No urns you see
You can tell it's art not nudity by the presence of urns - if you have urns (or cherubs) then naked ladies are ok !
(Pete and Dud ?)
Facebook is in the doghouse again – and this time it is none other than the New York Academy of Art taking them to task for their online censoriousness. The dispute has rumbled onward in the Academy's official blog since the end of January, when Facebook notified the administrator of the Academy's official Facebook page that …
You can tell it's art not nudity by the presence of urns - if you have urns (or cherubs) then naked ladies are ok !
(Pete and Dud ?)
Whilst it does sound a bit like Pete and Dud, it's actually Fred Colon and Nobby Nobbs! :-)
That'll be child pornography, you know!
The only reason why all these disgusting paedophilliac "artists" like Rubens, Lanino, Bouguereau etc. are not in jail and on the Sex Offenders Register is because they're all DEAD!
...for the art school to set up its own web page/site?
...as they've already got
The issue isn't them being able to setup a website. It's that "the web" is now facebook.com for a LOT of people. As such, you don't exist if you don't have a facebook page.
That URL probably explains why it's easier to find on facebook :)
Well my response to any "why doesn't group xyz setup it's own website" is that it really isn't the point.
Groups want to be associated with facebook to help build up a fan base and then may even use facebook ads to do this (seen ads to "like" nokia ?). Now the issue here is that facebook is restricting and/or filtering those groups with no clear rule book other than it seems an obscure moral code which is very conservative.
Some have argued that american christian values are being applied globally though I just see facebook being very cautious.
but really, who cares if they have a public website? All they need is a Facebook profile as no one will see their content otherwise.
...was type "New York Academy of Art" into Teh Google and up it popped.
Shirley that's pretty much what anyone else would do if they were curious about the academy?
F***book policy staff need to repeat a few times: "We are definitely not in Kansas".
Once the realisation has set in, compensate for the fact that their high school teacher was a t**t and their boss dropped out of college without taking his humanities minimum by spending an afternoon looking at Rodin, Early Picasso and Van Gogh.
Hanging Bottichelli's Venus in a poster format instead of the "happy, shiny idiots laughing" socialist like "agile" motivational slogans may also be a good idea.
The happy, shiny idiots laughing are taking over the world (at least if you look at TV ads, posters, displays in opticians)
Have you ever read the instructions on a packet of toothpicks?
'Simon Axten explained that the site bans nude photographs, but the company has "an unwritten policy" that allows drawings or sculptures of nudes.'
So someone just post a photograph of a nude drawing... As their logic collapses in on itself, Facebook will implode, and we can all move on.
Not Bum and Titbook.
...the job that Jacqui Smith's been bigging herself up for lately.
Also there's the issue of gauze ... as explained by Pete and Dud
- You haven’t seen the Rubens? There’s one over there. Yes, lovely, he does all the fat ladies with nothing on. Great big fat ladies, except for a tiny little wisp of gauze always lands on the appropriate place, if you notice that. Always the wind blows a little bit of gauze over you know where, Dud. See it down there, can’t you.
- Of course it must be a million-to-one chance, Pete, that a gauze, you know, lands in the right place at the right time on his painting.
- Of course it is, yeah.
- I bet there’s thousands of paintings that we’re not allowed to see, where the gauze hadn’t landed in the right place, but on the nose or something.
- Well, I suppose if the gauze landed on the wrong place, Dud, you know, landed on the nose or the elbow or somewhere unimportant, what Rubens did was put down his paint and went off to have lunch probably.
- Yeah, or have a good look.
- Of course you don’t get gauze floating around in the air these days, do you, like it did in Renaissance time, there’s always gauze in the air in those days.
How ridiculous is it for a drawing of a nude person to be tasteful, but a photo of the same person to be obscene? This pathetic imposition of morality from certain US-based companies is starting to grate...
... if it wasn't the same sort of skewed and nonsensical rationale which means that, in the UK, under the Dangerous Pictures Act an image taken from a film can be illegal even if the film itself isn't!
(Oh and the same goes for the "Dangerous Cartoons" Act...)
I think it was so ridiculous that my mind simply erased it. I guess we're screwed either way. The wonders of a modern, enlightened age.
Cover your eyes and run for your lives!
*sigh* If animals were intelligent enough, they'd all be extinct from laughing at humans.
Seriously, though, I never understood the United States version of morality, especially on TV. You can show someone being strapped to a chair and having their head sawn off, but a bare nipple? Oh god, that's indecent!
Guys, handy hint time: sex is fun, and unlike gratuitious violence, you don't go to prison for it *
(* okay, in certain states, you probably still do, if you choose wrongly, but lets clear one problem at a time, alright?)
Now they're arbiters of moral decency and artistic merit.
Please, FB, just fuck off forever.
Give it time... In five years we will have all moved on and it will probably be about as relevant as geocities is.
Nudity hurts no-one. Kids have to be taught that some people are embarrassed by it. If it offends you, then you merely turn away. I have no right to ban images that I don't like.
Facebook: grow up. Or simply provide the option of tagging an image with a "nudity" tag.
& i can remember reading somwhere that there are actually rules which meant that kids were not supposed to be allowed accounts on Facebook (not that that stops them naturally!). So what Facebook are doing is not "protecting the children" (as technically there shouldnt be any children on there! ). But imposing their f%&ked up moral code on the rest of us...
Facebook really needs to enter the real world...
Artist nudes are not nudes, but **representation** of nudes. If your smutty minds thinks otherwise, then blame yourself.
On the second thought, better don't...
I feel lonely thinking this whole FailBook thing is pure insanity.
In a small experiment I found out:
The e-mail used was rendered useless by FB spamming.
I was banned in 48 hours without any explanation (and without doing anything improper, except using a fake name. It was an "in doubt, delete." thing)
The "private" data was merrily sold to really shady ops.
500 000 000 people are actually putting their life and "friends" details in a single american corporation whose business model is selling that information??
I've seen a FB picture (just a pict, not even the pict filename) published elsewhere and 2:30 secs later the profile data was hacked and published.
But well, 500 000 000 can't be wrong, can they?
...what did these people expect? Facebook is a walled garden, it's up to Facebook what stays on Facebook and what does not. Get over yourselves people, Facebook has appointed itself conservative guardian of young people's morals - it's not a f*****g art gallery!
The sooner that people realise that the only way to get around these systems is to stop using them, then hopefully productivity will rise and people will stop believing the marketing bullshit that Facebook = customers.
Not using them is also an excellent way to keep younger audiences from becoming interested in what your doing. And we all know the last thing we want is youth spending time in Art Museums. The next thing you know that might show up in a Natural History Museums or something.
... why anyone with a Facebook account that is a bit "controversial" can't just put up a "We are here at www.????.com" pointer, and then use the chatty features to point to new things on the website. This allows it to have a presence on this apparently invaluable* resource where its fans can chat, but there is nothing that can lead to the site being taken down.
However, I presume I'm missing something.
*I say "apparently invaluable" because I have never used Facebook, and don't understand why it is so popular.
"... why anyone with a Facebook account that is a bit "controversial" can't just put up a "We are here at www.????.com" pointer, and then use the chatty features to point to new things on the website"
You know, I actually tried that. It doesn't work.
Facebook runs clickable URLs through their own internal redirectors, which compares them to internal blocklists. In my case, when I did exactly what you describe and set up a link to my Web site 9which has been online for thirteen years without a single complaint), Facebook users who clicked the link saw a Facebook page that said something to the effect of "BLOCKED: Sorry, you have clicked a link to a spam site. To protect you from spammers, Facebook has disabled this link."
As I said, I suspected I was missing something, because if I'd thought of it, someone else would have!
Facebook needs to keep the school age users or it is dead in the water. Given the parental hysteria when they discover that their unsupervised, uncivilised little turd has seen a rude word on the evil Internet whilst the parent potatos slobbed in front of the television being spoon fed Britain's got no Fucking Talent FB have no option but to run the site like a puritan nursery, I am amazed that every page doesn't automatically get a biblical quote.
Whatever people say about FB having "responsibility" it isn't to you, it isn't to the users, it certainly isn't to art, the responsibility is to the shareholders and investors which means pandering to the lowest common denominator to keep the user numbers up just like Fox News and Sky.
FB is a machine for serving mindless adverts to mindless drones, now get back to being a mindless drone and stop rocking the boat or they'll have to shut down your account as well.
Is it a masterpiece or just some guy with his pants down?
That's our topic tonight on Smartline...
-- Kent Brockman, on the coming of Michelangelo's David to Springfield,
Helen: You've got to lead our protest against this abomination!
Marge: Mm, but that's Michelangelo's David. It's a masterpiece.
Helen: It's filth! It graphically portrays parts of the human body, which, practical as they may be, are evil.
Marge: But I like that statue.
Helen: I told you she was soft on full frontal nudity!
Come on, girls...
You name it, someone has a fetish for it. To be true their "rule" they really need to ban all pictures(and quite a few words).
I think they probably meant S&M content.
Their "rules" probably consist of " someone in the office saw the picture & went 'ewww! Gross!' ", they sound about as consistent & mature as that.
Paris knows all about fetish content, I'm sure
The irony of them claiming to be enforcing some code of morality whilst selling private data to the highest bidder.
If you ran Facebook? It's an American corporate with a tonne of money in its locker, based within a nation that has more lawyers than anywhere else on Earth and shedloads of right-wing, loony, homophobic, misogynist, repressed, low-IQ evangelical nutcases who want to censor every square inch of the internet on behalf of their own, personal, make-believe deity.
Remember the Superbowl tit flash? Half a million dollar fine and a whole new round of censorship. Land of the free my arse. And this, from the country with one of the largest porn industries on the planet.
So how would you square that circle without spending the rest of your life in court handing out lumps of money to Government suits and religious nutters, fearing the prospect of bending-over-in-the-shower time at a state pen for violating some anti-tit legislation in a two-cow town run by the local TV evangelists?
They are erring on the side of caution, have a 'no tits' policy by default and will reverse it when cases like this come up.
Answer? If you are a grown-up, in pretty much the same way they have done, at least if you want to continue to be employed there.
And they sell users' data to pay their bills and make a profit. That's how these internet things works. Because they are not a charity. Lrn2capitalism.
Seriously. Nobody forces you to use FB. They are not good. They are not evil. They are just a social networking site working the way all the sites that offer free functionality in return for data do.
On occasion the puritans come out and affix ribbons on sculptures of naked figures so the youth can not derive unintended/uncontrolled sexual jollification from the art.
FB could do the same. They could easily place electronic 'splodges' over the parts they decree to offend and permit viewers to be able to click on the 'splodges' so all is revealed to those who appreciate art?
One problem comes when addressing certain animals as the electronic splodge would have to be really large to cover an stimulated horse or bull.
"Increasing pressure from government for internet imagery to be censored along lines analogous to film censorship."
Really? Where - Bahrain?
its the concept that content can be regulated by ISP's amongst others, which is a view of regulation analogous to that taken in respect of film censorship. It derives from the demand for pre-filtering of content.
The difference - the problem -is the sheer volume of stuff.
Compare and contrast the number of films that appear each month with the number of new images, new pages that appear on the net every day.
Those responsible for net content can then choose: whether to censor post-complaint; or to pre-censor. The first produces all the inconsistencies that Facebook encounter and which does their reputation so little good.
The latter, though, is equally problematic. Just imagine: 50,000 new pages a day; 5,000 decisions to censor - and presumably 500 long-winded appeals to follow.
That is the debate that is just beginning - and where that goes will affect a lot of the net to come.
30 flippin' posts and not one person has said "Won't somebody think of the children?"
Can we get a Helen Lovejoy icon for instances like these?
manbreaks automated tests at 00:30
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2017