>For a detailed nuanced piece [...] I don't see any nuance, I see invented complexity masquerading as something sophisticated. This article is written as if t

>For a detailed nuanced piece [...] I don't see any nuance, I see invented complexity masquerading as something sophisticated. This article is written as if they're trying to suss out the perfect boundaries along which to apply censorship. That frame of thinking is a con. They will never have a perfect censorship implementation because there is no win state. Let me back up: As you read this, facebook has a censorship policy. What would it take for facebook to be know they're done arguing over what does or doesn't get deleted? How do they know when the censorship policy isn't good enough? Advertiser pressure, press pressure and political pressure. i.e. fashion. It should have been obvious to everyone present at (or read about) the meeting in this article where Facebook attempted to invent a principled stance that allows casual misandry while banning similarly-tempered casual misogyny. But I'm perfectly willing to believe Facebook can't see it. I can explain. Facebook's stance towards nudity has a very clever property (that is almost certainly unintentional). It allows users to lie to themselves. Facebook could automatically hide nudity to everyone who isn't an opted-in adult, and still throw it behind a twitter-style click gate so there is no accidental NSFW at W. But they don't. They'd have to add an "I'm not a prude" checkbox. And THERE'S the rub. The lack of such an option lets people uncomfortable with nudity tell themselves that they're not the kind of person that's uncomfortable with nudity. The want to think they're sex-positive enough to have nudity, and just a reasonable person who doesn't mind if it happens to be banned. Even more importantly, it lets people them avoid thinking about the question "am I so uncomfortable with nudity that the idea of other people - the WRONG PEOPLE - seeing it makes me uncomfortable?"