4 ms·
We're not talking about censoring the image in any meaningful sense; FB told them it was cool if they blurred out the nudity. From FB's perspective, they want t
by weberc2 10y ago
We're not talking about censoring the image in any meaningful sense; FB told them it was cool if they blurred out the nudity. From FB's perspective, they want to draw a hard line against child nudity so they don't have to deal with the slippery slope between child porn and "art", even though no one thinks this is the former. Personally, I think blurring out the nudity is a pretty reasonable compromise.
- smokeyj 10y agoToday Zuck censors for America, tomorrow it's the royal saudi family. This isn't a reasonable compromise. Reasonable is having the offended disconnect their internet and resign from society so they can live in their curated bubble of an existence.
- res0nat0r 10y agoOr the folks who don't like Facebook asking them to censor their images could just not use Facebook and post elsewhere...
- RaleyField 10y agoNobody seems to be thinking that they are forcing Facebook to be an arbiter deciding on when a picture that would be indecent by itself is culturally significant enough to allow showing it. What happens when they misjudge and courts disagree?
- smokeyj 10y agoAgreed. Ideally a diary with a strong lock.
- r_smart 10y agoI think our definitions of meaningful are significantly different. I try to picture what the image would be like with a girls head atop a blurry body, and it seems to me a totally different thing. Her being naked is a key part of planting the disgust and horror in you that the photographer was aiming for. Granted, seeing it censored might prompt you to go and look up the original image, prompting you to leave Facebook. So maybe I've changed my mind on the issue :)
- weberc2 10y ago> Her being naked is a key part of planting the disgust and horror in you that the photographer was aiming for. What else might pixelation or blurring mean in this context besides that she is naked?
- r_smart 10y agoIf you're trying to lead me to a specific idea, I'm not following, sorry. To answer you literally: Serious injury or mutilation, wearing some kind of propaganda the censor didn't want you to see, bawdy tattoos. Probably a million other things, but it would probably still be obvious it was because she was naked.
- weberc2 10y agoWasn't trying to lead you, I was just wondering if there could be another reasonable conclusion. Your answer seems to be confirming my suspicions.
- r_smart 10y agoMaybe, depends on how you did it. Like I initially thought of doing her whole body, but I guess you could just do the parts of her that makes it nudity, so it would be a censorship bikini. That would probably make it more obvious that she was naked, and I'm not really sure what that solves.