latest decision to lift restrictions in place since May and allow users once again to post head-chopping videos, even as it maintains its ban on images of the most mild form of naturally occurring nudity?
theguardian.com
"Photos that show a fully exposed breast where the child is not actively engaged in nursing do violate the Facebook terms" is how the site puts it.
theguardian.com
Facebook banned decapitation videos in May due to psychological damage. Now taking a U-turn, it says users should be able to watch and condemn these videos.
But that distinction is not always so obvious. A bit of lip-service condemnation would not be hard to construct for someone whose motive was altogether less benign. Besides, isn't it possible to condemn a decapitation without actually showing it?
metro.co.uk
The lunacy of allowing beheadings while banning nursing mothers would be bad enough. But Facebook has tied itself up in further knots of illogic by explaining that such snuff videos are OK if they are posted to "condemn" the killing rather than glorify it.
dailymail.co.ukWhen the Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl was brutally murdered that way in 2002, news media around the world managed to denounce it without airing the video.
theguardian.com
David Cameron has branded Facebook ‘irresponsible’ for their change in policy.
Mr Cameron called on the site to explain its ‘actions to worried parents’. ‘It’s irresponsible of Facebook to post beheading videos, especially without a warning,’ he tweeted this morning.
metro.co.uk
