Facebook banned me

[Falconeer]

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?

Thread won. Now someone give me my account back please.

[Oban]

That's not the right way to tie someone up.

[Falconeer]

You are not confusing Shibari with Kinbaku, are you?

[Oban]

 

[Lantyssa]

I like the Human League.

[Falconeer]

There you go. Put that in your status and you'll be out of Facebook in no time, Lant.

[Mrbloodworth]

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?!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NiFD6EFVsTg

[Falconeer]

Someone pointed out something else.

Since the ban came lke two hours after I posted this on someone's wall, while the above mentioned nakedness photo has been there for more than a year, could it be that they banned me for this instead?

[MuffinMan]

Let's do a test. Half of you post the tied up girl and the other half the animated .gif and let's see who gets their accounts banned.

[Grimwell]

Brilliant!

First we have to become FB friends with all of Falconeer's FB friends! 

Also, this cracks me up:

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 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 did, and it's porn. Or erotica, or light bondage, or art - but it's against the rules as sure as the sun is going to come up in the East tomorrow. You can't feign innocence really, putting up the animated gif as another possibility is silly. Someone you know ratted you out, or someone found your profile and went skimming the photos. This one was obviously wrong.

Heck, for all we know there is an elite group of Christian Conservatives in Alabama with computers and a program that scans FB for indecency that they can report! (now that's scary) (after they use it of course, and save it to a secret flash drive while nobody is watching) (because they are busy saving files to their flash drives) (The Catholics got one thing right, humans are broken).

The path of least resistance is to sign up a new ID on FB and understand that the puritans still dominate American channels - and then to register on www.fetlife.com (Yes, NSFW - you should know already given the context) and enjoy your art with people who want to live it.

[Engels]

For me, there's just a very simple litmus test: Can you show it to a 10 year old without feeling like a creep?

[MuffinMan]

Well, she wasn't completely naked. She was wearing rope.

Now I'm even more curious what those Ann Arbor pictures look like. Hanging from the tree by nipple clamps with a ball gag?

[Rasix]

I'm thinking meat hooks and a Great Old One.

[Hawkbit]

It fucking always comes back to Cthulhu.

[Tebonas]

While I find these particular photos not ready for common consumption as well, the main problem here seems that this is an American service with American morale standards applied, which are frankly more restrictive than in the free world.

One shouldn't be surprised about that, though.

[Falconeer]

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

Just to make it clear, I didn't feign anything. I was asking, and being curious about it. When I said I didn't post any naked picture, it's because this one has been there for more than a year and I forgot about it. I can't see the point in my claiming innocence on f13 and then self-accusing myself by posting that picture. Whatever.

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.

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 (would I show it to a 10 years old? Let's not go there. But I don't have minors other than my son among my friends anyway and all my content is friends only) Hell, I could even do some more shit just because I am pissed and enraged at Facebook. Now it would be stupid and useless, sure, and it's not gonna happen. But the point is, they can't really stop people from signing up again, so the "offender" is coming back anyway. Wouldn't it make more sense to remove the photo (ONE forbidden photo in about 2000), issue a warning, maybe scare him with a temp-ban, and have the offending user scared enough that he'll probably behave?

I understand they don't give a shit about me and why should they even go through this whole process, but it still feels a bit too harsh and unnecessary, and not leading to a cleaner Facebook than what a fair warning could do.

[CmdrSlack]

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

[sinij]

They are doing you a favor by erasing all your personal information, and all it took is some rope in otherwise nice picture.

You have to understand, you being a product, anything you post on Facebook is accessible by every advertiser, including ultra-conservative Christian advertisers. If it makes you look bad, you are out of luck, they are not going to do anything about it because there is no money in it. On other hand, if it could make Fecebook look bad, and cost them, they are going to delete it, delete you and not think twice about it.

Welcome to United States of Corporate America.

[MuffinMan]

[Slyfeind]

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

/Like

[Lantyssa]

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.

American company.  If the person isn't completely clothed, it's porn.

[Malakili]

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

[schild]

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

And in a lawsuit with the United States of America. o_o

[Falconeer]

Court Hearing in Ann Arbor January 11th. I won't show up, as per my lawyer suggestion 

[WindupAtheist]

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!"

[Lantyssa]

Page 3.

[TripleDES]

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!"

There are regularly tits on TV in advertisements. At least back a few years when I stopped watching TV. I fondly remember an ad for buttermilk that featured a tits naked women. Seems like in Europe, only the genital area is offlimits.

[MahrinSkel]

And not as big as deal as tits in the US.  There have been a few Euro TV ads I've heard about that featured full frontal, they were controversial (and generally pulled from the air), but the equivalent with breasts in the US would involve criminal charges and revoked broadcast licenses.

--Dave

[Engels]

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."

Now, Falconeer's photo. Try explaining to a minor why she's tied up and naked. The kid is not in a position to understand or process why someone would think that photograph was attractive. It would be, at best, confusing. Its not even a matter of wishy washy subjective psychology. The glands are simply not developed yet.

[Tebonas]

The Problem with the Photo is the the Woman being tied up. The Problem Facebook has (according to the link here) is the Woman being naked.

And yes, nakedness is not the taboo here it is in the US while violence is more of a taboo. The sensibilities seen to be reversed over the big Pond.

[Lantyssa]

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."

Had it been a clothed but tied up woman nothing would have happened.  Facebook doesn't give a rat's ass about artistry and whether something can be explained to a ten year old or not.

It's the tits.

[Engels]

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, whether it would have merited the full on ban, or just the removal and warning. I can totally see some entry level worker who's job it is to scan the flagged content calling over a Dwight Shrute type supervisor and the ban hammer coming down faster than you can say 'Facebook is sponsoring kidnap and rape'.

[Paelos]

No female tits allowed on Facebook. There are no ifs, ands, or tits.

[Grimwell]

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.

While I get the logic of your point, you have to understand the scope Facebook is dealing with. They have hundreds of millions of accounts in their system.

They aren't trying to proactively prevent you from making a new ID and posting porn from it, they are getting rid of what their standards consider an eyesore and moving along fast to handle the next one. Their goal isn't to stop you, it's to be able to have their lawyers stand up in court and say "Yes your honor, we remove all accounts that post such content within X minutes of receiving notice."

This makes their report/respond system defensible. They can claim that they do their all to handle icky content and keep the children safe as things are reported, and say "We didn't know about that one, nobody reported it." to your next ID that has porn - until it's reported.

[pants]

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,

Nope, its the tits.  There was a big hullabaloo here in Australia because the Australian Breastfeeding Mothers Association or someone like that got banned from Facebook because of their pictures of tits.  Albeit with arrows saying 'Baby top lip goes here, bottom lip goes here', stuff like that.

Its the tits.