Facebook - Where do you stand?

[Sunnyknight]

Thought i'd bring up the topic about the PM and Facebook. I'll keep it brief.

 

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. 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.

 

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.

 

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?

 

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. 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.

 

I'm wondering where you all stand with it? Would you allow them to carry on posting such things, allowing kids to view it? 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?

 

All in all, FB is something i will NOT be associating myself with if this continues.

[sparkeh]

FB is effed up. I left a long time ago.

There's no way these kinds of videos should be available and it just shows the kind of people running FB that they defend this stuff.

[bushby]

im going to be removing all the groups i liked so that i dont get this along with any body who post it

i would delete fb but that would mean i would stop being in contact with mates

[rich_tech]

Facebooks minimum required age is 13 I believe, anyone under 8 should not have an account.

 

I don't agree with this one bit, personally I think its very questionable behaviour from the company to allow the publishing of this material, I think its the same for Youtube, what have you got to gain from seeing these horrific acts ? all it generates is fear in people.

 

I am not on Facebook since June this year, I left when they changed their T+Cs again to ride roughshod over a persons rights to their own photographs/videos on there, I spent a three hour session deleting all my data possible from there before hitting the delete me button.

 

Personally I think its the best thing that I ever did, turn my back on social media, I came off Facebook, Twitter and Google+ that week and haven't looked back since, I keep in touch with my friends directly now, which is great, theres a more private non-intrusive version of social networking, that I call phone, text or email

Edited October 23, 2013 by rich_tech

[tmcd35]

The problem with a case like this is that there are a number of issues wrapped around one another that it's seems tought to pick apart, to me.

 

Let's start with Internet and censorship. Should the Internet be censored? If so who by? Should Facebook have the power of censorship? What about freedom of speech? How do you stop Facebook going the other way of over using censorship rather than under using it?

 

I actually take the stance that Facebook own the servers in question there for it is up to them to set the rules and police them, or not, as they choose. If you don't like the rules they set down or their level of policing the rules then don't use their servers.

 

As for 8 year olds with Facebook accounts. Facebook's policy is 13 and older. So the question here, isn't the content shouldn't be here because an 8-year old may see it, rather the question is how can Facebook better police their own policies to ensure under 13's are not seeing unsuitable material?

 

Then there is the material itself. It should be considered seperate from Facebook. As discribed I'm surprised the relavent legal authorities haven't got the powers to issue a take down notice. But then goes back to censorship, however graphic should we be protected from knowing such horrendous things actually do happen in this world?

 

From Facebooks PoV I think they are right with a 5sec Warning, but the do need to better police their own membership rules.

[X-13]

This is bad and everything... but I'm still annoyed that violent murder is OK but a bit of T&A will get you banned.

 

 

And it's not Facebook's job to protect your children. They allow these videos, so it's up to parents as to whether they want to risk their children seeing it.

Edited October 23, 2013 by X-13

[JoeBloggs]

If you were going to watch a movie with said chainsaw scene above, it would be rated 18 - yet Facebook allow this to 13 year olds? Then probably younger, as they do not police the site as much as they should.

 

I don't want to see this stuff, I should be able to opt-out someway! A friend commented on said video saying "wtf" then last night it was wacked into my live feed! Didn't watch it as it would probably disturb me

[JoeBloggs]

 

And it's not Facebook's job to protect your children.

 

They have a responsibility to protect them! You can't have say 50 million 13-17 year olds and say it's not their job!

[tmcd35]

If you were going to watch a movie with said chainsaw scene above, it would be rated 18 - yet Facebook allow this to 13 year olds?

 

Actually, this is an important point. Whose job is it to give the film with said scene an 18 rating? The state, the film maker, the distributor, or the parents? In this country, the law as it stands, says it's the states job. I don't necerssarrily agree with that, in fact a lot parents appear not to considering the number who'd let a 13 year old watch Saw or an 11 year old play GTA:V.

 

I tend to the view that it's the parents job to decide the appropriate level of censorship for thier child, after all they are the ones who should now them best. After a certain age, (is 18 too old or too young?), I believe we should have the freedom of self determination in such matters.

 

The question then becomes, how many parents really understand/know what content there is in games like GTA:V, films like SAW, on YouTube or Facebook? How many actively screen content before allowing their child to be exposed to it?

[X-13]

They have a responsibility to protect them! You can't have say 50 million 13-17 year olds and say it's not their job!

 

Really? It's Facebook's job to supervise your kids on the internet?

 

They're just a social media platform. They provide a service and it isn't childcare. Nor is it content filtering.

 

 

I'm sure there's a lot of adult sites with as many under age users. That doesn't mean they have to remove content because a child may or may not see it.

 

Social media is [almost] entirely user generated. There's ALWAYS a chance you're going to see something like this and if, as a parent, you don't want your kids seeing it. That's YOUR problem.

 

~Disclaimer: None of this is a personal attack. I'm using "you" to refer to parents in general.~

[rich_tech]

I forgot to add, that was one of the massive issues I took with facebook, the fact that photos appear in your timeline without you having prior warning, a couple of friends got a while back had some grim stuff put on them to do with tropical diseases, which I was forced to view on my feed without warning, after removing the friends it did make me question all of this stuff.

 

I rationalised that I got on fine within my life without facebook before going on there and have since happily proved again that I cannot be on there.

 

Trouble with certifying films, thats only done through people with the intention of marketing or selling it I believe, home made videos like these nasties are never going to be put before a censor board.

[sparkeh]

Really? It's Facebook's job to supervise your kids on the internet?

 

They're just a social media platform. They provide a service and it isn't childcare. Nor is it content filtering.

 

 

I'm sure there's a lot of adult sites with as many under age users. That doesn't mean they have to remove content because a child may or may not see it.

 

Social media is [almost] entirely user generated. There's ALWAYS a chance you're going to see something like this and if, as a parent, you don't want your kids seeing it. That's YOUR problem.

 

~Disclaimer: None of this is a personal attack. I'm using "you" to refer to parents in general.~

So social/moral conscience has no place here?

Depends on the kind of society we want to build really, I would hope we lived in a world where FB might think that hosting videos of executions wasn't a good thing to do, rather than just a free for all and push the blame onto the parents. Its not just kids though is it, this kind of stuff I horrible for anyone to watch.

 

There is a difference between censorship and common decency.

[tmcd35]

There is a difference between censorship and common decency.

 

Or over censorship in the name of common decency?

[plexer]

Why do these clips on facebook not fall foul of uk law? is it because they're not hosted in the uk? I doubt it.

 

Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008

 

Obscene publications: Legal Guidance: The Crown Prosecution Service

 

Ben

[Sdrawkcab]

Take responsibility for your own children instead of expecting corporations to do it for you. People are too quick to point the finger at others rather than thinking about their own responsibilities. If you don't want your children seeing this stuff on facebook, don't let them have a facebook.

[sparkeh]

Policy change again BBC News - Facebook makes U-turn over decapitation video clip

 

Hard to keep up!

[sparkeh]

Take responsibility for your own children instead of expecting corporations to do it for you. People are too quick to point the finger at others rather than thinking about their own responsibilities. If you don't want your children seeing this stuff on facebook, don't let them have a facebook.

Ok here's a question, why do you think its acceptable for FB to host videos of execution?

[AngryTechnician]

The biggest problem I have over it this is the lack of consistency in their censorship. Ultimately Facebook is a business and so long as the content they are hosting is not illegal (see below) it's up to them what they do and don't allow. At the moment they seem to lurch back and forth over allowing this sort of violent content while consistently and aggressively censoring even partial nudity such as images of breastfeeding. In my view this a reflection on the shambolic and hypocritical nature of their acceptable content policies, and in a wider context, US public opinion over acceptable content at all. It's worth noting that a perusal of US news websites last night seemed to indicate there has not been as vocal an outcry stateside.

 

Ultimately, Facebook need to come up with sensible policies, apply them consistently, and be honest with users about what sort of business they are. Raking in cash from children using their games platform while allowing this sort of disgusting content is not on in my book.

 

As for legal jurisdiction, one of the links @plexer mentioned is relatively clear:

 

In the case of R v Waddon the Court of Appeal held that the content of American websites could come under British jurisdiction when downloaded in the United Kingdom.

 

It's difficult to see why this isn't therefore being pursued legally. I can only suspect that the army of lawyers Facebook has at its disposal is giving the CPS pause over whether they have a realistic chance of winning.

Edited October 23, 2013 by AngryTechnician

[localzuk]

The UK has pretty clear obscene publications law and I really don't understand how they can safely allow this as they have a UK subsidiary don't they? Why isn't the government pursuing it?

[tmcd35]

The UK has pretty clear obscene publications law and I really don't understand how they can safely allow this as they have a UK subsidiary don't they? Why isn't the government pursuing it?

 

I agree with this, though not really the governements job. Who is in charge or policing the Obscene Publications Acts and why are they not pursuing a court order to have Facebook, at the very least, block this content from access in the UK?

[X-13]

So social/moral conscience has no place here?

 

No. Because things that are socially/morally unacceptable change.

 

As long as it isn't illegal it's fine.

 

It's also to do with context. I don't give a flying whatsit about your kids when I'm trying to read a news article and it's getting blocked because of content filters.

 

Depends on the kind of society we want to build really, I would hope we lived in a world where FB might think that hosting videos of executions wasn't a good thing to do, rather than just a free for all and push the blame onto the parents. Its not just kids though is it, this kind of stuff I horrible for anyone to watch.

 

I want to live in a society where using "think of the children" as an argument to censor things gets you a slap.

 

Ok here's a question, why do you think its acceptable for FB to host videos of execution?

 

The real question is why you think it's acceptable for adults to be hit with restrictions because other people can't be bothered to supervise their own children.

[localzuk]

I agree with this, though not really the governements job. Who is in charge or policing the Obscene Publications Acts and why are they not pursuing a court order to have Facebook, at the very least, block this content from access in the UK?

 

Things like this fall onto the shoulders of the Home Secretary and the Director of Public Prosecutions I think. Maybe the new National Crime Agency would be involved now, as it is outside the remit of any single police force?

[sparkeh]

No. Because things that are socially/morally unacceptable change.

What...so we allow everything because one day it might be acceptable?!

As long as it isn't illegal it's fine.

Well there's debate about whether there are legal.

It's also to do with context. I don't give a flying whatsit about your kids when I'm trying to read a news article and it's getting blocked because of content filters.

So when you are reading an article about a woman being decapitated its not enough to know it happened, you have to see it as well? For what purpose?

I want to live in a society where using "think of the children" as an argument to censor things gets you a slap.

You say it like protecting children is a bad thing?

The real question is why you think it's acceptable for adults to be hit with restrictions because other people can't be bothered to supervise their own children.

No that wasn't the question, the question was 'why do you think its acceptable for FB to host videos of execution?' Which hasn't been answered.

 

Incidently I do think that parents bear a responsibilty but we shouldn't absolve FB of all responsibility either.

Edited October 23, 2013 by sparkeh

[tmcd35]

Things like this fall onto the shoulders of the Home Secretary and the Director of Public Prosecutions I think. Maybe the new National Crime Agency would be involved now, as it is outside the remit of any single police force?

 

I suppose we're very carefully stepping around the other can of worms in this subject. Should ISP's filter your Internet access for content that is illegal in the UK? And if not the ISP, should there be a great firewall of GB that does that job? (didn't a chineese firm win a contract with GHCQ or some-such to provide this?).

[Disease]

Really? It's Facebook's job to supervise your kids on the internet?

 

They're just a social media platform. They provide a service and it isn't childcare. Nor is it content filtering.

 

 

I'm sure there's a lot of adult sites with as many under age users. That doesn't mean they have to remove content because a child may or may not see it.

 

Social media is [almost] entirely user generated. There's ALWAYS a chance you're going to see something like this and if, as a parent, you don't want your kids seeing it. That's YOUR problem.

 

~Disclaimer: None of this is a personal attack. I'm using "you" to refer to parents in general.~

 

This is not a great argument to be honest, yes children sign up to adult sites, yes that is down to parents knowing what their kids are doing. Facebook is NOT an adult only site, it's T&C's allow children (yes 13 year old's are still children) to create accounts and therefore FB DO have a duty of care to protect children from this content. That is before you go down the road that what FaceBook are hosting are essentially snuff video's, which is illegal in the UK.