3 ms·
It should be painfully obvious why she was she was suspended for posting that stuff.
by yipopov 9y ago
It should be painfully obvious why she was she was suspended for posting that stuff.
- jabot 9y agoIt isn't to me. Could you please elaborate?
- ctdonath 9y agoPhotos of genitalia are typically grounds for deletion/suspension in most social circles.
- michalskop 9y agoIt depends very much on context, doesn't it? There are probably not many social circles suspending you for photos like this one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phan_Thi_Kim_Phuc https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phan_Thi_Kim_Phuc (or those in the OP's article)
- boomboomsubban 9y agoFacebook did, last year, before also reversing that decision. Figuring out the context can take s bit of time.
- tekproxy 9y agoFacebook doesn't wasn't dongs in people's feeds. Scroll, scroll, penis.
- finnthehuman 9y agoFacebook's content policies are best understood as "don't rock the boat". It operates on reports, ML and hired minders with more backlog than time for context. Their Amero-centric policies on nudity should be seen as prima facie evidence of that. They don't even want to bury NSFW behind a Twitter-style "click here if not at work" button, they scrub it from the platform. There is no room for context and exceptions. They always err on the side of removal until you can convince someone with a well-paying job at facebook that not only was the removal arguable, but an on-the-face embarrassment for facebook to have removed.
- yipopov 9y agoWhite woman singles out black guys as sex-crazed maniacs? She might as well have gone full 14 words as far as Facebook's moderation bots are concerned. Of course you and I know that's not really what her post was about, but Silicon Valley being so heavily invested in BLM and associated movements really can't take any chances. And with the volume of traffic manually reviewing these things and applying some common sense just isn't an option.