3 ms·

> For example, FB can make a policy that says no exposed nipples for females. There may be different opinions on the value of such a policy, but not the executi

> For example, FB can make a policy that says no exposed nipples for females. There may be different opinions on the value of such a policy, but not the execution/implementation. Your policy is still ill-defined, though. Do you mean ALL female nipples, or just human ones? Does the ban extend to babies? Who’s going to police that, and how? Radiolab did an episode on all kinds of Facebook rules, covering the nipple conundrum as part of it. There’s very little that is straightforward about implementing any of them. https://www.wnycstudios.org/podcasts/radiolab/articles/post-no-evil https://www.wnycstudios.org/podcasts/radiolab/articles/post-...

s1artibartfast 6y ago
I agree there are edge cases. Are you saying the nipple issue is harder than moderating politically contested statements of fact regarding the nature of the world we live in?
- filoeleven 6y ago
  I thought you were saying that “universal rules for nudity (subcontent: nipples)” are easier to write than “universal rules for fact-checking.“ If so, I disagree. They are either: a) equally hard, given the common understanding of what “facts” mean nowadays, or b) nudity is harder, given cultural contexts. Culture makes a lot of difference for what’s considered nudity (e.g. women breastfeeding goats, as illustrated in the link), and it should matter less for statements about average temperatures for a given region, etc. But the “facts” as presented are contested anyway, since they are derivations based on data + interpretation, even if the interpretation is from >95% of scientists in the relative field. That makes me lean more towards (a) even though I wish it was (b).
  - s1artibartfast 6y ago
    >I thought you were saying that “universal rules for nudity (subcontent: nipples)” are easier to write than “universal rules for fact-checking.“ If so, I disagree. They are either: I think we still have a misunderstanding. I am saying that enforceable rules for nipples are easier to write, regardless of the cultural approval of those rules. A well written rule can be enforced by only looking at the content that is on the platform ( eg the image). That is not to say people might disagree (its Art!) or they might get it wrong (its a male nipple). When it comes to statements of fact, this is not the case. The enforcers must draw conclusion based on off platform research, a presumed intent of the post, and/or a presumed interpretation.
    - filoeleven 6y ago
      I think I’m with you now. The nature of a factual claim is that it refers to other things that must be examined in order to determine if it passes or fails a rule, whereas for many kinds of images there is no external reference that has to be consulted: the content is all right there in the image itself. In which case I’d have to agree! Thanks for taking the time to clarify it for me.
      - s1artibartfast 6y ago
        Exactly! I would say that many other common rules follow the feasibility of images. For example it is easy to test if a post is doxxing, contains swear words, ect.

s1artibartfast 6y ago

I agree there are edge cases. Are you saying the nipple issue is harder than moderating politically contested statements of fact regarding the nature of the world we live in?

filoeleven 6y ago
I thought you were saying that “universal rules for nudity (subcontent: nipples)” are easier to write than “universal rules for fact-checking.“ If so, I disagree. They are either: a) equally hard, given the common understanding of what “facts” mean nowadays, or b) nudity is harder, given cultural contexts. Culture makes a lot of difference for what’s considered nudity (e.g. women breastfeeding goats, as illustrated in the link), and it should matter less for statements about average temperatures for a given region, etc. But the “facts” as presented are contested anyway, since they are derivations based on data + interpretation, even if the interpretation is from >95% of scientists in the relative field. That makes me lean more towards (a) even though I wish it was (b).
- s1artibartfast 6y ago
  >I thought you were saying that “universal rules for nudity (subcontent: nipples)” are easier to write than “universal rules for fact-checking.“ If so, I disagree. They are either: I think we still have a misunderstanding. I am saying that enforceable rules for nipples are easier to write, regardless of the cultural approval of those rules. A well written rule can be enforced by only looking at the content that is on the platform ( eg the image). That is not to say people might disagree (its Art!) or they might get it wrong (its a male nipple). When it comes to statements of fact, this is not the case. The enforcers must draw conclusion based on off platform research, a presumed intent of the post, and/or a presumed interpretation.
  - filoeleven 6y ago
    I think I’m with you now. The nature of a factual claim is that it refers to other things that must be examined in order to determine if it passes or fails a rule, whereas for many kinds of images there is no external reference that has to be consulted: the content is all right there in the image itself. In which case I’d have to agree! Thanks for taking the time to clarify it for me.
    - s1artibartfast 6y ago
      Exactly! I would say that many other common rules follow the feasibility of images. For example it is easy to test if a post is doxxing, contains swear words, ect.