4 ms·

Now, I do agree that part of the responsibility is holding our leaders responsible, and it saddens me that we elect in such a way. This doesn't excuse facebook

Now, I do agree that part of the responsibility is holding our leaders responsible, and it saddens me that we elect in such a way. This doesn't excuse facebook, however. This isn't just their ad business I'm speaking of - I was merely pointing out that suggestive paintings are too much. Pointing out they punish artists that paint tasteful nudes. Historical photos are a grey area, and it has taken heads of states speaking out for those to be reinstated. These are merely normal people's posts. Yet allowing posts that harm others and entire groups that do the same? Yup, allowed. Because they choose to allow such posts, they share responsibility. They choose to turn a blind eye to anti-vax groups and the like.

_Schizotypy 8y ago
This is interesting to me, historical semi nude portraits are okay but recent ones are not? So old things are accepting? What does age matter, I don't see it making that much of a difference in reality
- Broken_Hippo 8y ago
  Soemtimes historical semi-nudes are OK, and sometimes new ones are. Sometimes, however, they are not. Folks have a lot of trouble trying to tell what will get them kicked from facebook. As far as photos are concerned, age and "famous" do, indeed, matter. The "napalm girl" picture was banned for nudity - even when a head of state sent it out. Facebook said it would allow "historically important" works, but it still lies in a grey area. I highly doubt a new work of equal cultural importance could be posted today.