"Facebook said that requests for access to account data from governments were relatively flat"
Because the NSA don't need to ask?
Mark Zuckerberg apparently "goes to great lengths to protect the privacy of his personal life", but it hasn't stopped the Facebook chief from encouraging the free content ad network's users to share more stuff online. Late on Sunday the company's boss confirmed that Facebook had slightly modified the wording of its guidelines …
This post has been deleted by its author
"Mark Zuckerberg apparently "goes to great lengths to protect the privacy of his personal life""
As soon as it's "one rule for us and one rule for them", it's time to opt the fuck out. That's a bit tricky when it's governments doing it and data-rape is pretty well inevitable; but you can at least make the bastards earn their spying paychecks and spread awareness by bitching about it loudly on organs such as El Reg.
The "no buttocks" rule is a bit ironic...if there is one place on the internet where you leave your arse hanging out; then facebook is that place. Divorce lawyers will attest to that.
Buttocks - bad.
Breastfeeding - well, OK, if you really must, but there must be no sexual element.
Beheading - sure, no worries. We'll let you know first though, so you can opt-out of viewing it quickly know which of your sicko mates to send it to.
Oh well, it's a start, but Facebook still has a very long way to go.
"Must admit, beyond me why anyone would want to post a picture of themselves breastfeeding."
Bit of blue sky thinking here - wild speculation - but is it possible you aren't female?
Next time you see a picture of some bloke standing next to his lovingly polished restored sports car, try and imagine how some women feel about the whole carrying, giving birth and raising the baby thing. I have a neighbour who, I suspect, polishes the underside of his BMW. I remove the dirt from my car when I find piles of dust collecting in the garage. Similarly with women and babies. YMMV.
> focusing in on fully exposed buttocks
Given that "arsehole" can describe both a part of the body and a person who displays ignorance, it's a shame that exposing a buttock isn't construed by FB as pointing out the failures or views of such a person.
There would then be much less need to unfriend or block peoples' posts.
Surely the way to censor your Facebook feed is to unfriend people who post stuff you dislike? It's the same reason why flashers don't have large friend groups in real life, because people just stop inviting them places. The only thing that needs censoring or rules here is those stupid clickbait adverts that Facebook themselves put into the feed - whether Zuck likes it or not they certainly are publishing those themselves.
I think the only thing that will make the Reg listen about NSFW images is to get them added to blacklists so that nobody behind a corporate firewall can read their site. The number of examples recently is almost certainly enough to justify adding to those lists but with the loss of ad revenue it might well kill the site.
That's not safe? Isn't it simply a factual example illustrating the article's subject matter?
However, if you are not supposed to read such *articles* while at work... I guess then the tag should be something like Not Suitable For Simulation Of Being Busy, I think.
It's a factual example that includes nudity, though admittedly mild. Very few workplaces are OK with employees viewing such things at work. On top of that, I work for a school district, so the standards are even stricter than usual. Articles are ok so long as they don't interfere with my work. A picture of several bare butts, not so much.
Indeed, it's not so much that people mind adults looking at a bum picture at work, but it's entirely conceivable that caught at the wrong moment it could be misinterpreted as showing bum pics to a minor (say the admin is reading the article just when a child enters the room to ask for a password reset). There are also a lot of people who do find those pictures offensive and interpret being shown them as sexual harassment - this is partly why these things get blocked at the firewall as it avoids the problem in the first place.
Sadly, marking the article NSFW wouldn't help with the new look site since articles seem to randomly appear on the top of the frontpage along with their NSFW pictures. The Reg don't seem to understand the issue, or at least don't seem to want to act on it in a sensible way, hence my suggestion of adding them to Internet blacklists. This is the 4th article I've seen the issue on, although this one is the mildest example.
It's not just schools sadly, you'll find someone in most environments these days who will take offence at very minor things (as is their right) so the rest of us have to fall in line unfortunately. I also try not to swear while at work, certainly I try harder than when I'm at home anyway!
Anything that will offend a lot of people they will take the other course. Thus it makes perfect sense to censor nudity, as a lot of people (well, Americans) will get upset by it. They won't censor ads for guns, because a lot of people (well, Americans) will get upset by it. They used to censor breastfeeding pics, but a lot of moms got upset by that so now they don't, at least not if you complain. They added more and more choices for "sex" because a lot of people were upset by it, and eventually punted like they should from the start and allowed people to enter whatever the hell they want there to stop the complaining.
I'm not sure how the US government views the internet ( yeah I know; with a laptop or PC)
but under FCC rules it is considered obscene to depict any excretory or sexual organ, which is how The Daughters of The American Revolution or one of the other blue rinse biddy clubs were able to ban the nipples in Fantasia so that Disney had to go back through the whole film eliminating nipples and assorted bits which made it several years later getting to release.
He didn't get it all but did get to release it.
Americans, or at least a few who wield the power while living in the country with the largest porn industry don't actually like to admit that people go to the toilet or have sex.
God knows what they thought of Bill Clinton?
If people are complaining about the pic at the head of the article, we must be regressing back to the fifties, you see worse than that on the beach in Spain in summer.
I must be out of touch!
The Reg should try to get to the bottom of this and give everyone what they really want to see.