back to article Brit PM raps Facebook for allowing GORY beheading vids

Britain's Prime Minister has slammed Facebook after the social network appeared to have lifted its ban on users posting graphic videos of beheadings. David Cameron said on his Twitter account this morning that it was "irresponsible of Facebook to post beheading videos, especially without a warning. They must explain their …


This topic is closed for new posts.


  1. Yet Another Anonymous coward Silver badge

    Kids today

    We didn't grow up with graphic glorificatiopn of violence against a couple of ethnic groups as the main focus of all comics, films and kid's games

    1. Canopus

      Re: Kids today

      Wow, you must have had a very privileged life then !!! May I ask where and when you had the chance to grow up?

      We always find a scapegoat minority group to diabolize and bully...... my parents were raised in a WW2 society where "people of colour" were inferior and "germans" were the incarnation of evil.

      I was raised in a society where mocking and bullying homosexuals was the "de facto" norm because it was some sort of "abnormal" behaviour and where you would be rejected by your peers if you made friends with immigrant kids (the darker the worse)

      Take any slice of human history and you'll find copious example of such behaviour....Burning witches and infidels, ethnic or religious "cleansings", mocking and bullying homosexuals, progroms, ghettos and apartheid....

      Modern kids are just been exposed to the current version of prejudice of intolerance on modern media... Not very different at the end of the day.

      Instead of criticizing the media we might be better off giving them an alternative and more tolerant message... The same one that allowed most of us to grow out of the prejudices we were raised with !

      1. Yet Another Anonymous coward Silver badge

        Re: Kids today

        Nothing like the woosh of a set of Rolls-Royce Merlins going over somebody's head

        1. Gray Ham

          Re: Kids today

          Merlins don't go whoosh! .... they go ROAAAAAAAR!

          (but I upvoted you, just to make up for that appalling joke).

      2. PJI
        Thumb Down

        Re: Kids today

        I am 63. Though there were general attitudes that were not as self consciously anti as is claimed today, I had school cltavues of all colours and creeds at a boarding school. I knew of German exPOWs who had settled and were widely accepted in Devonshire countryside. I would say that there is more cSual racialism and pseudo religious demonisation on all sides today than then. The USA military seem proud of it. Cameron promotes it with his terror talk and ant foreign scroungers scares all without solid evidence.

  2. Colin Millar

    The worst bit of corporate BS ever

    "Facebook defended the move by stating it was allowing users to post the vids where it was clearly shared to allow the community to condemn such murders"

    So FB has examined this material to the degree where it has clarity about the intention of the user in posting? And it still claims it is NOT publishing the material?

    What happens when despite the "intention" of the poster the community refuses to jump on the bandwagon and starts praising the content instead? Do they take it down because the community is not thinking the way it ought to?

    Facebook looking really desperate to get that nose all the way up the advertisers' arses. Look at us - we can face whatever direction we are required to on any given issue - and sometimes mulitple directions within the same twad *

    * twad = the average length of time of a twitter fad measured over the preceding2r4 hours

  3. Nick Kew Silver badge

    He needs to get out more

    Someone should introduce him to some Shakespeare.

    "Out, vile jelly"


    Enter Guiderius, carrying Cloten's severed head


    "Unsex me here"

    Or has The Bard long since been censored from Cameron's Cuddly World?

    1. rcorrect

      Re: He needs to get out more

      There may be a slight amount of disconnect when reading Shakespeare, but a recent video of a women being beheaded, that could be a little different. Could be just me.

    2. Ghenghis McCann

      Re: He needs to get out more

      Can you tell the difference between fiction and real life? Shakespeare wrote plays. No actors were harmed during the performance of the play. Beheading videos involve real people being killed. I think you should get out more and meet some flesh and blood people.

  4. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    If the Internet Watch Foundation to blocks Facebook's IP because of the beheading videos then they will remove the videos.

    1. Vladimir Plouzhnikov

      Oh, really?

      I remember the IWF's valiant effort to block a picture of a certain LP cover on Wikipedia did not go quite as planned...

      1. rcorrect

        Re: Oh, really?

        On the bright side I guess this means we'll soon be seeing revenge porn on Facebook.

        1. Dazed and Confused Silver badge

          Re: Oh, really?

          > On the bright side I guess this means we'll soon be seeing revenge porn on Facebook.

          No, porn is offensive. Even breasts are offensive. You can't show breasts.

          But I guess that while its not OK to post revenge porn on FB, it will be acceptable to carry out revenge beheadings and post those videos. But after all pictures of breasts are far more offensive than pictures of people being dismembered.

          Has society got some serious priority issues here?

          1. Tom 35 Silver badge

            Re: Oh, really?

            "No, porn is offensive. Even breasts are offensive. You can't show breasts."

            Even a cartoon / drawing of a breast is more offensive then hacking people to bits.

            1. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Re: Oh, really?

              Look, this is FACEbook, so having a FACE on a severed head is naturally in their domain.

              It is NOT TITbook, so showing breasts is not ok, and not in their domain.

              1. Crazy Operations Guy

                Re: Oh, really?

                But there are a lot of tits on Facebook, although I think they prefer to be called 'users'.

                1. Anonymous Coward
                  Anonymous Coward

                  Re: lots of tits on Facebook, although I think they prefer to be called 'users'

                  Correction : They can be referred to as "dumbfucks". Zuck has to distinguish a breast from a user in some way, and doesn't use "tit" for a user

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Oh, really?

        But wiki isn't a commercial organisation so being blocked did not cause them any loss of income. In fact, it probably had the opposite effect and generated some donations due to the publicity.

        Facebook, on the other hand, depends upon its users actually using the site for its income so by blocking it you are costing them money.

        1. Vladimir Plouzhnikov

          Re: Oh, really?

          I somehow suspect there will be much greater outrage if FB were to be blocked than if they'd set up a competition for beheading of the week video.

  5. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    I wonder if Facebook would feel the same way if it was an American PoW being behead?

    Nah, didn't think so.

    1. Mike Smith

      Good ol' USA values

      Correct, they wouldn't. They'd probably give a lot of free publicity to the PoW's family.

      But any other person - well, this whole spat perfectly sums up American values. Anything involving the brutal, cold-blooded destruction of life is just fine, but anything involving its creation is automatically banned.

      Disgusting, warped values of a disgusting, warped society.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Good ol' USA values

        Even more bewildering when you consider the amount of porn America produces.

      2. Jamie Jones Silver badge

        Re: Good ol' USA values

        I wouldn't go as far as you, but you do have to wonder about general American core values when an exposed tit on tv gets more outrage than any of the numerous multiple shootings.

        I once had a picture removed from Facebook that was a humourous sculpture montage, but included a view of a (sculpted) penis. Nothing big or exagerated or perverted or pornographic, but apparently even nudety in art is forbidden!

        Whilst I appreciate that such an arbitory decisions are down to individual staff members interpretation, it's still bloody annoying.

        Mind you, this from the country where guns are rampant, yet it's against the law to cross the road unless thee little 'Walk' sign is lit up.

  6. bigtimehustler

    What worries me most is the PM believes that FB have set about publishing the video, they may let it be published by someone else using their software, but they themselves are not publishing it. It just shows how uninformed he is, this is just one thing, how many other things that we don't pick up on is he uninformed about?

    1. JeeBee

      Ridiculous to ban breasts and allow murder videos

      Regardless, once it was flagged as requiring moderation, they can be said to have been involved in keeping the content available. Currently without any warnings.

      On a social network that is actively signing up 13 year olds.

      Either block sign-ups for under 18s, and allow more adult content (appropriately flagged), or allow no adult content and allow the 13 year olds to sign up. Or auto-ban anything flagged as adult from the under 18yo (adjusted for the law in the country of viewing) viewers.

      OMG a breast, the horror!!!! Oh, a gory real life decapitation, that's okay. What is wrong with these people?

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      FB are publishing it. They did not create it or post it but they are publishing it.

      It is the same as newspapers publishing letters written by their readers.

      1. frank ly Silver badge

        @AC 18:01

        Newspapers read the letters before they publish them, otherwise they'd be full of rude/obscene/complaining letters. Newspaper websites have moderators who read the letters and also have 'flag lists' so they can home in on known 'trouble makers'. Facebook open a channel that lets their users post content that is not seen by any Facebook staff before it appears on the website. That is the big and legally recognised difference.

        Having said that, I'd reward users who flagged seriously damaging content with some kind of brownie point system. Maybe extra Farmville crops, or whatever. (I may have got that wrong, I don't use Facebook.)

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: @AC 18:01

          Pre or post moderation is irrelevant in this case.

          FB have been made aware of the content and have decided to keep on publishing it.

  7. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    The reality is people will copy what they see.

    Years back, when I was a slip of a lad, I’d have disagreed with that comment.

    Nowa days, your youth are not clever enough to distinguish between right/wrong, fact/fiction.

    Tho I suspect that atrocities are always committed, only now thanks to the net/24 hour news reporting from all over the globe, we can see these atrocities happening.

    And now Fakebook has joined the game and are just "another" outlet to view the depths of human depravity.

    How long before the scum of the earth are seen commiting their depravity on the News at 6 o'clock?

    1. Vladimir Plouzhnikov

      "The reality is people will copy what they see."

      That's just rubbish, not the reality.

      "your youth are not clever enough to distinguish between right/wrong, fact/fiction."

      You must have overdosed on Daily Fail. Urgent detox is required.

      "How long before the scum of the earth are seen commiting their depravity on the News at 6 o'clock?"

      People would be much more careful about allowing politicians to fight their cuddly little wars in far away exotic places if they'd seen the real pictures of what wars look like. I guess that's why the politicians are so keen to not allow their electorate to see those pictures.

    2. CCCP



      Your trolling is broken. And so is your writing. Please reset both and then come back.

      Also, who is this "your youth" I beg? Do you and I have different sets of young people around us? You can't be foreign as they write better than that.

      Finally, the low point of your post gets pretty close to scum. How long before we see your posts on Have I Got News For You?

  8. JP19

    "to worried parents"

    So without actually saying so this is just more of Dave's 'won't you think of the children' bullshit.

  9. JimmyPage Silver badge

    Out of curiousity

    I wonder if more, or less people have watched these videos than would have before this news ?

    1. Vladimir Plouzhnikov

      Re: Out of curiousity

      I guess we should ask Barbra - she would know...

  10. I'm Brian and so's my wife

    "... free content ad network"

    Eh? Shirley that should be

    "content-free" ad network

  11. i like crisps
    Big Brother

    What ever happened to....

    ....If you think it's going to upset you and give you nightmares, then DON'T LOOK AT IT?

    As for the rest of us, we're quite happy to see the world as it really is,and don't want it

    censored or controlled by any Country, Government, Government agency or unelected

    quango (Internet watch Foundation),

    I would love to get a look on these 'holier than thou' fuck heads hard drives i really would.

  12. Turtle


    "In other words, it's extremely difficult to adequately police Facebook while the company continues to insist that it grants that responsibility solely to its users."

    Well luckily for the Prime Minister, by means of "legal enactments", Facebook can be forced to take responsibility. I do so hope that someone tells him that; just imagine how happy he will be when he finds out.

  13. mark l 2 Silver badge

    Although FB may like to think that by saying its user created content and they are not the publisher, if the content is reported and then they allow it to remain on their website surely thats a editorial decision which does make them a publisher and responsible for whether the content is appropriate for a website that allows under 18s to sign up?

    Also the content maybe illegal in the UK under the Obscene publication act, after all if someone can be found guilty of writing a fictional story about killing the members of girls aloud in the UK then actually showing footage of a murder must fall under the same law but what's the bet the CPS/Police will even bother to look into it

  14. blamblamblam

    How long before someone's beheaded specifically for Facebook? Has it already happened?

    How long before someone's beheaded specifically for Facebook? Has it already happened?

  15. Demosthenese

    Social Network

    Disclaimer: I've never Facebooked.

    Isn't the point of a social networking site to communicate with your social circle? If someone is posting stuff that upsets you, ask them to stop, or drop them from your social circle. I don't see a need to tell people in other social circles what they should be posting.

  16. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Its violence

    which is OK for americans. Nudity and sex is not.

    1. Pascal Monett Silver badge

      Re: Nudity and sex is not

      Not on prime-time, that's for sure.

      Unless its a pay channel, in which case nudes and sex 24/7.

      And after 11 PM, its open season on all flesh (the kiddies are in bed - theoretically).

      The rest of the time, it's only softcore and innuendo. Bikinis are acceptable as well.

  17. Anonymous Coward

    You know, as the parent of a five-year-old boy, I would personally rather that he see a nipple than witness someone being decapitated.

    I mean, hell, pretty much the first thing he EVER saw was a vagina. And just about the next thing after *that* was a nipple! Jeez, it's a wonder he isn't totally messed up already!

    Maybe this makes me some kind of freak, I dunno, but...

  18. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Dopey Dave

    Can someone please ban Davey Dave Cameron from social media. He's obviously too much of a cockspanner to understand how it works.

    Either that or he's cynically invested money in ads placed on the page for the beheading video, because he knows if he makes the video go viral he'll get loads of exposure.

    He's a knob whichever way you look at it.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Dopey Dave

      Aha, how to expose the dirty Tory fanbois - downvoting anything negative said against their glorious leader. You dirty dirty people, do you not have any shame?

  19. DBilious

    I moved to the US 9 years ago and was saddened by the backwards social values. In the same week I saw 2 shows on TV. One was on MTV and they were filming in a museum - all of the nudity on the statues and paintings was blurred out. In the other show (a Cops like reality TV show) they went to a shooting and showed a bullet ridden dead body lying on the ground outside an apartment building. No blurring, no censorship and during prime time TV (~7:30). I have no idea how a society can be more worried about the effects of seeing (marble?) boobies than dead bodies.

  20. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward


    >Another one that regularly outrages the national press is "fully exposed breasts".

    Wonder if say, the Sun, puts long expositions about FB's unacceptable mammalian exposure on page 2?

  21. This post has been deleted by a moderator

  22. Graham Marsden

    it was "irresponsible of Facebook to post beheading videos"

    And once again Call me David reveals that he's utterly clueless about how the internet works.

    But I have little doubt that he will use this as just another justification for his mandatory porn (and anything else he doesn't like) filters...

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: it was "irresponsible of Facebook to post beheading videos"

      Pretty bored my fellow internet-literate colleagues using this as an excuse to bash Cameron over his inability to differentiate between "hosting" and "posting". I'm sure he has more important things to keep him occupied than social networking terminology (at least I hope he does).

      What I hope he was trying to get at was that material that shows the ultimate violation of a person - their murder, is available on a social networking platform that is available to anyone, in theory, over the age of 13, on a network which is predominantly not thought of as being particularly high-brow or graphically controversial (pictures of kittens - yes, inane drivel - yes, decapitations - not so much). In addition to this, nobody seems to have taken into account the moral rights of the victims (in death), having their grizzly demise spread and commented on, on the world's most popular social networking site. But seemingly Facebook seems to think that the rights of the victims, are less important than other considerations here.

      Seeing as we're at the most ludicrously far-reaching tipping point of acceptability here, it's not too far-fetched to suggest that if I come across a fatal road traffic accident on my way to work, then I can take photos and post them on Facebook, without any consideration to the victims or their families, as long as I don't glorify it?

      For once, I think we can lay off DC's faux-pas and focus on a greater moral issue?


This topic is closed for new posts.

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019