Facebook Censors Art Historian's Photo Of Neptune's Statue-Penis

from the pics-or-gtfo dept

Wed, Jan 4th 2017 2:46pm — Timothy Geigner

It's probably time for Facebook to give up trying to be the morality police, because it isn't working. While nobody expects the social media giant to be perfect at policing its site for images and posts deemed "offensive", it's shown itself time and time again to be utterly incapable of getting this right at even the most basic level. After all, when the censors are removing iconic historical photos, tirades against prejudice, forms of pure parody, and images of a nude bronze statue in the name of some kind of corporate puritanism, it should be clear that something is amiss.

Yet the armies of the absurd march on, it seems. Facebook managed to kick off the new year by demanding that an Italian art historian remove an image of a penis from her Facebook page. Not just any penis, mind you. It was a picture of a godly penis. Specifically, this godly penis.

That, should you not be an Italian art historian yourself, is a picture of a statue of the god Neptune. In the statue, which adorns the public streets of Bologna, Neptune is depicted with his heavenly member hanging out, because gods have no time for clothes, of course. Yet this carved piece of art somehow triggered a Facebook notice to the photographer, Elisa Barbari.

According to the Telegraph, Barbari got the following notification from Facebook. “The use of the image was not approved because it violates Facebook’s guide lines on advertising. It presents an image with content that is explicitly sexual and which shows to an excessive degree the body, concentrating unnecessarily on body parts. The use of images or video of nude bodies or plunging necklines is not allowed, even if the use is for artistic or educational reasons.”

Even were I to be on board with a Facebook policy banning nudity and, sigh, "plunging necklines" even in the interest of education or art -- which I most certainly am not on board with -- the claim that the image is explicitly sexual and focused on "body parts" is laughably insane. There's nothing sexual about the depiction of Neptune at all, unless we are to believe that all nudity is sexual, which simply isn't true. Also, the depiction focuses not on one body part, but on the entire statue. Nothing about this makes sense.

And that's likely because Facebook is relying on some kind of algorithm to automatically generate these notices. Confusingly, the site's own community standards page makes an exception for art, despite the notice Barbari received claiming otherwise.

Strangely, an exception is made for art. “We also allow photographs of paintings, sculptures, and other art that depicts nude figures.”

Except when it doesn't, that is. Look, again, nobody is expecting Facebook to be perfect at this. But the site has a responsibility, if it is going to play censor at all, to at least be good enough at it not to censor statues of art in the name of prohibiting too much skin.

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: art, automation, censorship, neptune, nudity, social media
Companies: facebook

40 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Anonymous Coward, 4 Jan 2017 @ 2:50pm

Statutory nudity makes Mark Zuckerberg feel inadequate.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 4 Jan 2017 @ 2:54pm

What a dick move!
And that pretty much sums it up.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 4 Jan 2017 @ 3:02pm

too much skin
> too much skin

So now zero skin is too much?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
SW, 4 Jan 2017 @ 3:25pm

It's a bronze statue, not marble. Bronze is cast, not carved. The artist moulds clay into the form they want (an additive, not subtractive process) and then a mould is made from the clay original. Then bronze is poured into the mould and when it's cooled, the artist pulls off the mould and discards it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Mononymous Tim (profile), 4 Jan 2017 @ 3:29pm

Narcissism?
I'm thinking it's more likely someone just looking for something to be upset about, and if they succeed, they've somehow in their tiny mind made their mark on the world.

Probably the same people that comment "First!" or "NOTICE ME!!!!!" desperate for validation that they're relevant, at least on YouTube.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Roger Strong (profile), 4 Jan 2017 @ 3:48pm

I heard that they changed Aquaman's uniform for the new Justice League movie, but this is a surprise.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 4 Jan 2017 @ 3:53pm

Re: Narcissism?
Or Zuckerberg is as much a psychotic about control as the MAFFIA's have become.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 4 Jan 2017 @ 3:54pm

No Dangly Bits Allowed
Facebook doesn't even want to sea a god's penis.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
MrTroy (profile), 4 Jan 2017 @ 3:56pm

Too much?
> ... in the name of prohibiting too much skin.

Or in this case, too much bronze.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 4 Jan 2017 @ 5:08pm

How many of these articles are you going to write? If it helps to pay the bills so be it, but reporting each instance with the same conclusion doesn't seem to be making any difference.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
That One Guy (profile), 4 Jan 2017 @ 5:30pm

Re:
Keep in mind, this isn't an article covering a previous stupid action by FB, but a new example. So long as FB keeps making boneheaded decisions like this pointing it out will continue to be relevant.

Or put another way: When FB stops being ridiculous on this subject, then TD will no longer have a reason to cover the topic.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Dark Helmet (profile), 4 Jan 2017 @ 6:15pm

Re:
I rather enjoy this line of thinking. Under this idea, the media ought not report on wars, murders, etc. They've reported on those things for, like, ever, and they still occur, so apparently it isn't making any difference and they should stop....
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 4 Jan 2017 @ 6:36pm

Re: Re:
Facebook's policy is to be arbitrary. This isn't novel at all, it's just another example if it. Due to Facebook's massiveness there will always be chuckle-worthy examples generated every day.

Reposting these perpetually with no new insight is buzzfeed tier shallowness.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 4 Jan 2017 @ 6:42pm

Re: Re:
It's a false equivalency. You can't move to a world without wars and murders. Being effected by Facebook censorship requires a conscious effort to use their services.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
That One Guy (profile), 4 Jan 2017 @ 6:55pm

Re: Re: Re:
This isn't novel at all, it's just another example if it.

And if you ever want it to stop, and/or prevent other companies from doing the same, it helps to call them out when they do it, even if they do so regularly.

If it's a problem and/or an example of a stupid policy then it doesn't stop being those things if you don't mention it when it comes up, but it might if people keep pointing it out and enough of a momentum builds that it's more worth to the company to change it versus just sitting back and doing nothing.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
MrTroy (profile), 4 Jan 2017 @ 7:16pm

Re: Re: Re:
There's no false equivalence to the stories. You can't move to a world without Facebook either, but you DO have to make a conscious effort to read either kind of news story.

I'm all for DH's suggestion for media to stop reporting on wars, but rather than wait for it to happen I'll just not read those stories.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 4 Jan 2017 @ 9:11pm

Re: Re: Re:
> You can't move to a world without wars and murders.

You can't move to a world without Facebook, either.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Pizuz, 4 Jan 2017 @ 9:32pm

I won't comment on Facebook's decision on censoring genitalia on bronze statues, but as someone who's actually seen it with his own eyes, I can tell you that there certainly are some angles that are a lot more...revealing:

http://media.tumblr.com/bdb582fd7ac60df3a554ff9b46a1bcdb/tumblr_inline_mnba0yMrQZ1r bp8y1.jpg
[ link to this | view in thread ]
PaulT (profile), 5 Jan 2017 @ 12:00am

Re: Re: Re:
A world, perhaps not. But, if you read about lots of wars and murders in places you visit, you can also choose not to visit those places. Just as you can choose not to read and comment on articles about Facebook's censorship if you want.

"Being effected by Facebook censorship requires a conscious effort to use their services."

...and if you want to avoid being *affected* by their censorship, it requires being informed of that censorship and its nature. Which might require some sites to be reporting on that, rather than just assuming everyone just knows about it through the ether, perhaps?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 5 Jan 2017 @ 1:48am

Re: Re: Re:

Being effected by Facebook censorship requires a conscious effort to use their services.

Being mugged requires a conscious effort to walk on the streets. Sometimes the solution to a problem is not to live like a hermit, but rather to take the risks and work to improve society.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Ninja (profile), 5 Jan 2017 @ 4:26am

They don't just censor the public posts. They actively scan their messenger as well for naughty bits. We have news that they were meddling with pirate-y links or things they don't like but not satisfied with it they are filtering nude images. A friend of mine was having a sexy chat with his girl and both tried sending naughty pics to each other. Their accounts were suspended with a message about site policies.

I've ditched Facebook messenger long ago and I'm in the process of getting rid of Facebook itself altogether. Mr Zuckeberg can go be the moral zealot of himself.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Ninja (profile), 5 Jan 2017 @ 4:28am

Re:
ZOMFG AN ERECT PENIS! THE WORLD IS DOOMED TO BURN IN HELLISH FLAMES!

Ahem. Isn't it revealing because we as a society chose to treat sex and everything attached as some taboo instead of something natural in the first place?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Ninja (profile), 5 Jan 2017 @ 4:29am

Re:
Just skip them. You are not forced to read. I agree with the other readers. I want to know when it happens and it should keep being written as a warning/reminder for us and to call out the BS of their policies.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Richard (profile), 5 Jan 2017 @ 4:30am

Not Automatic
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Richard (profile), 5 Jan 2017 @ 4:35am

Not Automatic
And that's likely because Facebook is relying on some kind of algorithm to automatically generate these notices.

No it isn't automatic - it's done by low paid workers in the 3rd world where ideas about "art" and "decency" are somewhat different from ours.

See http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/facebook/9118778/The-dark-side-of-Facebook.html or many other examples of this story - for those who never believe the Telegraph.

Moderators in Islamic countries in particular are likely to censor all kinds of things that we would accept without a blink.

Remeber what happened when the Iranian leader visited the Vatican..

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jan/26/rome-spares-iranian-presidents-blushes-cover ing-nude-statues

When the
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 5 Jan 2017 @ 5:17am

Re: too much skin
zero tolerance of any skin - is this what we have to look forward to?

American taliban are busy writing your new laws and they are not tolerant of anything.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 5 Jan 2017 @ 5:25am

Re: Re: Re:
Rather than admit you reached a bit too far, you claim false equivalence ... lol - your deflection, how lame.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 5 Jan 2017 @ 5:29am

Today it is exposed skin,
tomorrow it could be women driving or
mandatory prayers several times a day.

It is a megalomaniac's wet dream.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
art guerrilla (profile), 5 Jan 2017 @ 5:59am

as a sidebar, was watvhing some youtube clips on funny/weird tee shirt text, and it had a LOT of asians who sported ALL kinds of nasty stuff beyond mere 'fucks' and 'shits', stuff like a list of english derogatory slang for various ethnic/'racial' groups (spic, kike, nigger, etc), and a number of weird malapropisms which made no sense...
wonder how many who wore those, understood what the text meant... a LOT were on very young kids, too...
i presume these are cheap/free tee shirts and that they have no idea what the text means...
wonder how many english speakers are wearing tee shirts with chinese/etc words on them which are awful statements they dont have a clue about...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Digitari, 5 Jan 2017 @ 7:00am

I agree......
Human genitalia provides nothing good for the planet.

s/?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Sean Gleeson, 5 Jan 2017 @ 7:43am

Where is the actual banned photo?

Also, the depiction focuses not on one body part, but on the entire statue.

Do we know this? None of the stories about this, that I have seen, include the actual image that Facebook banned. (The one illustrating your article is a stock photo.) I guess what I'm asking is, how do we know the offending image was not, like, a close-up of Neptune's phallus? Does anyone know where we can see the photo?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Pizuz, 5 Jan 2017 @ 8:51am

Re: Re:
Actually no, it's his left arm.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
nasch (profile), 5 Jan 2017 @ 9:07am

Plunging necklines?
So would Facebook censor this?

http://assets.nydailynews.com/polopoly_fs/1.1048391.1332423578!/img/httpImage/image.jpg_gen/der ivatives/gallery_1200/jennifer-lawrence.jpg

Ridiculous.

SFW btw.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Sean Gleeson, 5 Jan 2017 @ 11:02am

Ah, I have seen it now.
The actual banned photo can be seen at http://mashable.com/2017/01/03/facebook-neptune-statue-photo-bologna/

It is even less explicit than the stock photo on this post! It doesn't even include Neptune's pubic area at all, as he is turned away from the camera.

Also, it is really the formerly banned photo, since Facebook apologized and reversed their ban.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Steve Zissou, 5 Jan 2017 @ 11:55am

They're different uses of the word... from Facebook's perspective their policies aren't in conflict.

Facebook's notification wording is trying to prevent people from claiming that their recent photographs featuring nudity are artistic in nature...

While simultaneously Facebook's community standards wording implies that it won't censor "real art"... AKA historical art.

In other words new art isn't made, only the old is art.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
JMT (profile), 5 Jan 2017 @ 2:52pm

Re:
Yeah, the best way to convince someone to change their behavior is to tell them ONCE and then shut up about it. Why would they need to be told again?!

You don't have kids do you...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
JMT (profile), 5 Jan 2017 @ 2:56pm

Re:
Why default to laws in Muslim countries? Banning abortions and contraception seems more likely.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
JustMe (profile), 6 Jan 2017 @ 3:07am

Don't forget about
the cherubs! They are nekkid too and, having sat under the hatrack that is Neptune for all these years, DESERVE equal treatment. CENSOR THE CHERUBS, Mark, censor the cherubs too.

Equal Treatment for Wangs 2017
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Ninja (profile), 6 Jan 2017 @ 4:33am

Re: Re: Re:
Come on, play along, it's funnier if it's a penis!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Fascismbook sucks, 13 Jan 2017 @ 5:02pm

fascistbook sucks
Facebook sucks
[ link to this | view in thread ]