How Facebook decides which images to allow

Discuss

32 Responses to “How Facebook decides which images to allow”

  1. teapot says:

    Way to protect your users, Facebook. Keep images of them breaking the law smoking weed but remove images of them not breaking the law. Could this have something to do with their advertisers being liquor companies? I’d have no idea because the last time I logged on there was months and months ago.

    • TheMudshark says:

      Way to post pictures of you breaking the law on facebook, hypothetical recreational drug user.

    • Ye, I don’t think it’s Facebooks job to protect you from the law.

      Also, people smoking weed are fundamentally inoffensive.  Drunk people on the other hand are a nuisance and a mess.  I’d put ‘drunk’ in the same category as ‘high on meth’ in photography terms. In legal terms of course things are reversed, but when considering actual morals and logic, it’s perfectly sensible.

      • marilove says:

        “I’d put ‘drunk’ in the same category as ‘high on meth’ in photography terms.”

        What.  Seriously?  Comparing being passed out drunk to high on meth?!  Do you know what meth is?

      • Antinous / Moderator says:

        Also, people smoking weed are fundamentally inoffensive.

        You clearly haven’t had as many roommates as I have. Giggling incessantly while eating everybody else’s food gets old fast.

        • elix says:

          While there’s no defense for being irresponsible and immature with marijuana (and the known consequences: i.e. the munchies), I would suggest that you could do a lot worse than a giddy, food-gobbling roomie.

  2. Robert says:

    How utterly bizarre they don’t allow photos of “drunk or unconscious” people. Nipples I can understand (they’re a US based company after all), but drunk or unconscious? Can’t be true. I’ve seen photos of people asleep and/or drunk up there.

    Is this document legit?

  3. Robert says:

    While I’m here, has anyone else noticed how the comment box supplied by Disqus stops working completely on an iPhone the moment you enter more text than the box can display?

    The whole text box stops responding and nothing short of a browser restart will fix it. :-(

  4. b8664400 says:

    Facebook is a social disease created by a person who has nothing but contempt for his users. Its AOL-like ending can’t come soon enough. It’s incomprehensible that this ‘company’ is worth anything at all.

  5. guanto says:

    This is actually surprisingly sensible and straightforward, much more so than usual. I take it the no-naughty-parts thing is an American twist that also exists in other media, e.g. broadcast TV. Apart from that, pretty good; wonder why they didn’t make it public in the first place?

    (Not that I’m a big fan of restrictions like these, but as far as arbitrary lines go, this one is better than most.)

    • Jer_00 says:

      Except that it’s a, you know, “leaked document”.

      If Facebook has a set of rules for images they allow and others they yank, why aren’t they making it public to their users (who could then know in advance whether their pics are going to be “safe” for Facebook and post their pics elsewhere instead)?  Why hide their policy?

    • IronEdithKidd says:

      Picture of *very* dead person; OK.  Picture of mother feeding her baby: not OK.

      How is this sensible? 

      • guanto says:

        Relatively, considering their environment. They _are_ in America after all, where there are hordes of god-fearing mothers shouting “won’t somebody think of the children?”

        They will allow wounds but no evisceration — as good a place to draw a line as any. Keep in mind that this is for somewhat “public” images that a user actually has to flag as inappropriate.

        But what do I know; we have porn on broadcast TV here and I don’t think we’re any worse off for it.

  6. Every meme has to start somewhere so why not here?

    “What’s a facebook?”

  7. chgoliz says:

    It really is all about context, isn’t it?  Women’s breasts are perceived as being sexual objects in the US, so that’s what they must be.  If they happen to be used occasionally for an off-label purpose such as nursing, well, we can’t encourage non-sexual perceptions, now can we?

    In the same way, animals are for killing and eating, so as long as the context is clear — have no fear: this mangled animal will be eaten — then no amount of violence is too gory.

    It’s not the object that matters: it’s the subject.

    • Antinous / Moderator says:

      Women’s breasts are perceived as being sexual objects in the US, so that’s what they must be. If they happen to be used occasionally for an off-label purpose such as nursing, well, we can’t encourage non-sexual perceptions, now can we?

      So it’s a matter of vigorously defending the breast brand.

  8. Sparrow says:

    Facebook is kind of unpredictable about my pictures. Pictures of stitches, blocked. Pictures of the scar afterward, (fully clothed,) blocked. Pictures of nipple piercings, not blocked. Landscape shot of an empty beach, blocked.

  9. Yeah…I wonder when facebook will testify in a process?…

  10. Joly MacFie says:

    Earwax!

Leave a Reply