Breast-Feeding Photo Brouhaha Shows How Impossible It Is To Rate Websites
from the mission-impossible dept
Just after the UK's culture minister, Andy Burnham, announced that he thinks all websites can and should be rated, comes a story that highlights what a ridiculous suggestion it is to say that you can simply classify all websites. Facebook is facing a bit of a backlash after the company started banning some photos of women breast-feeding as being inappropriate. Basically, Facebook has been making its own judgment on which of those photos are "obscene" and which are fine -- and it's pissing off a bunch of moms whose photos have been deleted. And, of course, this is just one simple example. Thinking that there's some sort of single objective measure by which all sites (or content) can be rated is so wrong it's hard to believe that someone thinking such a thing was possible could hold down a serious job, let alone elected office.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: andy burnham, breast feeding, indecent content, ratings
Companies: facebook
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Why do the uptight prudes and flat-chested/fat broads have to ruin it for everybody??
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Or not... my chica has marvelous tatas, and she doesn't mind showing them off (God and Mary bless her!)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
They should be taught better, cause binging on that orina with fuck their heads up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
:P
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
breast feeding in the US is weirdly cultural
here's why i think there are some strange culture or politics surrounding breast feeding: my first child was born in german hospital and they encouraged breast feeding but there was not a lot of pressure. my wife got a fever a week after delivery and couldn't continue nursing and it was no big deal. a few months later, at the american military clinic there was a full scale freak out that the baby wasn't breast fed. for a few minutes i was worried that social workers were going to get involved.
in the US, my second child was adopted as a newborn, and so we got a pass on the whole breastfeeding thing. when my good friend's wife had a baby a whole team of nurses and "consultants" descended on her to indoctrinate her into breastfeeding complete with someone coming by their house and membership in some sort of league.
so with all the cultural/political investment in the US i am not surprised at all that facebook took a lashing over taking down the pics.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
What the law does address is that a mother at a park can breastfeed without being charged with indecent exposure.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
private
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: private
Uh, no one said otherwise. The point, though, was that this highlights how difficult it is to categorize content -- whether done privately or publicly.
No one is saying Facebook doesn't have a right to do this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The women I know would be repulsed by being objectified in such a manner, especially from a photo taken during an intensely private, beautiful and special moment.
And I wonder if they would claim to be persecuted so loudly and so often if they just stopped to think for a moment.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
/sarcasm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I wonder if women, and men, of all types realize that they are exposing themselves to becoming masturbation fodder at some point, because no matter what you look like/dress like/do there will always be someone who will find it arousing. Call it a Reverse Rule 34. Honestly, I'm amazed that some segment of the population manage to continue to exist with the levels of sexual repression/misrepresentation that exist.
Let's say that the photos that were removed were posted by the subjects themselves because they wanted to share that intensely beautiful moment, as I'd wager they were. Ah, fuckit, it's like teaching calculus to a two year-old.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
perfect rating system
dumb...dumber...dumberer...etc!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
( )
( )
/
( {} )
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Face book fare
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Face book fare
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I wonder if women who sneeze in public realize they are exposing themselves to becoming masturbation fodder for guys with a sneezing fetish. Hell, I wonder if women who walk around without their burka on realize that somewhere, some horny teenage guy is probably whacking it thinking of them.
Those poor gullible women, so sadly willing to exchange their right to avoid sexual molestation in other people's private thoughts for the pointless freedom to raise their children in a way they find beneficial without becoming social recluses. Probably best to have a more rational person make the decision for them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Who was it that said....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
to Alan Gerow
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Face book very fare
http://technology.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/tech_and_web/article5417278.ece
http://ww w.guardian.co.uk/media/2008/dec/30/facebook-breastfeeding-ban
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Very fare facebook alan
From the linked article
"Photos containing a fully exposed breast (as defined by showing the nipple or areola) do violate those terms (on obscene, pornographic or sexually explicit material) and may be removed," he said in a statement.
"The photos we act upon are almost exclusively brought to our attention by other users who complain."
One breast-feeding mother, called Rebekah, said Facebook removed a photograph of her feeding her child.
"I find it offensive that (Facebook) can remove my photo but not the close up picture of a thonged backside I (have) seen on a friend's page or remove the "what kama sutra position are you?" quiz application," she wrote.
Unless I'm very under informed, these women are retarded, and represent the core of what is wrong with our culture. IMHO
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Very fare facebook alan
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Actually
Public laws supercede company policy on some points (usually those concerning issues like discrimination) but not on others.
So, for example, a store could opaque its windows and say that it was store policy that shoppers should shop in the nude, and that would be ok, though they'd probably want to provide notice on the entrances.
They could *not*, however, permit shoppers to violate health codes in that they were nude, nor could they discriminate against, say, black people who wanted to shop nude: indecent exposure laws can be overridden by company policies (you're not in 'public' to that degree), but other types of laws cannot.
And the Applebee's with the problem were in Florida; my local news coverage of the FB flap mentioned it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Actually
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Of course not
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
protected activity on facebook
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: protected activity on facebook
The issue with Facebook is that they are expressly calling photos of breastfeeding obscene and alienating a large segment of customers. They may state this or that about nipples, but what actually happens is that someone complains and they practically auto-delete the thing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
My view - call a spade a spade, or: a breast is a breast is a breast
If they allow photo's of bare breasts for the purpose of feeding babies, then they should allow photo's of fornication for the purpose of making babies, because if it has that purpose, it's not pornography, right? I mean, a bare breast with a nipple hanging out about to be glommed onto by a newborn baby, is no different than a bare breast with a nipple hanging out about to be glommed onto by a grown male or female. Bare breast is bare breast.
The women posting pictures online of themselves bare breasted with babies nearby or feeding are just exibitionists. What is the point? Exactly why are they putting their bare breasts on facebook? They are certainly not doing it to just post pictures of their baby. It would have taken less than two seconds to cover up the bare breasts. No, they are posting pictures of their milk engorged breasts, under the guise of posting pictures of themselves with their baby. I'm okay with that. But let's call a spade a spade and be honest here. Bare breasts are bare breasts. Many people call that porn.
It's a matter of opinion on whether adding a baby to the picture changes the definition of it being porn or not, but the person with the bad is the person adding a baby to the picture and posting it online, not the person saying the bare breast is objectionable and needs to be posted in a different media forum, like the kind that takes your credit card to view the pictures. Exhibitionism is exhibitionism and putting your baby in a photo online with your bare breasts is just sick and wrong. It's using your baby to feed voyeurism, and like I said, belongs on a website that takes your credit card before it lets you look at the pictures.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: My view - call a spade a spade, or: a breast is a breast is a breast
...or an uptight prude.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: My view - call a spade a spade, or: a breast is a breast is a breast
I dare you to come over and tell my wife "Cover it up, lady". I'll put your ass on the floor.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
U almost had me
ps. if you think you must pay money to see porn try these on for size.
http://www.redtube.com/
http://www.keezmovies.com/
http://www.tube8.com/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: U almost had me
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Again Jason
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Again Jason
They haven't sued, they haven't flung Molotov cocktails, they just said, "Hey we don't like this, and we'd like you to change your policy."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Facebook
If Facebook chooses to take photos down, they have that right. Unless these breastfeeding mothers own Facebook they have no reason to complain. AND WE ALL KNOW THAT WOMEN THAT GET PREGNANT CANT BE CEOS OR VALUED MEMBERS OF THE WORKFORCE CUZ THEY BE TAKIN ALL THAT TIME OFF ROFL AMIRITE?!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Facebook
I agree, Facebook has that right. They are not public. You usually can't even find their content via google. BUT they need to recognize that their exercise of their right calls a sacred act of motherhood an obscenity and a whole lot of their customers are offended.
If that doesn't bother them, there's not much else to it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Really here....
http://www.tera.ca/photos6.html
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Really here....
It has nothing to do with where on the woman's breast the line is drawn. The point is they're calling motherly nurturing, nourishment, and affection an obscentity!!!
I agree that airbrushed pics of women in lingerie showing their breasts (and practically everything else) is obscene. It's OBVIOUSLY INTENDED to sexually entice perverts.
I think it's ABSURD that a woman cuddling her infant against her bare breast is lumped into the same category. Do I think legal action should be taken? No. Do I agree with those women who quietly (honestly some just posted a monochrome vector graphic icon) protested because Facebook's mindless policy essentially called them all whores? Hell yes!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Really here....
2. Facebook did not call them all whores, they quite plainly said before the users sight was allowed upt that
1. many people find nipples ofensive, and wish there children not to see them.
2. don't post pictures with nipples
and You might also find it interesting that they went out of there way to try to find a traditional meda company that would accept an ad with a breastfeeding women with nipple shown. they did not find one. I would be iligal and cuase public outcry in many places
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You don't get it!
I think its silly and retarded that we have banned breasts. But as a society we have, its an accepted norm. Challenging face book won't help that. A lawsuit might acually change the norm and produce somthing positive. But these women are just social misfits that would rather complain than imporve the situation.
Also, if her day was calm enough to upload a photo to face book, its calm enough "to cover up a couple of millimeters of aureole so she can take a picture of her baby." as you put it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: You don't get it!
It's NOT a legal issue. It's simply a business issue.
How many fscking times do I have to concede that point????
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: You don't get it!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: You don't get it!
Since when did it become wrong to complain over an honest grievance?
ALSO, the point is that SHE SHOULDN'T HAVE TO COVER UP breastfeeding, and Facebook should consider their actions before acting like a scared 12yrold boy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: You don't get it!
Face book appeals to users of all ages
The plain fact of the matter is that in many locations, it would be illegal for them to do so if they allowed the showing of nudity.
Unless these women plan on changing laws or social norms with some sort of legal precedent. They are wasting there time. Nudity is nudity. I don't think you get it. I think I should be allowed to walk down the street naked in a non sexual and natural manner. But if I tried got arrested and then complained. guess what, I would be by definition a social misfit. So befor you get PISSED and reveal your emotional attachment to the issue, And your ignorance of both what was said and the meaning behind it. THINK
thxs
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: You don't get it!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: You don't get it!
But personal jibes aside, your comparison is stupid. Getting arrested for blatantly ignoring the law is a whole world removed from getting snubbed for displaying photos of something that could be displayed on PBS (with federal funding even!).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: You don't get it!
They are being snubbed for blatantly ignoring the rules site, in the same manner I would be arrested for blatantly ignoring the rules of law. the fact that it could be shown on pbs changes nothing. It could not be shown in many other fourms which is neither here nor there. Facebook crafted there rules based on exsiting social norms. No nipples. they blatantly ignored, got snubed, then complained, and thus are social misfits. And incase you wish to argue this point
the difinition is and I quote
One who is unable to adjust to one's environment or circumstances or is considered to be disturbingly different from others.
they are not this for breastfeeding, or breastfeeding in public, or even for showing nipples. but for as you put it blatantly ignoring the perfectly normal rules put forth by a fsight.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You don't get it!
Now wait, you think pictures of breastfeeding women is disturbingly different from the norm. The only thing disturbing about that is that formula-feeding (which I agree can be a legitimate choice) has been so strongly marketed as to make breastfeeding somehow seem abnormal.
My great grandparents would probably have qualified as prudish, but never would they have considered a breastfeeding woman to be odd or out of place or even remotely obscene. It was and across the globe on the whole, it still is VERY NORMAL.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You don't get it!
full frontal nipple while breastfeeding is disturbingly different from the norm!!!!!
Even when women breastfeed in public they do not do it in a manner as to highlight there breasts. Go look at the banned photos!!!!
I'm done, by the way, I hope you win your fight because I agree society is wrong. But until playboy pictures are allowed in the newspaper, you won't and no nipple is a completely reasonable request
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You don't get it!
You really seem excited about those banned photos in a different way than I am.
I'm also done. It's time we gave Masnick his blog back. Mike, thanks for your patience.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: You don't get it!
The funny thing is I agree with you on all points except that women are in the wrong for this simple reason.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: You don't get it!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: You don't get it!
its offensive that I find it humorous that we agree on so much yet reach a diffrent conclusion.
ok..............
I bet your life is just full of sunshine ain't it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You don't get it!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You don't get it!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: You don't get it!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No it dosn't
My complaint is that from what I have seen around the web, these woman aren't complaining that facebook is against breastfeed,( which they categorically are not). The're complaining that there nipples are worse than a thong or than a girl in a bikini. But that these same woman would probobly be the first ones to complain about porn on tv; because there kids might see it. Or the first to complain if I put my penis, which is natural and beautiful, up as my photo.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No it dosn't
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: No it dosn't
2. Facebook did not call them all whores, they quite plainly said before the users sight was allowed upt that
1. many people find nipples ofensive, and wish there children not to see them.
2. don't post pictures with nipples
and You might also find it interesting that they went out of there way to try to find a traditional meda company that would accept an ad with a breastfeeding women with nipple shown. they did not find one. I would be iligal and cuase public outcry in many places
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: No it dosn't
2. Facebook called it obscenity. It's part of their rules regarding obscenity.
I don't find it interesting at all. I think it's a lame excuse and sort of pathetic, and I call bullshit. I bet I could find a traditional media company that has already done that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: No it dosn't
Guess what, many people find exposed nipples to be an obscenity. what do you not get about this. you can do many things on pbs you can't do in public or face book, let me list some of them.
defecate in full view un obstructed.
give birth
perform nude rain dances
hunt in the nude
scream obscenities in a foreign tongue
perform penis lengthening with a stick( yes i've seen this done on pbs)
show a man with elephantiasis of the testicles wheel them around with a wheelbarrow, (yep saw that too)
I say you should, facebook would die without advertisement, and finding high quality reputable advertisers that support that sort of thing would actually help this silly cause, as apposed to complaining.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: No it dosn't
- Penis lengthing -> probably slipped past because no one (except the misfits) sat around to check that one out.
- Elephantitis - blink, blink, um alright
- foreign obscenities, happens all the time and is generally accepted in traditional media as well, esp british obscenities
- giving birth in public is also legal (seriously, what the hell you gonna do?)
- nude rain dances/hunt in the nude/penis lengthening - extremely very context specific, also has been done in traditional media, and so far seems to support my point
So far you are not arguing against me, did you know that?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Breastfeeding is bad!
Babies should not feed themselves on breasts! This is why baby formulas has been invented. And for those mothers who still think they should feed their babies breastmilk, there are special tools available to extract the milk from their breasts, clean it from all kinds of impurities before it can be given to the baby.
By the way, it is also wrong to have babies born in the nude. During pregnancy a doctor should insert baby clothing around the unborn child and it should be born using a Caesarean section, so the mother does not need to take off her underpants while giving birth. Using this procedure will avoid all those nudity images that fathers of unborn children like to make during the birth of their child because honestly, it's disgusting...[/Sarcasm]
Okay, let's hope there are no crazy persons on this world who agrees with what I said just now... :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Can't we all just get along.. Look it's simple.. Facebook reserve the right to take down the pics. Get over it..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The women in question also have a right to raise their collective voice and attempt to have the policy changed. They have this right whether anyone agrees with them at all. As long as facebook allows the group to exist and to raise their complaints they can do it right there on facebook.
The only thing that this highlights is how hard it is to categorize content. The debate over whether or not these women are a bunch of crazy ingrates vs breastfeeding a beautiful and natural thing is pretty much moot for all intents and purposes.
I think the real issue here is that this story highlights the problem of classifying content. Are we to block our ever growing teenage pregnant population from access to sites showing how to breastfeed? Many filters, even ones in place in libraries, do this already. It is a single point highlighting an actual problem without being a problem in the actual instance in which it is presented. It can be extrapolated, and has in these comments, to apply to other situations. That is where the discussion lies and not in facebook doing something within their rights and people protesting that something within their rights. The actual topic of breastfeeding doesn't matter at all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
article
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
its breasts for crying out loud!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
tell me about it
[ link to this | view in chronology ]