Facebook - Where do you stand?

[pcstru]

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)

As I understood it, Facebook and other sites would like to have a status of "common carrier", essentially they are not liable for the content or it's effect beyond a very basic legal responsibility. So if you publish defamatory statements on Facebook, FB might be obliged on receipt of a complaint to take down the content and supply the complainant with your details so you can be sued for defamation, but they can't be. The more FB acts as an arbiter of content, the more they become a publisher rather than a simple carrier.

 

Personally I think censorship has a place in protecting the vulnerable. Children for instance have a right to be protected from disturbing and explicit images. In the main, it is parents who have that responsibility, not Facebook, Google or BigWogglers.Net. If you are relying on Facebook to protect your child, then you are already failing (because it is simply not possible for FB to do so effectively).

 

On the other side, do adults have a right to be protected from seeing the consequences of their actions? Hiding from people the bloodbath horrors that results from Drone Strikes in Pakistan, or the tens of thousands of deaths every year in Mexico as a result of the "War on Drugs", seems to me to be very wrong. So often the cry of people is "If *only* I had known". That simply isn't compatible with "hide away all the horror" and IMO, people must have the right to information which allows them to make an informed judgement.

 

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.

 

I think that is a tautology constructed around your definition of "decent". I don't think there is a simple answer and I doubt you can justifiably characterise everyone who "wants" as "indecent" for wanting to make their own judgement (which necessitates watching it).

[JoeBloggs]

 

*****Dont click if easily offended*******

NOT FOR SCHOOL IMO

 

 

At least FB you have to register.

 

 

The reason that video was shot, was to film animals in the wild etc etc

 

The reason a dude got his head chain saw'd off and plastered online is obviously to cause terror

[pcstru]

The reason a dude got his head chain saw'd off and plastered online is obviously to cause terror

 

Does the intent matter (and if so at what stage)? Why was the video shot? Why was it distributed? Why was it then published? I watched "The Act of Killing" a while back. It is a most profoundly disturbing film. The subjects quite obviously have a different intent in participating than the creators. Who's intent wins?

 

Witch's statement might read for that film "Why would any decent human being want to sit and watch men who perpetrated evil on a huge scale, justify themselves and celebrate their acts". For me that answers the question of intent, at least to say that the intent of (x) is not always a factor.

[JoeBloggs]

Does the intent matter (and if so at what stage)?

 

I think it does when the beheadding video is being compared to a baboon and a gazelle

[witch]

 

 

 

I think that is a tautology constructed around your definition of "decent". I don't think there is a simple answer and I doubt you can justifiably characterise everyone who "wants" as "indecent" for wanting to make their own judgement (which necessitates watching it).

I don't think "indecent" is the correct opposite of "decent" in this example and yes, of course this is my opinion. I can see, of course, why people investigating/studying/reporting on such dreadful things might watch these things but you don't need to watch it all to make a judgement if you are sure that it is what it is - and there is not really any comparison between humans being killed and animals doing what animals do - killing for food. @X-13 Tell me. If you believe that parents are entirely responsible for their children (other than in school or whatever), then a) what about the poor children who do NOT have parents who help them or support them. Also, if you were walking down a street and a child got away from its parent and started to head for a busy road, would you really not stop them? I'm sure you would, but that is the extrapolation of your "its the parents responsibility" spiel.

 

I think @AngryTechnician s point about Facebook having the right to censor their own website - especially in the light of the minors who are on there is a very good one. Yes, children can search about to find this stuff, as can anyone else, but perhaps Facebook should take a stand because of their readership.

Edited October 23, 2013 by witch

[pcstru]

I don't think "indecent" is the correct opposite of "decent" in this example and yes, of course this is my opinion.

It might be my misappropriation of language :-)!

and there is not really any comparison between humans being killed and animals doing what animals do - killing for food.

The point is perhaps context - intent and impact. If I give a 3 year old child a cuddly toy gazelle and encourage them to personalise and love it and then show them graphic footage of one being eaten - how does that compare to showing the death of a human to a war veteran experienced with horror and death? Better or worse?

Also, if you were walking down a street and a child got away from its parent and started to head for a busy road, would you really not stop them? I'm sure you would, but that is the extrapolation of your "its the parents responsibility" spiel.

Is that fair? Of course most people would stop the child. The question is really what is the parents expectation - a more correct comparison might be that they expect someone else *should* stop the child (and they can let their child run free because other people should do that).

I think @AngryTechnician s point about Facebook having the right to censor their own website - especially in the light of the minors who are on there is a very good one. Yes, children can search about to find this stuff, as can anyone else, but perhaps Facebook should take a stand because of their readership.

 

Which IMO is fair enough. It is not really a simple black and white question of censorship or not. I might want adults always to have the right to examine evidence for themselves and not be protected from it, while at the same time, I do want children to have a right to be children (and be protected from adult content). For me the real complexity comes with the issue of education. An expectation that people can suddenly deal with horrific evidence at an arbitrary age is unrealistic. But how do people learn to deal with such things without exposure to them/awareness of them? And how can you expect Facebook to arbitrate that better than parents?

 

[ETA- supposing FB proposed a solution based on a "watershed" - content moderation based on a local bedtime norm. No one would be happy - parents would say "how dare *they* decide what is an acceptable bedtime from my little babes" and no one would really think such a thing was workable. But actually nothing but close parental supervision can protect children from the horrors available on the internet, so actually such a scheme would be no worse than any other].

Edited October 23, 2013 by pcstru

[witch]

It might be my misappropriation of language :-)!

 

The point is perhaps context - intent and impact. If I give a 3 year old child a cuddly toy gazelle and encourage them to personalise and love it and then show them graphic footage of one being eaten - how does that compare to showing the death of a human to a war veteran experienced with horror and death? Better or worse?

 

Is that fair? Of course most people would stop the child. The question is really what is the parents expectation - a more correct comparison might be that they expect someone else *should* stop the child (and they can let their child run free because other people should do that).

 

 

Which IMO is fair enough. It is not really a simple black and white question of censorship or not. I might want adults always to have the right to examine evidence for themselves and not be protected from it, while at the same time, I do want children to have a right to be children (and be protected from adult content). For me the real complexity comes with the issue of education. An expectation that people can suddenly deal with horrific evidence at an arbitrary age is unrealistic. But how do people learn to deal with such things without exposure to them/awareness of them? And how can you expect Facebook to arbitrate that better than parents?

 

[ETA- supposing FB proposed a solution based on a "watershed" - content moderation based on a local bedtime norm. No one would be happy - parents would say "how dare *they* decide what is an acceptable bedtime from my little babes" and no one would really think such a thing was workable. But actually nothing but close parental supervision can protect children from the horrors available on the internet, so actually such a scheme would be no worse than any other].

Well, I've never seen someone being killed and I really don't see that I need to "deal with such things" I could watch it if I wanted to but I don't want that choice taken away from me - either by it being taken off "the internet", OR it being thrust in my face without my agreement. The war veteran argument is null and void. You join an armed force that you know goes into war zones and deals in death, and you have to deal with it. That's your choice. I want the choice too.

The "three year old with a toy gazelle" reinforces my argument. You cannot expect a three year old to understand nature red in tooth and claw, but neither should a 13 year old or even an adult have to be faced with watching a murder because they can understand it (and can they? I doubt it)

With regards to FB watershed - FB doesnt have to have a solution that makes anyone "happy". It should do what it needs to do to protect the minors it allows on the site. There was an article somewhere - can't find it now that mentioned "corruption of minors" or something similar as being something that campaigners can use to stop FB allowing such content on a site.

[Sdrawkcab]

After reading this thread I'd be interested to know which of you have children and which don't. My guess is that the majority of those arguing against censorship don't.

[tmcd35]

I've been thinking about this a bit more over night (as you do). At what point, by not applying sensorship, is FB complicite in forcing users to watch a video? Even if it appears on a users timeline it doesn't auto play, does it? The user still has to actively click the play button...

 

@Sdrawkcab, I don't have children - so you're right there But let's turn that question the other way around. How many parents have let their children watch an 18 cert film? or play an 18 cert game? or smokea cigerrette? How many parents actively monitor the contents of games of movies before letting giving their child access? Should you be passing your responsibilties as a parent to government? or Facebook? If I had kids would I find it that easy to say no to them? (and reinforce it?).

[Sunnyknight]

It truely is an eye-opener to see such a varied response from the Edugeek side.

 

It seems that some of you don't care, some of you think it shouldn't be up there full stop, some of you think a warning is appropriate, and some of you are yet undecided.

 

I think i may start a poll on this, just for the sake of figures.

 

Please continue to discuss this, it's very interesting reading the responses.

[X-13]

@X-13 Tell me. If you believe that parents are entirely responsible for their children (other than in school or whatever), then a) what about the poor children who do NOT have parents who help them or support them. Also, if you were walking down a street and a child got away from its parent and started to head for a busy road, would you really not stop them? I'm sure you would, but that is the extrapolation of your "its the parents responsibility" spiel.

 

A) Children without parents have SOMEONE who's responsible for them.

 

B) I wouldn't help. At all. I've heard WAY too many stories of guys getting abuse because paedophiles.

 

Hell, I've actually seen it.

 

Kid running off, guy grabbed him before he got hit by a car, "LET GO OF MY CHILD, YOU PERVERT!"... No "thanks for saving my kid while I was busy talking to my friend about X-Factor", just rage.

 

That, apparently, is deemed acceptable.

 

Therefore, it's also acceptable that people refuse to do anything because they don't want this grief. [it's also a life ruining accusation.]

Edited October 24, 2013 by X-13

[Garacesh]

It seems that some of you don't care, some of you think it shouldn't be up there full stop, some of you think a warning is appropriate, and some of you are yet undecided.

As I stated in my earlier post, I think they shouldn't be there, but I'm going to expand a little more.

 

Yes, facebook is 'pushing' this onto our news feed if a friend shares it, or a group we're part of. I actually have no objection to that in concept. I have joined a group or added a friend because I am interested in what they have to say/want to share/etc. However, like all friends/groups/children's trading card games/tanning salons/kitchen sinks I don't agree with absolutely everything they post, therefore I am to use my own judgement when being provided with their content. You cannot, reasonably, chastise facebook for one of its primary functions.

 

That being said, the warning is inefficient.

.

This is what it needs. You can't decide if you do-or-don't want to watch a video, read a story, etc without some kind of insight. That's why news articles have headlines, that's why TV shows have a synopsis, that's why books have a blurb. 'This might upset you'. It might. But it might not. A chav flicking the V's at a bus might upset me. A boxing match where there's quite a bit of blood might upset me. A baboon eating a gazelle alive might upset me. A video of a woman being beheaded might upset me. Problem is, some oik sticking his fingers up at a bus won't upset me, but without a 'proper' warning, and neither will a boxing match. How do I know if that's what the video is? Or if it's a beheading video? Well, I look at the title presumably. That being said, a title, like the video, is user-generated content and thus, subject to misrepresentation. And we can safely say most people sharing these videos are doing this in a malicious manner, so I personally don't consider the title good enough, and I don't consider the current warning 'Graphic content that might upset you' good enough, either.

 

Like I said, facebook actively allows 13 year olds to register. It is their duty to ensure the site is suitable for a 13 year old to use. All parts of the site, unless they are not able to access it. Admittedly I don't know if apps/groups/etc can be age restricted (I believe they should be able to be if they currently can't) but it's obvious these videos aren't. Yes, kids can use false birthdays, but then the blame lies with the child. Facebook would have taken reasonable measures to restrict that content and that would be acceptable for me.

[witch]

This is what it needs. You can't decide if you do-or-don't want to watch a video, read a story, etc without some kind of insight. That's why news articles have headlines, that's why TV shows have a synopsis, that's why books have a blurb. 'This might upset you'. It might. But it might not. A chav flicking the V's at a bus might upset me. A boxing match where there's quite a bit of blood might upset me. A baboon eating a gazelle alive might upset me. A video of a woman being beheaded might upset me. Problem is, some oik sticking his fingers up at a bus won't upset me, but without a 'proper' warning, and neither will a boxing match. How do I know if that's what the video is? Or if it's a beheading video? Well, I look at the title presumably. That being said, a title, like the video, is user-generated content and thus, subject to misrepresentation. And we can safely say most people sharing these videos are doing this in a malicious manner, so I personally don't consider the title good enough, and I don't consider the current warning 'Graphic content that might upset you' good enough, either.

 

Like I said, facebook actively allows 13 year olds to register. It is their duty to ensure the site is suitable for a 13 year old to use. All parts of the site, unless they are not able to access it. Admittedly I don't know if apps/groups/etc can be age restricted (I believe they should be able to be if they currently can't) but it's obvious these videos aren't. Yes, kids can use false birthdays, but then the blame lies with the child. Facebook would have taken reasonable measures to restrict that content and that would be acceptable for me.

 

What he said. Perfect AFAIC.

[tmcd35]

Kid running off, guy grabbed him before he got hit by a car, "LET GO OF MY CHILD, YOU PERVERT!"... No "thanks for saving my kid while I was busy talking to my friend about X-Factor", just rage.

 

That, apparently, is deemed acceptable.

 

Therefore, it's also acceptable that people refuse to do anything because they don't want this grief. [it's also a life ruining accusation.]

 

That says a lot about the state of our society, and is worse than FB broadcasting that video on the frontpage surrounded by neon signs saying "free sweets for every 5yr old watches".

[Sdrawkcab]

I have 2 kids under the age of 10. Both have access to online nintendos and laptops.

Both have been educated in the Internet, dangerous roads and talking to strangers.

 

Internet is filtered/monitored.

 

You seem to be the exception rather than the rule here. I'm not trying to say that either side is wrong, but in my experience having your own children seems to rapidly change your opinion on things like censorship and other personal liberty issues.

[JoeBloggs]

I have no kids and you've seen my comments

[X-13]

but in my experience having your own children seems to rapidly change your opinion on things like censorship and other personal liberty issues.

 

I'm going to say it...

 

Having a child in no way grants you permission to disregard the personal liberties of everyone else.

[Garacesh]

Having a child in no way grants you permission to disregard the personal liberties of everyone else.

Completely agree - which is why my argument is centred around the lowest-common-denominator (i.e. the fact that the content - however which way you put it - is not suitable for 13 year olds). I can't speak for anybody else.

 

TL;DR of my opinion, now that I've had time to consider and discuss it, would be either:

• facebook get rid of the videos, which is now what they'e u-turned and done.
  
• facebook apply content restriction and display prominent and actually informative warnings, which would at least protect the young from seeing this content. As I said earlier, morbid curiosity is enough to scar a child for life. I don't want to use the 'think of the children' approach but, as someone who used to be a child myself, I honestly agree content filtering should be in place. Otherwise, I (personally, my opinion, etc) deem the site unsuitable for a person of that age.
  
• facebook raise the sign-up age and deny access to the accounts of everybody still below that age, which they will never do, because that cuts off a huge chunk of their ad revenue. But even if they did, they should probably have better warnings either way.
  

Edited October 24, 2013 by Garacesh

[AMLinington]

As I said before, I'm all for freedom of expression and expecting content to be censored is arguably not the job of Facebook any more than it is the job of Google, although:

 

Now bear with me as I'm playing devils advocate here...

 

Child Pornography is illegal in this country. The age of consent differs from country to country and there are many countries where 12yos are married off and have babies so the definition of a 'child' globally is a touch loose. HOWEVER, I have NEVER had the horrible misfortune to accidently run into child porn on either Facebook or Google - why is that?

 

Because it is AGAINST THE LAW in this country. The fact that a video of a man having sex with a 12yo is NOT illegal in other countries (although I have no interest in finding out which ones, this is an extreme example to illustrate a point) doesn't have any bearing on the fact that it is blocked by most 'legitimate' websites such as Facebook and Google.

 

Murder is illegal in this country too (although I know there are some countries with less rigid rules on what constitutes murder...Honour killings for example seem to be 'permissible' in certain places). We abolished capital punishment, so arguably videos of capital punishment are against the law too?

 

So why is it that we are fine with censorship when it comes to child porn, but raise merry hell when they stop videos of murder appearing in our feed? The basic concepts are the same - a person doesn't CHOOSE to be murdered or beheaded any more than a child CHOOSES to be defiled, and both acts are equally against the law in this country and in fact Murder results in a longer jail sentence and in some countries (such as many states in the US) execution.

 

A previous poster raises valid questions re: enforcement, although they neglected to consider peer review as a viable option. If ALL content was submitted behind a consent screen and tools given to allow people that CHOOSE to view it the opportunity to rate and tag the video, you would find that the 'tag cloud' for a video ends up considerably representative of the content, and people could choose to block videos with certain 'tags'. OFC this is not foolproof and the variety of tags, spellings and descriptions would be a factor, but there is a complex mathematical concept that I can't remember the name of that basically describes the 'hive mind' output of 'the masses' and how there will be exceptions and 'outfield' responses but the majority of responses will fall within a mean field. Or something.

 

FTR I'm not interested in getting into debates about what does and does not constitute freedom of speech or whether people with children should expect society generally to participate in child protection (although in herd animals, the herd as a whole often acts in the interests of the young, regardless of their parent so in humans we really ought to act as a society, except basic concepts of society are breaking down because we no longer live in interdependent groups) I am merely interested in the actual mechanics of the problem.

Edited October 24, 2013 by AMLinington

[witch]

I'm going to say it...

 

Having a child in no way grants you permission to disregard the personal liberties of everyone else.

Agreed

But not having children in no way grants you permission to disregard their protection.

[X-13]

But not having children in no way grants you permission to disregard their protection.

 

True.

 

But, I still think the buck should stop with the parents. If you can't be bothered to keep an eye on your kids internet browsing, you can't get angry when they go on something they shouldn't, and you can't blame the website for hosting it. [unless it's something like adult content on CBeeies. I'll even support your rage at that.]

 

Facebook started off as something for University students. So it's more adult oriented [grown-up, not XXX]. I'd also wager the majority of accounts belong to adults, so a blanket ban on anything that might upset children is wrong.

 

Put a click-to-load disclaimer on every video "This is user posted content, and as such may contain material which is offensive and/or not suitable for minors".

 

 

As for flagging videos by content... That would really need dedicated staff to do it. Automation misflags things all the time [Microsoft issued automated DMCA notices to Google about themselves...] and relying on users falls down when they don't do it properly [or at all]

[pcstru]

And what is saddest about the whole sorry episode is the woman remains unidentified and that the outcry in the west was never about murder fuelled by drugs money fuelled by huge western markets, but about our concerns that our little ones being exposed to the ugly consequences of our 'high' society.

[Sdrawkcab]

And what is saddest about the whole sorry episode is the woman remains unidentified and that the outcry in the west was never about murder fuelled by drugs money fuelled by huge western markets, but about our concerns that our little ones being exposed to the ugly consequences of our 'high' society.

 

I don't understand how more people aren't absolutely livid about the state of the "war on drugs" (bahahaha what a ridiculous term) in Mexico. It's entirely caused by the ridiculous, outdated, ill informed drug prohibition we have in this country. People are more concerned that their children might see a video of something they've seen recreated on TV hundreds of times to care about people whose children are actually being killed, I guess?

 

In this country, we have become exceptional at outsourcing our misery and poverty.