Feeds

back to article THIS is the kind of clout a British Prime Minister has: Facebook pulls ONE beheading vid

Facebook has removed one video of a beheading that was posted on the free-content ad-network – and told its users to be more "responsible" about the material they dump on the site. The decision to yank the clip came after Britain's Prime Minister David Cameron attacked Facebook for allowing such material to be published and …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.

Page:

Silver badge

is this the same Facebook

... that regularly takes down the photo of a woman who had a floral tattoo after a mastectomy?

22
0

Re: is this the same Facebook

That and breastfeeding pictures. Can't see boobies being put to use in that depraved, warped way. Might corrupt the young'uns innocent minds.

Killing though? Yeah, that's cool.

25
0

Re: is this the same Facebook

Their attitude here is pathetic We wont prevent people uploading snuff clips but don't dare upload a breastfeeding image as that could obviously corrupt minds and cannot be allowed.

Doesn't have to be nipples either sometimes too much cleavage in a pic and it gets flagged. To say nothing of false positives flagged by the nudie detector.

7
0
Anonymous Coward

Re: is this the same Facebook

The same Facebook that lets scammer open up accounts posing as mojor brands giving things away.

(How many times have you see Apple . com giving away a stack of ipads to anyone who shares a picture?)

I think there's something seriously wrong with the "unknown number of moderators"

6
0
Bronze badge

Re: is this the same Facebook

And breast feeding photos...

So what do we learn from this? According to Facebook it is socially acceptable to go around beheading people, but feeding your baby is wrong and tattooing yourself is wrong...

I think Facebook is very screwed up.

14
0
Anonymous Coward

Re: is this the same Facebook

Think you'll find it's a US site, therefore follows US* morallity as a guide line.

boobs = evil

death (so long they are not white USAers) = good

It's not to disimilair to that of the Dail Wails.

8
2

Re: is this the same Facebook

Not entirely - there was a good article on the people Farcebook uses as moderators. Basically, poor English speakers are what they like, so there's a lot of people in developing countries. They have fairly conservative or traditional views on nudity, sex and abortion, but aren't so bothered by violence.

http://gawker.com/5885714/inside-facebooks-outsourced-anti+porn-and-gore-brigade-where-camel-toes-are-more-offensive-than-crushed-heads

Not everything in the world is the fault of the US.

2
0

Wait a minute, so in response to a massive public outcry, reaching as far up as the PM, against beheading videos, FB responded by removing ONE such video?

----->

That was the point, over there. I think you missed it.

4
0
Silver badge
Facepalm

Of course they should pull the videos, children should not be able to see things like this as easily.

I just don't get Facebook, they changed their rules to allow beheading, but boobies are a big bad thing that will corrupt everyone, so no photos showing boobies, or even a fully nude person, you know because no one has EVER seen a naked body before, its not like EVERYONE has one....

I am not sure what other fathers think, but I would rather my son sees boobies than a beheading...

21
0
Bronze badge

In this hypothetical beheading video, can I see any boobies?

1
1
Bronze badge

@returnmyjedi

Of course you can see boobies in the video, why else do you think they pulled it? Just because some jumped up politician from some small Island somewhere outside of America complained? :-P

2
0
Coat

>I am not sure what other fathers think, but I would rather my son sees boobies than a beheading...

Fair enough, but how would you feel if he were looking a willies instead?

1
2
Anonymous Coward

Are the willies being beheaded?

4
0
MJI
Silver badge

Beheaded willies

They are here

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/10/22/baldness_fix_from_foreskin_follicles/

5
0

Content

I would re-post my fix of "content free ad network", but it appears that there was some content that has been removed (or is it hidden - given that nothing much leaves Fb once it's in there ?) but only one instance of that content.

0
1
Anonymous Coward

Responsible behaviour

So it is fine to kill somebody, but posting a vid of is is irresponsible? And are they really expecting that people who have no problem killing somebody are going to listen to FB?

Everything for a couple of extra page hits.

0
6

Re: Responsible behaviour

What are you smoking?

No, it's not fine to kill someone. And no, it's not fine to post videos of someone else killing someone.

See how that works? Independent actions, both wrong.

4
0
Anonymous Coward

Re: Responsible behaviour

According to FB it is. As long as you don't post a vid, they don't care. Not even bothering to make a statement about reporting the owner of the page to the police. And that while they have gathered all that data.

0
3
Joke

Cynicism

"continues to insist that it is not the publisher. It would prefer to be seen as a soapbox for commentards the world over to run free. If that generates more ad revenue - all the better. ®"

Oh, you cynic, you.

1
0
Anonymous Coward

Re: Cynicism

Insisting it's not the publisher shouldn't mean a thing, given that we've seen IsoHunt being done for not even hosting links, but links to links, of torrents. Or any of the others that have been done for similar. Granted it's a bit different. Of course LifeInvader would have more legitimate supporters.

I did like the bit in GTA V when the LifeInvader CEO gets his head blown off. We can still post that right? Maybe, but not the strip club bits I guess. Oh look, here it is...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CzbbFKbQOj8

1
0
Anonymous Coward

No defence for this

Everyone knows people of all ages use Facebook - their age verification system simply protects them [Facebook] from law suits rather than the actual user.

Once you have seen material like this, you can't 'un-see' it. Imagine seeing this as a young person, it would haunt your life for many years to come. I'm not a prude and I've seen my fair share of shit in my life, but this, thankfully, is something I have not witnessed nor have a desire to.

8
0

Re: No defence for this

As a parent I think it is my own responsibility to prevent my children from seeing this sort of content, not facebook.

0
1
Silver badge

Bonkers

Facebook needs to go away and come back when it is sober.

3
0
Silver badge

Does the PM think that Zuckerberg himself is posting each individual video?

It would be "irresponsible of Facebook to post beheading videos" if Facebook were doing that. But it's not. It's a piece of software.

It is the [b]people using the software[/b] that are the problem!

2
4
Silver badge

Re: Does the PM think that Zuckerberg himself is posting each individual video?

The issue is not them posting them, it is Facebooks reluctance to take them down.

6
0

In the absence of a guaranteed happy medium, I'd rather have Zuckerberg let me see too much than Cameron let me see too little.

There are billions of images and videos uploaded to facebook monthly. It can never be fully policed, nor will the standards they choose to police entirely align with your own. If you're worried about what your youngsters will see, don't let them on it until you think they're mature enough to take responsibility for their viewing choices.

3
7
Bronze badge
Facepalm

Happy medium (cup size?)

But it's not Cameron that is stopping us seeing all those breasts - it's Zuckerboob.

2
0
Megaphone

Too many sick and perverted people out there to simply lower content restrictions IMO.

Facebook is resorting to lower moral/ethical policies IMO. All for money.

There is too many sick and demented individuals/groups worldwide and the openness/anonymity of the internet allows them to display their perversion for public viewing. This kind of public display gets them off and feeds their perversion IMO. They get off on the number of views of their work. Just as a musician gets excited at the number of views....so does the demented pig.

I'm no psychiatrist (too many are nutjobs anyway IMO), but we need to maintain some sense of social common sense/morality/decency/standard, especially when Facebook is frequented by children/teens as well as deviant bottom dwellers IMO.

The world is a very violent place at times and putting up those acts for public viewing is in poor taste IMO.

An intelligent and decent society (one thats worth living in) must establish expectations and take action to ensure those standards/expectations are adhered too. Else the society breaks down into anarchy and decent people will leave.....allowing the animals to fight amongst themselves.

I choose not to join Facebook's marketing pool, but this lowering of moral expectations puts is just one more reason to Dislike Facebook IMO.

~Best wishes keeping what you earned.

2
1

It's not a game this time

This to an extent opens up the debate - yet again - about violent games. Kids in primary school get used to seeing bits of bodies and graphic images of very bloody decapitation in games - and before anyone shouts that they don't, yes, they actually do - I know many education professionals who can back that up! However, these videos are not games. They are real people being brutally murdered. I find it disgusting that they are available to kids and people of any age. A few years ago I inadvertently came across a similar video that was named as something else on YouTube. I'm 50, and that video still haunts me today. As someone pointed out, once you've seen it you can't un-see it and kids simply don't have the life experience to deal with it or to process what they are seeing.

2
0
Anonymous Coward

Now now, we shouldn't blame facebook

If you consider the resources these poor, prudish Americans put into taking down photos of boobies and bare naked ladies, I think you'll all agree the grisly decapitations will just have to wait in line!

2
1
Bronze badge
Trollface

Troll Facebook

Upload videos of toys being beheaded.

Don't forget the ketchup.

1
0

Re: Better Still

Threaten to behead My Little Pony, live on Facebook, if the Americans don't release all of the Guantanamo inmates,

2
0
Trollface

Or alternatively...

Doctor a video to show Zuckerberg being slowly murdered. Then:

repeat (

create dummy Facebook account

upload video

advertise it far and wide

wait for it to be deleted

)

until Facebook does something effective about it.

0
0
Anonymous Coward

Re: Troll Facebook

Try it with toy kittens and see how long it lasts...

0
0
Silver badge

Commerce and US Morals

It's a simple enough issue for Facebook: they want to sell adverts and the US public will scream if they show naked people. But violence is counted as grade-A entertainment in the US and perfectly acceptable in their highly militarised society, so these videos are a legitimate way for them to shift page views, and that means they make them money. They could not care less if the videos are uploaded for the purposes of condemnation or not, the issue is purely cash.

The simple solution for countries that don't share this sick and hypocritical view of what's acceptable is to block FB's servers at the ISPs. Which is fine by me.

4
1
Anonymous Coward

If Cameron was serious...

...and not posturing...as we have stict laws under the obscene publications act, here is how it should of gone.

PM: You have nasty vids of beheadings, please remove them

Zuck: No, we belive in free speech, so fuck you bitch.

PM: We have laws against this, remove them or else.

Zuck, Fuck you we're in America. USA! USA! USA!

PM: Hello IWF? Can you add Facebook to the list and push out. Cheers.

Zuck: USA! USA! Ring...Ring....what do you mean we've just gone dark in the UK and we're loosing millions in page hits? What was that about advertisers going mad? Ring,..Ring...hold on another call! Yes Zuck here, what do you mean millions have been wiped off our share values?

PM <Looking more smug than normal> About those videos....

7
0

FB said the videos need to be available so people can condemn them.

By that logic, FB needs to allow Gary Glitter's browsing material of choice too. Stupid argument.

FB is just trying to be provocative, like a rebellious teenager as a result (ironic, given that FB's main user base is now middle-aged, teens having decided that sexting each other on Snapchat is the latest thing).

Of course, there was a U-turn of the U-turn as soon as the advertisers pointed out that they didn't want their product promoted next to some poor woman being killed in a medieval fashion.

6
0

"By that logic, FB needs to allow Gary Glitter's browsing material of choice too. Stupid argument."

Watching child porn is illegal. Watching a beheading is not. For good or ill, so long as that's the case, facebook can address this however they wish. They could even put a beheading on their homepage if they chose.

And suppose I got a kick out of watching beheadings. I'm not actually harming anyone, nor are they being harmed to order. Is there an argument for denying me my harmless (albeit distasteful) hobby - even if I pursued it, let's say, not on facebook but on a properly age-limited dedicated beheadings site?

2
3
Anonymous Coward

"And suppose I got a kick out of watching beheadings. I'm not actually harming anyone, nor are they being harmed to order."

The same <disproved> arguement is said of kiddie porn. Try again.

4
1

Well, child sex abuse is illegal regardless of whether it's filmed; and child porn is illegal even on an age-limited site. But to further distinguish the case, let's say the dedicated site contains only LEGAL beheadings - such as those routinely carried out in Saudi Arabia. Now there's no law being broken all the way along the line. Is this still something that should be opposed? And if so, by law?

2
0
Silver badge

@Just this guy

"Now there's no law being broken all the way along the line. Is this still something that should be opposed?"

You're the one saying that the issue is whether it's legal or not. The law is hardly the final arbiter on what is acceptable.

However, if you wanted to pull the law in on it, this is obviously porn and posted as porn and it is of a type that actually is covered by UK law.

0
0

Re: @Just this guy

I'm not saying that what matters is whether it's legal: I'm trying to FIND OUT if that's the concern*. If it IS legal, then in what sense is it not "acceptable"?

(*Of course, folks here, and Cameron too, might not all be concerned in exactly the same way.)

On your other point, slippery as it is to define "porn", sexuality is usually involved. A hypothetical Saudi execution video seems an unlikely candidate for that categorisation. If, as you say, beheading videos are illegal under UK law (which?), then presumably that law will be invoked and enforced against facebook?

0
0
Silver badge

Re: @Just this guy

"On your other point, slippery as it is to define "porn", sexuality is usually involved."

Intent is part of the equation - the videos are being uploaded, in part, for the titillation of a certain type of pervert.

"A hypothetical Saudi execution video seems an unlikely candidate for that categorisation."

Not so sure I would agree - bearing in mind I'm not saying that this is the reason the videos are made.

"If, as you say, beheading videos are illegal under UK law (which?), then presumably that law will be invoked and enforced against facebook?"

Obscene publications Act ("such as to tend to deprave and corrupt persons"; established case law covers "dismemberment or graphic mutilation") - Human Rights Act ("for the protection of health or morals, protection of the reputation or rights of others") and probably the Video Recordings Acts as well as various minor labelling acts.

Certainly the law should be invoked, but then copyright law should have been invoked against Google (not to mention several tax laws), so who knows?

0
0
MJI
Silver badge

Time to

a) If you are a member, upload lots of soft porn breast feeding, literally anything like that. Complain if they are pulled.

b) Complain about ANY beheading one.

c) "Hello is that IWF? Dave here."

0
0
Anonymous Coward

[Flash theme]

#Cameron!#

#Aaah~#

#Censor of the Internets#

#DUN DUN DUN DUN!#

0
0
Anonymous Coward

The British are really anal about everything.

I'm surprised they're not afraid to go outside their front door into the big, scary world!

Granted, beheading videos aren't exactly something I'd ever watch, but if you don't watch them, where's the problem?

I've seen the video of Budd Dwyer's suicide, and it did make me physically sick; but I was the one who *chose* to watch it ('cause, you know, history).

Nobody put a gun to my head and said "Hey, watch this!"

It's not fucking rocket surgery.

1
12

I'll tell you what the problem is, Mr/Ms Coward

It's the fact that this sort of crap is freely available to any kid that can sign up, whether they've reached the grand old age of thirteen or not, while other human activities are proscribed. YMMV, especially if you're a Yank, but that isn't exactly a balanced view of the world. And the organisation hosting it just shrugs and says 'so what'. As long as the advertising revenue keeps rolling in, they don't give a toss.

By taking a laissez-faire attitude towards brutality and murder, while clamping down hard on nudity and sex, they're projecting a seriously fucked-up set of values - making sex and the human body seem repugnant while desensitising people to violence and cruelty. Puritans with guns are the scum of the earth, irrespective of whether they live in Somalia or Washington DC.

8
0
Anonymous Coward

The British are really anal about everything.

I'm surprised they're not afraid to go outside their front door into the big, scary world!

You might like to contrast the reactions to 9/11 (New York) and 7/7 (London) and reconsider that stupid remark.

Still, I suppose admitting that` there is a world outside the US is a step up for most Americans!

13
0
Anonymous Coward

Re: I'll tell you what the problem is, Mr/Ms Coward

Isn't the UK more puritan than the U.S. or elsewhere? (Especially historically, what with the outdated Victorian morals it tries so desparately to cling on too.)

"No sex please, we're British."

That said, it does seem somewhat weird to have no nudity (artistically, etc.) or the equivilent (breastfeeding, etc.) while allowing gore.

0
2

Page:

This topic is closed for new posts.