7 ms·

The weird thing is I'm around a lot of conservatives in a conservative place in this country, you know, the people who supposedly are the ones getting offended.

The weird thing is I'm around a lot of conservatives in a conservative place in this country, you know, the people who supposedly are the ones getting offended. I haven't found one damn person who thinks Facebook is doing the right thing. I'm really trying to find these offended people, but I cannot. The Vietnam photo censorship was met with quite a bit of confusion since I think most folks misremember it being our high school history book. I'm starting to think that one group who keeps calling the FCC over TV shows is alive and well online.

conatico 10y ago
The only ones who are offended are the advertisers. As a far right winger, I can't see anything wrong with making sure our women are in good health. :)
- cloudjacker 10y ago
  And this is an assumption that advertisers would be offended too!
  - conatico 10y ago
    Facebook assumes that advertisers will be offended because advertisers assume that a certain % of consumers will be offended and they'd rather not lose that %, as small as it might be.
- nsxwolf 10y ago
  But we hate women and their health, don't we?
- 31reasons 10y ago
  Yup our cows and our women should be in good health.
sfaf 10y ago
Do you remember the super bowl janet jackson fiasco? There were millions of people outraged by an accident and it almost wrecked her career. It's issue like this that mean that Facebook has to build aggressive adult filters that will have false positives. Because frankly the cost of a false negative is much much bigger than a false positive.
- protomyth 10y ago
  Millions? the FCC said there were 540,000 complaints from Americans[1] of which 65,000 came from the Parents Television Council[2]. The media cared more than the people. Heck, I wonder if we polled on it, how many think MTV's response was the bigger problem. 1) http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/money/2005-01-20-bowl-cover_x.htm http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/money/2005-01-20-bowl-cover_x... from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_Bowl_XXXVIII_halftime-show_controversy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_Bowl_XXXVIII_halftime-sh... 2) I'll save my commentary on them for another time
  - swsieber 10y ago
    I bet more people were offended than just those who filed complaints. So millions seems like a reasonable number.
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
- kodis 10y ago
  I watched that Superbowl half-time show with my two young at the time children. What I remember was that although I barely noticed the one or two seconds of exposed nipple, I was really hoping that I wouldn't have to explain the need for the erectile dysfunction medicine which was being advertised later in the show.
  - protomyth 10y ago
    The K-Y commercials they were running scared me in that regard. I was ready with the "Ask me again in 10 years". They have to advertise too.
gozur88 10y ago
I'm sure if you looked hard enough you could find someone who is offended. There's always somebody. But this isn't something that's going to offend your average conservative - titillation clearly isn't the point of a video like this.
- protomyth 10y ago
  I think the only thing I'm offended by is MTV denying it was planned. They were trying to generate some controversy and got stupid. Hell, they didn't even do titillation correctly.

conatico 10y ago

The only ones who are offended are the advertisers. As a far right winger, I can't see anything wrong with making sure our women are in good health. :)

cloudjacker 10y ago
And this is an assumption that advertisers would be offended too!
- conatico 10y ago
  Facebook assumes that advertisers will be offended because advertisers assume that a certain % of consumers will be offended and they'd rather not lose that %, as small as it might be.
nsxwolf 10y ago
But we hate women and their health, don't we?
31reasons 10y ago
Yup our cows and our women should be in good health.

sfaf 10y ago

Do you remember the super bowl janet jackson fiasco? There were millions of people outraged by an accident and it almost wrecked her career. It's issue like this that mean that Facebook has to build aggressive adult filters that will have false positives. Because frankly the cost of a false negative is much much bigger than a false positive.

protomyth 10y ago
Millions? the FCC said there were 540,000 complaints from Americans[1] of which 65,000 came from the Parents Television Council[2]. The media cared more than the people. Heck, I wonder if we polled on it, how many think MTV's response was the bigger problem. 1) http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/money/2005-01-20-bowl-cover_x.htm http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/money/2005-01-20-bowl-cover_x... from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_Bowl_XXXVIII_halftime-show_controversy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_Bowl_XXXVIII_halftime-sh... 2) I'll save my commentary on them for another time
- swsieber 10y ago
  I bet more people were offended than just those who filed complaints. So millions seems like a reasonable number.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
kodis 10y ago
I watched that Superbowl half-time show with my two young at the time children. What I remember was that although I barely noticed the one or two seconds of exposed nipple, I was really hoping that I wouldn't have to explain the need for the erectile dysfunction medicine which was being advertised later in the show.
- protomyth 10y ago
  The K-Y commercials they were running scared me in that regard. I was ready with the "Ask me again in 10 years". They have to advertise too.

gozur88 10y ago

I'm sure if you looked hard enough you could find someone who is offended. There's always somebody. But this isn't something that's going to offend your average conservative - titillation clearly isn't the point of a video like this.

protomyth 10y ago
I think the only thing I'm offended by is MTV denying it was planned. They were trying to generate some controversy and got stupid. Hell, they didn't even do titillation correctly.