Facebook - Where do you stand?

[CAM]

This isn't anything new, there have been plenty of other sites from the days when BBS was king. Difference is content is now pushed to users instead of the old days of pulling users to the content. Also consider content like this is used to spread Facebook worms.

[featured_spectre]

I am of the opinion, groups should have age limits, and proper categorisation. There should also be a limit on the videos posted, whilst I personally have no problem with the video described, I can see why others would. They *should* moderate these things, but do you realise just how many videos get posted and how many staff there are to cover each country?

 

When I applied for FB, there was a total of 24 staff for the entire of the UK, and only 2 were for reported posts/videos/pictures etc. Now cross that with roughly 40 million UK users, not an easy task!

[mthomas08]

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.~

 

I am with X-13 on this one, Facebook is a social network website which allows users to upload anything or link to anything and broadcast it in groups and to friends. Personally I think anyone under 16 shouldn't have a Facebook account and anyone 16+ should be mature enough to click the "report this". This is why parents go down the line of setting up their own filtering and prevent their kids for using sites like Facebook/Youtube.

 

The only solution Facebook can provide is that it authorises every picture, video and link which means users will have to wait for their uploaded content. If Facebook needs to take more responsibility for the content it holds, then surely users (especially parents and schools) should take more responsibility in what children have access to.

[Sdrawkcab]

I don't know about you guys, but when I have kids they aren't getting a mobile phone or a facebook account until they are at least 16.

[foofighterjim]

Without trying to sound like an old git the fundamental problem is society in general. There was an instance a couple of years ago where someone committed suicide by jumping off a balcony in the Bullring (Birmingham). That on its own was sad enough but the number of people I then saw taking out there phones just to take pictures and videos was the part that truly disgusted me. Society has lost all of it morals, someone had died and all these people wanted to do was take pictures and show all of their friends.

 

Many of these pictures ended up on Facebook and there were calls for them to be removed. I do not believe this was Facebooks job; it is down to those people who didn't have the common decency to not take a picture in the first place.

[AMLinington]

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.

[pcstru]

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

 

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.

 

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.

Edited October 23, 2013 by pcstru

[happymeal]

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.

[featured_spectre]

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.

[tmcd35]

Do remember that for 40million UK members just 2 people do the censorship and banning etc and it is a full time job.

 

No offense, but all that says is either FB should employ more people or rethink there censorship/banning policies.

[witch]

. 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.

 

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)

[tmcd35]

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.

 

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)

 

There is a problem even with that. Do you...

 

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)

[SovietRussia]

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

[Sdrawkcab]

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, shouldn't be allowed" has only really been around for the last few years.

[Disease]

@Galway

 

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.

Edited October 23, 2013 by Disease

[witch]

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.

[X-13]

do you think that nothing - films, books, nothing should be censored at all, ever?

 

Eh, why not?

 

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.

[Garacesh]

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.

Edited October 23, 2013 by Garacesh

[CAM]

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.

[tmcd35]

Eh, why not?

 

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.

 

I'm 100% behind you on this. Don't believe it's the states role to censor material, I aquiesce because it's accepted rules of the society I live in, but don't agree with it in principle. It's in even more aborhant that we should give powers of censorship to private organisations. I reserve the right to freedom of self determination in these matters. Personally I think the only people with the "god given right" to withhold that freedom from minors are the parents. And even that starts becoming questionable from about 14/15 years (suppose it depends on the individual).

 

Makes me something of a hypocrite considering the schools filtering policies, but personally I think perants implecity, by sending the kid to school, charge us with withholding the pupils freedoms while educate them (if that makes sense).

Edited October 23, 2013 by tmcd35
when useing long words - make sure you know how to smell them ;)

[X-13]

Makes me something of a hypocrite considering the schools filtering policies, but personally I think perants implecity, by sending the kid to school, charge us with withholding the pupils freedoms while educate them (if that makes sense).

 

In loco parentis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

While the pupils are here, we're the parents. [sort of.]

[AngryTechnician]

Don't believe it's the states role to censor material, I aquiesse because it's accepted rules of the society I live in, but don't agree with it in principle. It's even more aborhant that we should give powers of censorship to private organisations.

I agree with your stance on government censorship, but why should Facebook not have the right censor their own website? It's their site, their rules. You're still free to say or post whatever you want somewhere else.

 

Example: I invite you to my house (a private abode) and ask if you'd like leave a message using my fridge magnets. If you write something I find offensive, I'll remove it. Does that amount to me infringing on your right to free speech?

[localzuk]

The role of the government is to create and enforce laws according to the 'joint morals' of the nation.

 

The majority of people believe that some censorship is necessary. For example, to protect the mental health of children (eg. footage of extreme violence can and will damage a child's mental well-being.)

 

Videos of this sort should be stopped through law for people who are not of legal age, not through the whims of individual organisations based on whoever shouts the most (eg. Daily Mail). Law means consistency.

 

If a site can't ensure the age of the user then it should not allow such footage to be shown. Much like pornography in this country.

 

The idea that government censorship is inherently a bad thing is just as idealistic as saying its completely a good thing. It has its place.

[tmcd35]

I agree with your stance on government censorship, but why should Facebook not have the right censor their own website? It's their site, their rules. You're still free to say or post whatever you want somewhere else.

 

My bad, badly worded, I was thinking more along the lines of ISP filtering. I think I did say above that it's facebook servers and they set the rules we use them by...

 

The role of the government is to create and enforce laws according to the 'joint morals' of the nation.

 

The majority of people believe that some censorship is necessary.

 

The idea that government censorship is inherently a bad thing is just as idealistic as saying its completely a good thing. It has its place.

 

As you say, it's my liberal idealology, and as I said above - I aquiesce to societies greater wisdom.

 

 

EDIT: Aquiesce - I like that word, seems apt. Sometimes I wonder if we aquiesce too much power to the state because it's easier than taking personal responsibility?

Edited October 23, 2013 by tmcd35

[Sdrawkcab]

Aquiesce - I like that word, seems apt. Sometimes I wonder if we aquiesce too much power to the state because it's easier than taking personal responsibility?

 

That's pretty much a given, isn't it? It's always easier to let someone make your decisions for you, after all. Most people wouldn't even be aware that they were letting it happen.