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
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 …
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 !
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.
"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
> 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?
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.
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.
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.
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?
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?
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.)
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?
"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.
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?
....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.
"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.
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
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.
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.
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...
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.
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.
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...
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?
The point is that David Cameron wants to pass laws based on his inadequate and incomplete knowledge of how something works.
As many have already pointed out in other discussions, his idea of "mandatory filters" that we would have to opt-out of will do virtually nothing to protect anyone (they would almost certainly not have stopped anyone seeing this particular video clip), yet, despite this, he no doubt still thinks it's a good idea.
If he doesn't understand a subject, he should get proper information from those as to whether his proposals are sensible or not, rather than jump on an emotion-laden band-wagon in the desperate attempt to show that he "cares" when the evidence shows that he doesn't actually seem to give a damn about anyone who isn't rich.
I think everyone should stop being an idiot and quit using sites like facebook and google - sites that totally rip off your personal information. There are lot's of great alternatives to choose from that offer great privacy and respect your personal information. Here are just a few: DuckDuckGo, Ravetree, HushMail, etc. Really, stop being a complete moron. Be wise and take control of your personal information. Many of the privacy-based alternatives I have found are better anyway.
My personal morality is that the rules should be:
The only time when it is reasonable to show involuntary human death caused by another person (murder), including _all_ executions, or involuntary human physical injury caused by another person, is as a clearly stated example of what is wrong and should be stopped, or for historical record; to block these for everyone is blinkered censorship. Anyone discovered to be lying about the above justification and showing or referencing the above media, to 'glorify' this evil behaviour, including evil religious dogma, should have their accounts instantly terminated, and permanently banned from opening new accounts.
It is probably OK to show voluntary death or injury, or accidental death or injury images, so that people can see that there are consequences for dubious behaviour; to block these for everyone is nanny censorship.
Nudity, medical, and consensual S&M images should be allowed; to block these for everyone is prudish censorship.
All the above potentially troublesome media should be required to be attributed with appropriate standard age tags and warning tags, by the submitter, and if discovered to be lacking or done poorly, have the account holder warned that their account could be locked and even terminated.
But the idea of beheading videos on a social network is just sick, I would hate to even accidentally see one, I would have nightmares. And I like action films, I thought Bad Taste was hilarious, I play a lot of shooter games.
But a few breasts, I see them everyday, why would they offend me?
So to censor a natural part of half the population (as an example) but to allow seeing REAL people getting their heads cut off, why is it allowed?
Facebook are sick.
I would be happy for them to end up on the block list until they grow up.
..how the colors of the real world only seem really real when you viddy them on the screen.”
"Right," said Dr. Brodsky. "It's association, the oldest educational method in the world. And what really causes you to feel ill."
"You felt ill this afternoon," he said, "because you're getting better. When we're healthy we respond to the presence of the hateful with fear and nausea. You're becoming healthy, that's all. You'll be healthier still this time tomorrow."
So, let me get this right. Facefuck is pushing real life snuff movies to 13 year old children?
Isn't there a law against that? Am I allowed to make CDs of it and sell them down the market on a Sunday?
To 13 year olds?
Er, is this a joke, publicity stunt or one of them there psychological operations I keep hearing so much about?
I've never seen anyone have their head or any other part of their body chopped off so far in my life. Personal choice and all that - hope I never do. Don't need it, like I don't need to hear the blood curdling screams of a small kitten being tortured, but I am aware some people get something out of doing it and others get something out of watching/hearing it. Don't see the need to desensitise people to extreme violence and encourage it. Is there an agenda here? Quite obviously so, but I'm buggered if I can work out what it is. There is no altruism or common decency from these low life soul sucking bastards and bitches, is all I know.
So they want to gauge our disdain do they? Who the fuck made these sinister clowns the arbiters here and why do they give a shit what I think or how I react?
I won't ever be joining facefuck like I won't ever be having children and bringing them into a world like this. This is not the world I grew up in. Something has changed and it hasn't changed for the better. And it won't be changing back. If I did ever end up having kids by some slim chance, they wouldn't be allowed a mobile phone either until 18. I know, I know, they would be bullied and emotionally tortured by their peers and socially excluded and that would be my fault right? Of course it would. Better not to have children today.
How would you feel if your wife or daughter had 2 million people 'liking' the fact that their head had been chopped off? I'd rather see my daughter being raped then beheaded - at least she would still be alive. Has someone lost their sense of perspective here, because I really don't feel as if I have. Some would argue that an animal's life is not as valuable as a human's. Can I upload a video of a kitten having its head chopped off, because 'that wouldn't be as bad'? What kind of precedent are they trying to set here?
I can think of a 101 things very very wrong with this on as many levels, but time for a cup of tea and then do the dishes. Let me pass the torch of my disdain to the next person to comment on.
But just one thing before I toodle off - If you ever meet me in real life, do not whatever you do, tell me you work for facefuck. If you do, I promise you that I will 'rip your fucking head off', metaphorically of course, within the laws of the land and within the bounds of the decency that I personally adhere to. No need to even raise my voice, break the law or do anything illegal, to wipe that smug smile off your face. Just sayin' as they say. Fucking shameful. Just when you think the scum can't sink any lower or smell any worse.
At least google have an argument for the evil they do - we can't monitor all the videos all the time. They don't actively push it and then advertise the fact as some macho bravado.
Ok, what's next? Babies being eaten by the baby eating bishop of Bath and Wells - pay per chew?
</chain well and truly yanked>
It's a sin!
I'll leave the last word to little Alex:
“The common people will let it go. Oh yes, they’ll sell liberty for a quieter life. That is why they must be led, sir, driven, pushed!”
Seriously, you need to get a reality check. This sort of stuff has been going on in parts of the world for as long as your or anyone else has been alive. The only thing that has changed is that we have access to communications now that are not censored. The world has not changed all that much at all, the only thing that has changed is that you now know what goes on, where as you didn't before. Just because you can see it, doesn't make the act shown in the video any worse than if you didn't see it, but I guess some people would prefer to live in ignorance of what goes on in the world.
"Something has changed and it hasn't changed for the better. And it won't be changing back."
Yeah, something has changed. Public executions were a common form of mass entertainment and now they are not. But why do you think this isn't for the better?
Do you lament the world not changing back to the times of the French Revolution and the Jacobins, perhaps? You heard of them, right? If anyone ever was the a specialist on beheadings that was Mr Robespierre and co.
Got me there!
Robespierre. Those were the good old days. He was a 'hacker's hacker' no doubt about it.
Put your wig back on! Your over powdered and rather smelly wig at that, by the sounds of it.
Seriously though, did you just ask me why I don't think that the lack of mass entertainment executions is not for the better? It was kind of ambiguous.
If you clarify I will answer.
But just out of curiosity - I've shown you mine, so now you show me yours - have you ever watched a video of a human being being tortuously murdered against their will? I take it you might be a bit of a fan? No? Where do YOU draw the line? Children? Kittens? Moslimists? And please, do tell me how you reference that with your non-sequitur gobbledygook about the bleeding French Revolution?
(See what I did there Monsieur?)
Sorry, I'm really not getting your logic or your fallacious argument at all. Or even if it is in fact an argument.
The French Revolution. I'd be careful there. If you carry on like that we'll be having a kind of 'Godwin's Law' for it, for people throwing that willy nilly into a diatribe.
Please formulate an argument not based on false assumptions and have at me. What the hell, just formulate an argument!
This is fun!
"Public executions were a common form of mass entertainment. Now they are not. You seem to think this change is not for the better."
I'd say putting it onto Facebook qualifies as attempting to make it mass entertainment, frankly. Your arguments about seeing the horrors of real life being an education and helping put people off violence are just disingenuous.
"Your arguments about seeing the horrors of real life being an education and helping put people off violence are just disingenuous."
You may disagree with my arguments but you have no grounds to claim that I'm being insincere or deliberately misleading...
"I'd say putting it onto Facebook qualifies as attempting to make it mass entertainment, frankly"
Only if it is an attempt of FB itself to sponsor and use this material for their promotional or commercial purposes. Otherwise, it is an expression of the common or garden human morbid curiosity that has always existed and will continue to exist as long as homo sapiens exists as a species.
We seem to have an instinct that both causes revulsion and at the same makes us want to look at appalling things. There is probably an evolutionary reason for that or, maybe, not. In any case, only an extreme tail quantile of us derives actual pleasure from such scenes, for the rest - it's a reminder and a deterrent.
I'm really not one of those people that calls somebody a troll just because of an opposing viewpoint. But seeing as it's you, I'll make an exception. Feel free to check my posts to find out one example of me ever doing it before.
But I can only assume that you are a troll or a shill, because you do realise that you haven't offered any argument to my opinion. I only offered my opinion, yet you made some pretty solid judgements about me.
Please allow me to counter, good sir:
I grew up in one of those parts of the world btw. Just a few miles away from Saudi Arabia. They don't call it Swordi Arabia for nothing ;-).
You say that I didn't know this went on before. But how do I now? I still haven't seen it. Do I need to see something with my own eyes for me to believe it is true - that it 'goes on' as you put it.
But you are right about one thing though - I would like to live in ignorance about 'some things' that go on in this world. Take Kitten torture porn for example, by your argument, did you have to actually to go and watch the video of poor little fluffy in distress before you knew it was real? That it 'went on'. Or maybe you didn't know that some people do that? Did you know there are animal rape brothels in parts of Scandinavia? Grown men with wives and children at home pay money to pimps to break the legs of dogs, cats, chickens, while they rape them, very often killing them slowly in the process. All perfectly legal. You did know about that right? Because you saw the video didn't you? If you didn't know that that kind of stuff 'goes on', then I think you are the rather ignorant one, wouldn't you agree? And if you did know it 'goes on', pray tell good sir how you got that information in today's glorious uncensored world.
And by the way you were wrong about having access to communications that are not censored. Try downloading or watching that video of the little baby being raped. It 'goes on' you know? I think you will find that it is censored. What is the criteria here? Can we watch babies being beheaded? Do you have to be a Moslimist before you qualify. What about GI Joe? Is he fair game? Do we get audio too? Hearing him begging for his life, seeing the look of fear deep in his eyes as he knows he has just seconds before he meets a painful death? Hearing the cries as the rusty blade hacks back and fore? It 'goes on' you know?
Did I mention that I grew up in Arabia?
You've made false assumptions about me and patronised me. How did that work out for you?
And btw, before you jump the gun again, I am neither an animal rights activist or an Arab. Just a concerned citizen, citizen.
Plouzhnikov did not call you a troll, nor did he even mention the name anywhere in any of his posts.
Strawman attacks and inventing slurs in order to insult someone are, however, hallmarks of a troll.
Additionally, if anyone is "jumping the gun" or being patronising, it's you.
Plouzhnikov did not call you a troll, nor did he even mention the name anywhere in any of his posts.
I am fully aware of that. I never said he called me a troll. I was calling him a troll. I'm sure he's not. But I was finding it hard to see where he was coming from with such an over-reaction to what I said.
Strawman attacks and inventing slurs in order to insult someone are, however, hallmarks of a troll.
You may be right. Let me understand this though - are you accusing me of 'inventing a slur' and of being a troll?
Additionally, if anyone is "jumping the gun" or being patronising, it's you.
Why would that be?
I could elaborate and go further and rip your very poor argument to pieces, at least in my own head, but I find pissing contests on the Reg so boring. In fact that is why I come here and like the place so much - most people have the good sense not to enter into futile ego contests.
I really don't know where you are coming from, and why you are defending a supposed slight on someone that is so disconnected to you. You obviously have some vested interest. But you will never tell me, so I won't ask.
If I didn't know better, I would say you lot probably work for facefuck. I mean someone's got to, I suppose, out of all the people that post on the Reg.
I just gave a very emotive response to something and only offered my silly little opinion. Even in my own mind I didn't think it was any more than that. Yet my words got such a great response. Surprising.
What is the Latin for: "Who trolls the trollers?"
But really. Such poor quality arguments from the lot of you. I sincerely hope you don't write code for a living, because with logic like that, well...
Then again, this thread is a few days old as I didn't get the chance to respond at the time. Which is just as well. Because it wouldn't really have added anything to the overall argument. So I am probably the idiot, for even bothering to post this now.
The internet is just a great big digital mirror to all humanity, (well something approaching 90% of it anyway). As such pretty much all human life is there; kittens galore, snuff movies and everything in between. Most people are inclined towards searching out their preferred particular 'niche'. We have abundant tools to find the stuff we want to and we can all choose to 'click' on whatever we want - accepting that some may not be adequately mentally or intellectually equipped to make an 'informed' choice. Trying to hide it all away and hand out digital rose-tinted glasses to the masses isn't the answer - education about what materials are available is.
I would assert that there is a large amount of 'rubber necking' that goes on and it is this which makes the headlines and shapes political response. If you stumble across a video of a beheading you can cancel it with pretty immediate affect. Or perhaps there is a built-in human morbid curiosity that compromises avoidance reaction. If I pass an accident on the road my instinct is to concentrate more on the actions of other road users around me, not gorp at the wreckage. I know driving can be a seriously dangerous activity, so I try to be alert to that and modify my behaviour accordingly. I know there is material I don't want to view on the internet and I also know that there are some pretty appalling things humans can do.
Censorship doesn't make the nasty things vanish into the digital ether.
Is it not better that the 'mirror image' is clear and accurate for all to see, however bad some of it is.
Educate those who are more susceptible to what they might encounter so that they can make better and more informed decisions when using the internet, that's what I say.
Perhaps every browser start-up should begin with an in-your-face billboard carrying a warning about what lies beyond?
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019