Facebook Re-Opens The Door To Videos Featuring Beheadings; Breasts? Not So Much
from the no-joke dept
Perhaps like me, while you read all of our posts the past six months that had anything to do with Facebook, you missed the news that the social media site had instituted a policy specifically against sharing videos that featured human beings beheading other human beings. Granted, like for me, this may have fallen under your "I can't believe we need that, but okay" category, but indulge me for a moment as I ride the rollercoaster of oscilating views on the news that Facebook has recently rescinded this policy and will once again allow videos of beheadings to be shared, with only a few caveats.
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.Reaction Stage 1: Emotional Outrage -- You evil Facebook bastards! How simple is it to understand that you shouldn't allow people to show decapa-frigging-tations. The very idea of large swaths of people watching that kind of thing is sickening. And to hell with your caveats; there is no discussion worth having about vile acts of violence and death beyond the complete rebuke of them. What good could this possibly serve?
"Facebook has long been a place where people turn to share their experiences, particularly when they're connected to controversial events on the ground, such as human rights abuses, acts of terrorism and other violent events," said a spokeswoman.Reaction Stage 2: The Skeptical Deep Breath -- Okay, fine, that's a fair point. If social media sites are the water-cooler or social chamber of our time, then it makes sense that those discussions should be open to topics of controversey. After all, how do you discuss a beheading if you don't at least have the option to see what occurred. Still, this all sounds too close to people watching snuff films. Surely someone is going to have a problem with all this, right?
"It only takes seconds of exposure to such graphic material to leave a permanent trace - particularly in a young person's mind," said Dr Arthur Cassidy, a former psychologist who runs a branch of the Yellow Ribbon Program in Northern Ireland. "The more graphic and colourful the material is, the more psychologically destructive it becomes."Reaction Stage 3: Think Of The Damned Children -- Screw the fair points. How the hell could this possibly be deemed responsible when Facebook allows newly-proclaimed teenagers to view this kind of material? Nobody is really in favor of teens watching people get their melons chopped off, are they? And is anyone really going to argue that there won't be some damage to some children if this kind of thing is allowed to propagate? What's supposed to keep kids from seeing this kind of violence?
Facebook allows anyone aged 13 and above to be a member.
The idea of Facebook issuing a blanket ban had, however, concerned some freedom-of-speech campaigners who had suggested it was the responsibility of parents - not the company - to protect children on the internet.Reaction Stage 4: Oh, Yeah, The Stupid Parents -- Damn, I had forgotten about them. I guess it is up to parents to police their children's internet use and any unwillingness to do so shouldn't stifle the free speech of others. It's just that, well, so many parents suck at this part of their job. Still, that isn't the fault of people who are legitimately interested in these kinds of stories.
French digital rights group La Quadrature du Net said it was still concerned that Facebook was reserving the right to take down the videos if it took issue with the way they were presented.Reaction Stage 5: Reluctant Admission That Horrible Things Are The Reason Free Expression Is Important -- Yes, beheadings are terrible. As are violent attacks, terrorist attacks, bombings, war-crimes, and every other horrible action that we human beings commit against one another. But that is the reality of the world we live in. And if I'm confident about anything at all in this occasionally horrible world, it's that reacting to horror by placing your head in the sand doesn't work. There are those on this planet that believe in civil discourse, in peace, and in the possibility of harmony with our fellow human beings, and we deserve to know exactly how terrible the enemies of our cause are and to discuss their actions openly and honestly. A huge part of that means being able to see what we're dealing with. As I mentioned before, social media sites are our gathering places to discuss ideas, philosophies, and events. To stifle any part of that because the material at hand is uncomfortable to some would be a disservice. I don't even need to give examples of prior acts of violence that, thanks to their being on film, opened a larger number of people's eyes to important dangers than would have been otherwise.
"It shows how much Facebook is in power to decide whatever will or will not be expressed through its network," said the organisation's co-founder Jeremie Zimmermann. "It plays a profoundly anti-democratic role when it makes any such choice, whatever the limits are and whatever the good reasons it uses to make the decision. Only a judicial authority should be able to restrict fundamental freedoms according to the rule of law."
In the end, I come back to the resting place that seems so familiar to me: more discussion, more access to information, more freedom of speech is always better in the end. Of course, now having ridden this roller coaster ride up and down the emotions, there is one other issue. How is it that beheadings are considered important to free speech, but breasts are such a problem that even breastfeeding is (at times) banned?
Where did your rollercoaster take you?
Update: Oh, and just as we post this, it comes out that Facebook has removed a beheading video. The roller coaster ride begins again.
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: beheading, breasts, free speech, social media, videos
Companies: facebook
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
OT: sigh. just sigh. i think ill walk carefully away from this one.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Good quality beheading videos need a massive cdn to make sure they meet the consumers desire for HD detail.
It gets more eyes on and in facebook, and the money flows.
Imagine a world where the next parent to scream about their child seeing something horrible then gets arrested for failing to be a parent. Parents might start parenting again.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Oh, the moral outrage
I've seen exactly one beheading online. I watched it, found it distasteful and never looked for one again. I've never encountered one on Facebook, nor looked for one there. If I ever do get a beheading in my feed, I know how to delete it.
Limiting a person's options does not change the nature of a person. People who like to watch horrible things will still continue to do so.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Oh, the moral outrage
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Oh, the moral outrage
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Oh, the moral outrage
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Oh, the moral outrage
yes today it's human atrocities, tomorrow it will be sesame street!!!
Watch out Big Bird !!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Oh, the moral outrage
Here is a real life example of how it is done.
The Amish people have their own rules and live surrounded by inequity, despite all of this they find ways to raise their children according to their beliefs without having to force others to adapt to it, why those backwards people can do it and supposedly modern intelligent people cannot?
When your children do things you don't like constantly, the problem is not others is you? you are doing something wrong, your children are getting angry and misguided and you need help to change course, this crap takes decades to correct do not let for tomorrow, you are already late.
The good families I see through the years are the ones where parents don't punish without cause, they explain over and over with arguments that make sense and they too abide by the same rules, leading by example, communication doesn't happen just verbally with have five senses they all communicate something.
One great show is Supernanny UK, that show is brilliant.
No there is no need for physical punishment, only consistency, patience and discipline which most people lack in America.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Oh, the moral outrage
"
Oh my, way to treat the Amish !!! So according to you the Amish are 'backward and stupid' ??
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Oh, the moral outrage
I actually like them and how they managed to preserve their culture for so many centuries. They adapted surprisingly well to their environment throughout the ages and I do admire that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Oh, the moral outrage
In fact their being a bit "backwards" is the fundamental reason that they are able to do things this way while "modern" parents fail. They live in a society where they still communicate with their children and share common bonds.
Its pathetic of you to challenge that statement. I live in Pennsylvania and know some Amish families. THEY consider themselves "backward" and are proud of the fact.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Oh, the moral outrage
And how the hell are they supposed to get it if we just censor it and give them the opportunity to learn? You can't protect kids from everything, they do have to grow up...
Especially with an internet where you can find ANYTHING if you know how to work it (which most kids these days do).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Oh, the moral outrage
Someone needs to drop a common sense bomb on all these "save the poor children online" types.
HELLO???? McFLY????
If these children are old enough to be unsupervised on the net, then why do they not know that murder is wrong, or beheading is wrong, or rape is wrong (oh wait... Steubenville).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Oh, the moral outrage
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Oh, the moral outrage
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Oh, the moral outrage
so is it not TOO LATE, if you have seem it before you can decide if you don't like what you are looking at ?
Do you feel, that "if you like" something, you have a right to do it, I am sure some people "like" to decapitate other people as well, do they have a right to do it because "they like to do it" ????
Limiting a persons options, DOES change the nature of a person, because "its in your nature" to do something does not make that action "right" or give you a right to take that action.
I wonder if you would still think that way if it was a video of my mom or daughter being decapitated, would it be at all possible that may bring out some human empathy in you ?
I am really trying hard to think of what someone would 'gain' from watching something like that ??
Can someone help me here please ?
There must be ALOT of real sickos out there, have they all come to TD?
I wonder if those "who like to watch horrible things" would like to be in the position of the person being killed by these sick fucks ?? Is it possible they would enjoy shitting themselves and pissing their pants and crying like a baby just before they are murdered by some psycho's ?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Oh, the moral outrage
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Oh, the moral outrage
Using my or your mom in the example didn't add any logic to your argument.
Just for laughs I should add... Once you begin viewing content, it is not TOO LATE to decide if you like it or not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Oh, the moral outrage
> add any logic to your argument.
Neither did his extremely creative-- some would say revolutionary-- use of the apostrophe.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Oh, the moral outrage
A person who only reads about something tragic or somebody who actually witness something tragic?
Most people lack the imagination to be able to grasp what a tragedy really is like so in a sense this shocking videos help. Most people feel their own mortality in the face of tragedy and can relate.
Of course there are a few that actually enjoy this stuff and seek it out, others not so much, they only look to see if it was really true, while others look away whenever they are confronted with it.
Also those videos mostly are cries for help, are you saying we should all be ignorant about it?
To know if it is really true, someone has to watch it to at the very least be able to report what he saw to others.
Do you feel you have the right to hide the police/soldiers/gangs murdering innocents on the streets?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Oh, the moral outrage
> someone would 'gain' from watching something
> like that ??
I wasn't aware people had to document some kind of positive 'gain' to a morality control freak before being able to view something in a free society.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That little trip into the dark corners of the internet reminded me of something that sometimes I forget, the feeling that real horrible people brings me, and put in perspective my own troubles, which are nothing compared to the horrors others are facing everyday elsewhere.
With that said, although shocking and horrible, it is still our world and we shouldn't try to hide the warts in it.
This is one time where my faith in humanity is diminished but somehow I still find a lot of good out there, and that hope is what keeps me going, the hope that despite all the shocking ugly things life can show it to you, you can somehow always find good anywhere if you just look/work for it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What ever happened to "aiding and abetting" and how does this not fall under that heading ... opps slight pun.
Boobs are not illegal, last time I checked, but murder certainly is - torture also. I realize the act (hopefully) occurs outside the border, but promoting the actors is still a crime - right? One is not allowed to assist these animals, right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Decapitation is an act, not a statement. It could be used to make a strong statement against some other act, but it has been determined to be illegal because it infringes on the rights of the person who was decapitated more so than the act being illegal infringes on the rights of those who would desire to perform the act.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Would you deny anyone that help?
If it is people trying to promote the decapitation of others then I don't think it is appropriated and we have laws to go after people like that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Of course it is, these people video it for a REASON, and they want it viewed by as large a population as possible, if no one watched it, it probably would not happen.
So yes, the more page hits they get the more incited to do more of it, the more 'aided' they are.
They don't do this because they 'just like it' they do it to send a message, and a message to as many people as possible.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
So go easy on the animal slur, and please accept that are humans outside your country too, they have feelings and rights as well.
The 'people' who do that kind of act, and the people who support them, have a long way to go before they could be consider any where near as good as an animal.
Is this a new all time low point for TD ??? looks promising !!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
and feels that it is an expression of "free speech", and glorifies and promotes his act on facesucks ?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
The act of decapitation is not "free speech," the posting of said video on Zuckersucker is, as is the glorifying of such action. Why is it so hard for you to see the difference?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
According to the Islamic fundamentalist, not according to us infidels.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
How does that fit the narrative of the Mexican beheading?
How does that fit the narrative that the beheading is just a form of death penalty carried out after a proper legal trial and conviction?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
It is hardly relevant which particular culture we are at odds with.
Also, it would appear that these videos don't even depict an illegal/illegitimate act. So, what was the problem again?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
And yet, human history is filled with human VS human decapitation as punishment.
How do you explain history going back many human generations if "no animal would act like that"?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
"
Notice "HUMAN VS HUMAN", how many cases of Animal vs Human decapitation have you heard about.
What, because people did it in the past that makes it ok to do it in the present, or to do it in the future ?
I don't see what point you are trying to make sorry. But if your point is 'we have always done it, so its ok to do it now' I don't agree, if you point is something else, well you might have to explain it a bit better. sorry
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
That is because you are not a very intelligent person. But thank you for showing Stage 1 outrage so vividly to all gathered.
how many cases of Animal vs Human decapitation have you heard about.
Over on youtube they have:
Lion Bites off Man's Head
Crocodile Bites Man's Head (no idea if it is off)
And Google auto suggests:
Hippo bites man's head off
Oh and:
So go easy on the animal slur,
You might not be educated enough to understand that Humans are a member of the Animal kingdom. And you are welcome that I have removed your ignorance about Humans being part of the animal kingdom.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
And what is your opinion on the legality on how various Afghani's end up dead from explosions via drones?
How about the documentation about torture used in the "War on Terror!" - is that documented torture illegal?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I don't know, but I do know it has nothing to do with "freedom of speech", are you trying to so that if one form of killing is acceptable, then all forms of killing are equally acceptable, and the method and motives are irrelevant ?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
That is obvious.
but I do know it has nothing to do with "freedom of speech",
English is not your 1st language is it?
The question was about the topic of legality:
"And what is your opinion on the legality on how various Afghani's end up dead from explosions via drones?"
A nice emotional attempt at redirection from the legality topic brought up.
I also note the lack of response to the torture topic.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Or it might have no message or mixed messages.
Advocating decapitation would be illegal if is specific enough, for example if it calling for the decapitation of a specific person or if it is in a hot situation like inflaming a physical crowd to do this action.
But if it's even something as atrocious as advocating it in general against an ethnic group, without immediare danger, it might easily be protected by free speech (in the US).
And if it's something indirect like advocating the legalization of decapitation, say as a form of death penalty, while simultaneous expanding the illegalization of certain other things, like apostasy or adultery, that would be pretty awful but totally covered by free speech. Nothing illegal is being promoted, only a change in law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
> and how does this not fall under that heading
Merely showing a factual account of an actual event is not aiding and abetting the crime.
If it was, how do you think the news gets away with showing videos of crimes every day? If that was a crime, everything from the security cam video of a gas station stick-up to the footage of the planes hitting the World Trade Center on 9-11 would end up with some news producer charged and jailed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Their heads
They also do not want to loose money by pissing off extremist Christians who would petition the government to shutdown facebook if it was showing boobies.
Makes perfect sense to me, in once case they are protecting their bodies, the other their wallets.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why has anyone moved beyond Stage 1?
Zuck: Yeah so if you ever need info about anyone at Harvard
Zuck: Just ask
Zuck: I have over 4,000 emails, pictures, addresses, SNS
[Redacted Friend's Name]: What? How'd you manage that one?
Zuck: People just submitted it.
Zuck: I don't know why.
Zuck: They "trust me"
Zuck: Dumb fucks
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
that somehow just hearing about it is not enough for you, you have to watch it in detail. This is SICK.
Is this "free speech" ?? No FUCKING WAY !!!, only sick, perverted, brain dead fucks would get their 'jollies' from watching one human commit an atrocity to another, and only SICKER Fucks would call it "free speech" and claim some sick perverted 'right' to view it.
Do I think it would have profound effects on young people !!!! OF COURSE IT DOES, only the sick, perverted fucks would think otherwise.
Anyone who uses "decapitation" and free speech in the same breath, is an equally sick fuck. It's not free speech, and anyone who thinks it is, (including facebook) should be removed from society.
would someone like to explain to us how decapitation is 'free speech' please ?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Why should people waste their time trying to use persuasive speech or attempt to educate you as it appears from your post your mind is made up?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Excuse me !!!
But the abuse of human rights is bad enough, but to abuse "Free speech" and devalue it to the point that you feel an atrocity should be considered "free speech' you do a huge disservice to human rights and free speech.
And show us just how sick and perverted you are, how dare you degrade free speech like this ??
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
"You Keep Using That Word, I Do Not Think It Means What You Think It Means" - Saul Berenson
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/First+Amendment+to+the+United+States+Constitut ion
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I appear to be healthy at this time. Further, I am not currently engaged in reproductive activities. I guess that's why I used two sentences instead of one.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
'Tis a waste of time to attempt to correct what is an act, just sit back and watch the show.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Interesting question and here's my answer. In the year 2000 (cue music), did the western world have a general idea of the threat of Islamic terrorism? Did they know that terrorists blew up civilian targets, killing hundreds or thousands? Did they know that fundamentalists were hell-bent on killing anyone who didn't ascribe to their religion?
Sure, they knew all of those things, somewhere in the back of their mind. So why did they suddenly begin taking the threat seriously only a year later? Because the videos of 9/11 planes slamming into towers were shown again. And again. And again. And again. They were far more powerful than any text describing 3000 dead.
THAT'S the point. If those images were kept from people, the reaction wouldn't have been the same. Sure, there would have been A reaction, but not THE reaction we got. That's important. Threats are to be spotlighted, not hidden from view, or you risk the world not taking the threat seriously....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Oh, it was because of the VIDEOS !!!!!!
Nothing to do with ACTUAL REAL PLAINS slamming into the buildings, but it WAS (according to you) the VIDEOS of that act ????
WOW
So to you it's not the 'nature' of the act, or the act itself, but the fact that it was captured on camera.
You think the people in those buildings, and their family think the "impact" of those actions is any more significant because it was videoed ?
It has the impact it has not because it was videoed it's impact because IT IS REAL.
so someone shot or killed in a MOVIE has the same emotional impact as a video of a REAL person being decapitated ?
The ACT is the atrocity, and the glorifying of that atrocity by promoting and disseminating it is equally an atrocity.
Again, would you have the same opinion if it was your son or mother that was the victim of this vile act ?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I know flying jets into the trade buildings was intended as a act or war, and killed thousands of people and resulted in the deaths of my thousands more.
I don't need to see a video of that to understand what it is, do you ?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Roller Coaster
Reaction 2: Facebook can censor what they will on their own site, just so long as they are not being compelled to do so. If you don't like it, you are free to help send Facebook the way of the dodo bird.
Note how reaction 1 is rolled into reaction 2? There is no reaction 3.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Roller Coaster
Uh... yeah? How do you argue with someone who's argument is YOUR argument?
Because.. it's their network.. so they have control over what goes over it...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
DAMN!!!!!
And this shit about parents monitoring their child on-line habits, damn if anyone expects a parent to sit next to a 13 year old and watch everything they do while their is cleaning and cooking and other things to do then you are insane. Parents can do everything they have the power to do to prevent their kids from seeing this stuff but if it is out there it is possible for them to gain access, damn just a few licks and they would have access.
I dont care for the argument about free speech as there is content that has been blocked ignore freedom of speech laws in the US. Get this filth off the site remove it and prevent anyone who posts it from ever posting again.
I have three kids and i do everything i can to stop them seeing content that is not appropriate , but i cannot monitor them 100% of the time, so i expect places like facebook to have a system in place that 13 year olds cannot bypass by just signing up for a new account.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: DAMN!!!!!
By choice.
and i do everything i can to stop them seeing content that is not appropriate
No you don't. There is a thing called an OFF switch and another called "removing the device".
, but i cannot monitor them 100% of the time,
If they do not have access to the internet, then you don't need to monitor what they do not have.
so i expect places like facebook to have a system in place that 13 year olds cannot bypass by just signing up for a new account.
And how much are you paying Facebook to be the parent to your kids?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: DAMN!!!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: DAMN!!!!!
How little self respect you have to even use a service where the Founder is on record as calling you a "stupid fuck" for 'trusting' him and the service.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: DAMN!!!!!
Facebook could easily say "this content is unavailable to members under a certain age.
Saying "I can decide what to watch" is no answer to the curious 13 year old issue. Once the emotional damage is done and they wak up with nightmares, it's too late.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: DAMN!!!!!
So you claim. Got caselaw to back that claim up?
As the CEO of Facebook once said:
Zuck: They "trust me"
Zuck: Dumb fucks
The CEO of Facebook is calling you a "dumb fuck" for 'trusting him'. The 'grrrr Facebook' Grrring seems to be about trust, that somehow people don't understand that trusting Facebook is why the CEO would consider you a "Dumb Fuck".
Your whole point is simply addressed with not using Facebook.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: DAMN!!!!!
Yes, please, let's do. You obviously don't know what you're talking about.
> A theatre could not legally show a decapitation
> movie to a 13 year old.
If we're talking about the U.S., then you're wrong. There is no law that would prevent a theater from showing such a movie to a 13-year-old.
> A broadcast TV station probably couldn't before the
> watershed either, without a lot of censure.
There's no such a thing as a 'watershed' (whatever that is) in the U.S. However, such films can and are shown at all times of day in the U.S. on cable channels and it's perfectly legal to do it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: DAMN!!!!!
I do believe the phrase I am looking for is "the cure is worse than the poison".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: DAMN!!!!!
no one has a true scientific understanding of what the future might hold for a generation raised on portable screens.
Mobile phone use 'raises children's risk of brain cancer fivefold' Alarming new research from Sweden on the effects of radiation raises fears that today's youngsters face an epidemic of the disease in later life
Does The Internet Make You Dumb? Top German Neuroscientist Says Yes - And Forever
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: DAMN!!!!!
2) Weakly establishes correlation if valid, no causation established, selection of source studies somewhat dubious, source studies somewhat dubious in their own right do to low sample size (according to the study itself). Also, only applies to cellphones.
3) Anecdotal argument from authority, logically fallacious.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: DAMN!!!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: DAMN!!!!!
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2013/11/the-great-forgetting/309516/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: DAMN!!!!!
Someone got a common sense bomb dropped on them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: DAMN!!!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: DAMN!!!!!
By the age of thirteen, someone should be capable of thinking about whether they really want to see something that gruesome. Chances are your kid wants to watch it, and they'll find a way to do so. Facebook can't stop someone from posting: "Hey, google x and click on the link titled y." If your kid wants to watch something, blocking the video on Facebook isn't going to stop them.
Don't give your kids their own computer until they've grown up enough to have one. Hide the internet explorer icon somewhere they are unlikely to find it (or don't connect them to the internet or remove all browsers from the computer or restrict their account from accessing the internet). If you really don't trust them once they are online, use the browser history to track their activity.
But know this, if your kid wants information you are trying to prevent them from accessing, they'll get it and you'll probably never know. Even if they have to sneak into a library and browse the adult fiction books, they'll find it. You don't have perfect control, you can't expect perfect control. You need to teach your kids to protect themselves and make sense of things for themselves.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: DAMN!!!!!
What a difference, though, between those slow-moving days and today. Sneaking into the adult section was pretty difficult and your chances of nabbing more than one fairly mild "adult" book was small. The internet is literally 1000 times more potent !!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: DAMN!!!!!
What you call filth is someone actually bringing to like horrific facts that happens somewhere.
So it is filthy to denounce killings by showing everyone the evidence of it happening?
Don't you feel bad for the people who died?
Don't you feel empathy? heartbroken?
The only person you can think of is yourself?
Have you not a heart?
Don't you want to stop this kind of stuff from happening?
Then you wouldn't have this type of video around.
The killings will stop if those videos stop?
Would you care or give a damn?
See I can be emotional and irrational too.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Facebook did the right thing.
"You don't get it, Facebook is not just where adult are, but also young people, who might not have the experience that goes "Nope!" when seeing someone posting something."
Have you tried hitting them? Works wonders!
or
Have you tried cutting their heads off? Works wonders!
/S /S Err... 1200 FBI agents are at my door with a freaking tank! :(
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This issue has nothing to do with free speech. People need to educate themselves on what free speech really means. Free speech is the gov't stepping to to limit or control the expression of people. Facebook is totally free to control what happens on their site. As is techdirt.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Murder porn vs porn porn
I'd rather my child see a tit every once in a while than have them subjected to that kind of sick act.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Murder porn vs porn porn
Says it all.
JS
[ link to this | view in chronology ]