f13.net

Subject: Facebook Warning.


Hello,

You uploaded a photo that violates our Terms of Use and this photo has been removed. Facebook does not allow photos that attack an individual or group, or that contain nudity, drug use, violence or other violations of the Terms of Use. These policies are designed to ensure Facebook remains a safe, secure and trusted environment for all users, including the many children who use the site.

If you have any questions or concerns, you can visit our FAQ page at http://www.facebook.com/help/?topic=wphotos.

The Facebook Team

Facebook Expert Urges You To Cover Your Naughty Bits
BY MARK LUTZ + FRIDAY, OCTOBER 30
Facebook turns a photographers world upside down! He almost lost his account and he’s still not sure exactly why.



Chris Meyer of CM Photographics is what you might call a Facebook fanboy. He has been singing the praises of Facebook to the professional photography community for quite some time now. Meyer’s business is a case study on Facebook’s very own advertising page and he’s even lectured at a DWF convention on the subject of FB marketing for photographers. That means that when Chris Meyer speaks of Facebook danger, we should listen! Chris recounts his own recent experiences which nearly cost him his Facebook account below…

___________________________________

About 2 weeks ago I received 3 emails at the exact same time from what appeared to be an automated FB email account, saying:

[...]


Luckily because I am featured on the FB advertising page for small businesses, and because I have worked with FB, and their PR company in the past, I had some people that I could contact directly to help me out with the situation, and was finally able to get reinstated.

Upon getting reinstated I received the following email from one of the User Operations people:

Photo content that you uploaded has been removed for violating Facebook’s Statement of Rights and Responsibilities. Photos containing nudity or other graphic or sexually suggestive content are not allowed. Unfortunately, for technical reasons, we are unable to provide further information about the removed content.

Ultimately I urge everyone to be EXTRA careful of the photos that you upload. The photos that I uploaded that were flagged were pretty mild boudoir pics. Definitely no nudity involved, and not really that suggestive at all. I have seen swimsuit pics that showed more than I did… I personally will no longer be uploading any boudoir photos, and will leave that up to the discression of the clients if they chose to upload them or not. Too much of my business revolves around Facebook to risk something like this again, where the judgement of what is in violation or not seems to be far to arbitrary.

I have asked their team (for whatever it is worth) to re-evaluate their suspension process… because if I didn’t have the contact info that I did, it would be next to impossible to get your account back up and running…

Hope this helps someone to avoid the mistakes and the downtime that I just had.

Facebook does not allow nudity?

You mean I could get banned and legitimately tell people I can't have a FB account?  Oh so tempting...

You DO have a historical problem with nudity and photos, after all.   :grin:

Also, in account settings there is an option to download everything in your account such as messages, photos and such. Maybe do a periodic backup so you don't lose everything next time you get banned, perv.

I suggest going full insane on this one. It has worked for Nerf going on 29 pages now.

I reccomend that we rename "going full insane" to "going full nerf".

But I didn't post any naked picture!

Not that I'm a prude, the contrary, I've a fair share of porn on my computer and some of it goes beyond the norm...

But seriously, what's it with people filling all sort of places up with porn? On Facebook, on cellphones, on PMPs and god knows what other (public) data "repositories"? Can't you guys get along more than half an hour without looking at it?!

That photo is not porn.

I'm a pretty open-minded guy who accepts that there are different thresholds for taste and decency and that what I consider acceptable isn't necessarily a metric for anyone else. Having said that, there is no way that picture falls within any reasonable definition of good taste. The Human League? Really?

Not that I'm a prude, the contrary, I've a fair share of porn on my computer and some of it goes beyond the norm...

But seriously, what's it with people filling all sort of places up with porn? On Facebook, on cellphones, on PMPs and god knows what other (public) data "repositories"? Can't you guys get along more than half an hour without looking at it?!

But I didn't post any naked picture!

I've been asking friends for help on pointing out what could have caused it, and I think they banned me for this:

NSFW

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/3584773/389780.jpg


That's a Nobuyoshi Araki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nobuyoshi_Araki) picture, if you just google his name you get more and worse than that.
And it has been buried in one of my folders for more than a year. I guess at some point, someone (I'd PAY to know who!), flagged it and screwed me. No fair warning, just banned me.

I guess.

You can't feign innocence really, putting up the animated gif as another possibility is silly.

I think you should reconsider and enact the griefing of facebook plan.

I understand why they hated it and decided to remove it and even to "punish" me, I don't consider it porn but I understand why it's inappropriate for a public place and blah blah.

Look at this as a new chapter in your life, free to trivial online drama.  Oh wait, you post on f13.

Man I know Europe is more relaxed about things, but would tits and snatch really pass as appropriate on a hypothetical Euro Facebook? "Silly Americans think tits and pussy and rope bondage constitute porn!"

Again, its not about the tits and I redirect your attention to my prior 'pervy' test. Would you feel creepy having to explain breasts to a minor? Not really. "Look son, women have breasts. That painting over there, called Venus on the half-shell, well, she's got breasts."

Only thing I am pissed off about is the logic that leads to insta-perma-ban. I mean, if I am an offender, I am gonna make new profiles and offend over and over just because they superpissed me off over one single picture.

I agree to an extent, but I'm wondering if it had been a tame 'artistic' breast shot, say of a Mapplethorpe or something classy,

I've been asking friends for help on pointing out what could have caused it, and I think they banned me for this:

That's a noble savage, so nudity is acceptable.

Facebook apology over birth photos

Facebook has apologised for disabling the account of a US birth photographer


Facebook has apologised for disabling the account of a US birth photographer who posted pictures the company initially deemed inappropriate, including shots of a friend and her newborn moments after birth that partially showed her friend's breasts, but not her nipples.

Facebook wrote in an email to Iowa photographer Laura Eckert that it had restored her account and that its decision to deactivate it on December 22 was "in error." The company also apologised for "the inconvenience" she experienced.

Eckert's photography business, New Creation Photography&Design, specialises in pictures of pregnant women and the first moments of a baby's life. She uses Facebook to communicate with clients and highlight her work. She said she was shocked when Facebook told her last month it had removed inappropriate photos from her page, saying she had carefully cropped pictures to comply with company policies.

Eckert, 33, said when she tried to log on to find out which photos were targeted, she found her account was disabled. She said she sent 30 or more emails to Facebook to inquire and try to be reactivated and didn't get a response until Thursday, a day after a television station reported on her plight.

Her supporters had formed a group on Facebook to lobby for her reinstatement, saying the company was hypocritical for targeting photos they considered beautiful art while routinely allowing pictures of teenage girls dressed provocatively and others they consider obscene.

"It's funny it happened after the media got involved. I sent many polite emails asking for information over the course of the last few weeks and got no response. None," Eckert said.

Facebook spokesman Simon Axten said the company reviews thousands of pieces of content every day and takes action to ensure Facebook "remains a safe and trusted environment for everyone".

"Of course, we make an occasional mistake. This is an example," he said in an email. "When this happens, and it's brought to our attention, we work quickly to resolve the issue."

While Facebook never told Eckert which photos were inappropriate, she said she believes the one or two at issue were pictures she took of her friend, Leslie Kung, after Kung gave birth in her bathtub in May. The pictures show the mother and baby embracing for the first time, and parts of Kung's breasts can be seen, but not her nipples.

Eckert said: "I need a little bit of clarity on what is a violation and what's not. I'm going to shoot another birth in a week or two and I'm going to want to share those photos," she said. "I see the miraculousness of it. Maybe that clouds my judgment a little bit."

Ok so a week later, I received an email asking for my ID, photographic evidences that I am Drew Falconeer. Not a word about the causes of the ban, or anything.

I wrote back a long letter explaining that I am a good egg (!) and I didn't mean any harm and if I broke the rules it was certainly by accident and I am gonna behave from now on. I even explained why my ID doesn't match my Facebook name. I have very good reasons for that. So I sent them photos of all my IDs and stuff, my long explanation and apologies, and 20 minutes later my account was back! Only.... with my fucking birth name.

Happy ending? I am really not sure. I am never happy I guess.


P.S: Before you even try, no they didn't ban me for the name. The infamous rope photo is obviously gone.