I have no opinion on the videos others choose to view, but I would be very very distressed if a beheading, violence or cruelty to animals video appeared in my news feed and IMO it is the responsibility of Facebook not to present this type to content to people that do not wish to view it. The best way to do this is to put that kind of content behind a consent screen. That way the content IS available if a person CHOOSES to view it. It would be nice if there was a setting where you could specify that you do not want violent or explicit content shown on your page.
Maybe for the same reason it is OK for the BBC to show footage from a CCTV camera of a bomb explosion where people die, or broadcast footage of the Apache helicopter in Iraq, shooting unarmed civilians, who again are dying in-front of the camera. I say maybe. Perhaps if the execution was associated with the Drugs trade (likely) then there is a valid point in putting the consequences of our actions in-front of us by whatever means. A shame if so, that the message is subsumed by the outcry over facebook policy.
Originally Posted by sparkeh
We seem to manage to consume so much graphic violence that faux horror at such a scene is somewhat contrived. Would it for example make any difference if someone announced that it was all just actors and ketchup or perhaps some CGI? Is it that people actually die in the scene, that people die quite horribly, that people die horribly for no good reason, that makes it unacceptable? People have a right to choose what they see - sure, switch off your TV, unsubscribe from Facebook. Go play football with your kids in the park and show them a good example rather than expecting Facebook to babysit them.
I remember this argument doing the round back when Ken Bigley was captured and executed in Iraq.
There was a massive uproar as the clip was posted on YouTube - freely available to young children, teenagers and the like. IIRC YouTube didn't pull it as it was censorship - I think they were trying to say everyone deserved a platform to voice their opinions, or to create a debate about war and the consequences of Foreign Policy. Then pulled it as it was distasteful, wrong, and pushed a recorded murder out to users. I still tend to cringe when I see a link to war videos showing mortars/shelling, shooting, etc, in Libya, Iraq, etc and think those should be removed from YouTube/FB.
Facebook is (Or was, if they've banned it by now) wrong to allow videos that showed murder/execution, or anything along those lines. I can't imagine the conversation at Facebook Towers was straight-forward - there would have been those that would want it banned, and those that would be asking if they banned this, would they be responsible for censoring other content, others that just want to start a debate. But an adult there should have put in a barebones policy of what's acceptable and what isn't, or look at ways of restricting it to users by age.
This kind of stuff however is freely available on the dark corners of the Internet - Facebook could ban (Or filter it according to age groups) adult content, but either children would create another account or go searching elsewhere. Same applies to YouTube, flickr, etc.
The parents would be mostly accountable here - the age limit is 13 for Facebook, and parents REALLY should be watching what little Johnie is watching/doing online. They wouldn't let him/her sit in front of the TV to watch 18-rated gore movies (Saw, Childs Play, etc) or adult movies - so they shouldn't let their children sit at a laptop/PC unsupervised (Or without a filter) to view the same stuff.
Do remember that for 40million UK members just 2 people do the censorship and banning etc and it is a full time job. They may have more people doing it now, or even since I applied but I doubt it.
No offense, but all that says is either FB should employ more people or rethink there censorship/banning policies.
Originally Posted by nephilim
This ^ is the best answer. I'd rather it wasn't there at all but I don't particularly want people making my decisions for me - I want to choose whether to watch or not. (the "cert 18" is a good argument)
Originally Posted by AMLightfoot
Originally Posted by AMLightfoot
There is a problem even with that. Do you...
Originally Posted by witch
1) Put all content behind a consent wall regardless
2) Pay a number of people to monitor all content to put behind a consent wall where appropriate
3) Rely on the content originator to be honest in putting content behind the consent wall where appropriate
4) Accept a number of people are going to see it, complain/report the media, and then put it behind a consent wall (after the horse as bolted)
1. Get all the under 13 year olds off bluddy Facebook
2. Facebook has turned into crap anyway, my news feed is full of half naked women due to links that groups just SPAM out
This argument is exactly the same as anything on the internet, If I wanted to watch a beheading, and Facebook stopped me - I would search Google for it, so where is the argument about Google... Its up to the user what they want to watch, but I agree - These things should be banned from Facebook.
It is up to Facebook to enforce these policies and not parents etc - Because its called doing the right thing
I strongly disagree with the OPs opinions on FB.
"I'm with the PM on this, in that Facebook should take full responsibility for the violent videos and images that are being posted on there."
Twaddle, how can FB vet everything. Why not complain to your ISP while you are at it they they allowed it though to you.
"...An example, someone had committed a crime in Mexico. As a punishment, the men were bound, and put against a wall where they said something or another. Next second, a guy with a chainsaw takes off one of their heads. After that, the one alive looks at the body, probably shizzling himself, and someone with a knife took of his head, slowly."
Yea, I have seen the video. Its in the public domain.
"Last night i got talking with @TBlax, and we discussed how it's totally inappropriate for Facebook to allow such videos on the net. He however argued that if there is a 5 second WARNING message, it should be allowed."
Totally agree. People need to understand that no matter how heavily we have incorporated the internet into our lives its the equivalent of the wild west out there. People think its nice and safe and let little 5 yo daughter on there with no filtering or safe guarding issues and then get their knickers in a twist when they get somthing else rather than images of big ben. Im sorry, its your own fault. Its not a safe road, its the M62 on steriods and you dont let your kids loose on there.
"I TOTALLY disagree. Children, around the ages of 8 or younger have facebook. If they have an account, they can view those videos. Think of an 8 year old watching people slowly beheaded, having their head shot off, or their fingers chopped off. What impact do you think it'd have on their lives?"
If you let your children use FB, or totally unfiltered un moderated access to the internet than you are a bad parent by proxy, typical blame culture to blame FB.
"Personally, i could watch almost anything (bar anything to do with spiders), but the fact it was ONLINE and there for ANYONE to watch.... shocked me. If i was the PM, i'd block FB from the UK permanently or put in strong so-called sanctions on the site. That's me, but it's the direction i hope the PM would be going."
The internet is not soft and fluffy, get over it.
"... Facebook is getting worse and worse, and they're allowing such things to be posted on their site, just to attract more people and encourage them to sign up. What Mark Twatberg doesn't understand is, it's his face that is being ruined by allowing such things."
Dont like it, block it/dont use it.
"I'm wondering where you all stand with it? Would you allow them to carry on posting such things, allowing kids to view it?"
Im pretty sure there is an age limit to join FB, but most parents dont know or care and expect the state to be parents for them.
" Is it a parenting fault? Is it FB fault totally? Should there be keywords that auto search videos and blocks them? What actions should be taken?"
No. The internet is wild. Parents should take responsibility for their children.
"All in all, FB is something i will NOT be associating myself with if this continues."
Thats the attitude you should have had from the start, its their site if you dont like it dont use it. No point kicking up a fuss because u let you son watch xyz.
When did it become OK for parents to not take responsibility for their children and instead pass the blame onto other organizations? It seems like this culture of "it's not my fault, <x> shouldn't be allowed" has only really been around for the last few years.
You are missing the point mate, Facebook provide their service to 13 year olds, it's in the T&C's, therefore because they are offering that service to minors THEY should ensure from a start point that that service contains age appropriate material, in the same way it is illegal to see 18 certificate films to someone under the age of 18.
It's not the parents responsibility to ensure their children do not buy the films behind their back (although That's another issue) it's the shops responsibility to ensure they do not sell the films fags booze to people under age. So Facebook need to ensure that none of this content is available to children or make FB 18's only, which they won't do as their subscription base would go down dramatically.
While we are on the subject, having seen people killed for real whilst in the Army, why on earth would anyone think looking or want to look at another human being having their head cut off as acceptable in any medium, really sort it out it's real person for christ's sake.
So just out of interest - those people who believe that facebook shouldn't censor its own content in any way, shape or form, even though they are allowing minors onto the site - do you think that nothing - films, books, nothing should be censored at all, ever?
(as I said, I want to be able to choose, but I am an adult)
There is an element of (wait for the yelling and screaming here) pandering to the worst dregs of society here as well. Why would any decent human being want to watch such horror is beyond me.
Eh, why not?
Originally Posted by witch
We've tried censorship and classification. They obviously don't matter that much considering the amount of kids here talking about violent films and games.
Everything legal is accessible. It's up to parents to choose what their kids see.
Hmm, this is a toughie. I'm not quite sure exactly where I stand.
On one hand, freedom of expression and the right to information. These things are happening and the public do need to be made aware of them. People need to be made aware of the dangers of countries where this happens and also why it happens. Thanks to the digital era we are no longer in an age where 'history is written by the victorious' and that is definitely a good thing. These atrocities need to be documented*, whether they be committed by a single individual, an armed militia or the government themselves, it doesn't matter. Nothing hidden, nothing covered up.
I also agree that Little Mandy certainly should not be using the internet unsupervised. I think 13 years old is too young for social media**.
Furthermore, I agree that obviously this kind of footage should not be pushed onto users, such as being dropped into their news feeds unsolicited just because a friend or a group shared it.
However. * Just because it needs to be documented, do we need to see footage? I also think facebook's warning is completely inefficient. 'Contains graphic content that may be upsetting'? Well so does pornography. But pornography won't affect me in the same way as beheading video would. I say end the blanket warning and tell the user exactly what it is before they watch it. 'Caution: This video contains footage of a woman being beheaded alive.' Some may find that a little unsettling but when there's no actual information of the content, you can't may a valid judgement about whether the content is actually at risk of unsettling you or not.
**Unpoliced user content is one of the reasons why I consider 13 years old too young for social media. Admittedly there are other dangers, but that's a biggie with me. Would I let my hypothetical 13 year old child use facebook? I don't think I'd be too keen on that. Even though I can set up my own filters and block 4chan et al, I can't effectively police individual sites. As much as I'd try to educate my child about the dangers of the internet there would still be a considerably large risk they would be exposed to this sort of content.
All that aside, Facebook allows 13-year-olds to sign up. Therefore they advocate their site is appropriate for 13-year-olds to use. Having zero content/access control beyond Adults-can't-find-Kids (and no real way to effectively police using false ages/accounts) there's no way they should say 'We allow this content to be posted'. Adults, if given proper warning (such as 'Warning: Beheading' not 'You might or might not like this video') are able to make informed choices about the content they view. Children not so much. Morbid curiosity is enough to destroy a child.
Am I expected to educate and monitor what my child does online? Yes. Yes I am. Am I expected to hover over her shoulder, monitoring every keystroke, vetting every link? No. That's impossible. Duty of Care lies with both the parent and Facebook. Because of this, and the inability to control content access, these videos, in my opinion, ought to be removed as soon as they are discovered.
I think this is one of those cases where censorship should be applied, but it depends on context. Let's take the mentioned gun camera footage that was leaked on the Internet, anyone saying "Hey look at this! Can you watch the whole vid?" as a challenge is clearly abusing any right to free speech and being a bit sick in the process. But the gun camera footage also sparked global discussion on how US forces conducted themselves in warzones in which case it is more then permissible if being used as part of a wider political discussion or awareness campaign (not for entertainment purposes!).
In this case the Mexico video falls under the first category where it is being spread by idiots for a laugh and should be stopped. The main point of concern should be how far does the censorship go if the line not to be crossed is moved backwards each time to censor ever more content.
Facebook do play a more dangerous game though with sponsored ads. I'm sure someone who recently liked their new Wickes Chainsaw or Mexican holiday wouldn't want to be featured in an advert on that page.