October 21, 2013

"Facebook is allowing videos showing people being decapitated to be posted and shared on its site once again."

"The social network had placed a temporary ban on the material in May following complaints that the clips could cause long-term psychological damage."
The US firm now believes its users should be free to watch and condemn, but not celebrate, such videos.
How are they controlling how people react to what they see?
Facebook's terms and conditions now state that it will remove photos or videos that "glorify violence" in addition to other banned material, including a woman's "fully exposed breast."
Idiocy.

57 comments:

Oso Negro said...

There is as deep need for libertarian-owned social media and search engines.

Robert Cook said...

I don't know why anyone would want to watch such videos. I don't and won't.

Scott M said...

It's certainly FB's turf and they can do what they want, but Idiocy certainly describes that kind of catch-all central planning.

Wayworn Wanderer said...

Yep.

rcommal said...

If a baby is attached to a breast, is the breast still considered fully exposed?

The Drill SGT said...

I'm sorry, a US company should not be distributing "snuff films" which is what we are talking about, or providing aid and comfort to Jihadists.

13 year old users?

rcommal said...

Guess there'll be no sharing allowed of retro pix from the National Geographic of my early days, either.

rcommal said...

The policy is incoherent, to be sure.

n.n said...

I wonder if Facebook would permit posting videos from abortion clinics.

rhhardin said...

What about watching and deploring breasts.

rehajm said...

Sounds like NSA is setting out the bait at it's favorite fishin' hole.

Alex said...

So Facebook is once again THE social network for Al Quaeda head-cutters.

In'shallah.

Alex said...

Cook - the point is that you do nothing to stop Facebook.

Lem said...

Is Althouse saying Mark Zuckerberg didn't wrestle mightily with this issue?

Carl said...

Got to be able to deliver the eyeballs for the advertisers, you know. Y'all make sure not to glorify the violence, now, ha ha.

Freeman Hunt said...

What about a video of someone cutting off a breast?

Freeman Hunt said...

What about a video showing someone in a Mark Zuckerberg mask being decapitated?

Freeman Hunt said...

What about a video of a dog being decapitated?

Freeman Hunt said...

So no videos of topless women decapitating people. That would be in poor taste.

jimbino said...

Mark Zuckerberg was recently into killing all his own meat. I'd like to see photos of the killing and butchering on Facebook, though I won't, because I wouldn't submit to Facebook terms to subscribe.

Paul Zrimsek said...

Facebook will shortly be introducing a new account setting that will cause the site to show you ONLY videos of people being decapitated until you go into your profile and change it.

Drago said...

Robert Cook: "I don't know why anyone would want to watch such videos. I don't and won't."

LOL

Another lefty pretends to not understand why muslims enjoy watching their decapitation porn...and forget about cookie even being mildly curious about why so very very many muslims seem to enjoy the physical decapitation of their enemies so very very much.

Not to worry. Cookie will be onto GW Bush's "war criminal" status forthwith.

Mustn't dwell too long on subjects that don't support the acceptable narratives.

Paddy O said...

Outraged people make for a great audience. So, outrage about what happens on the videos, outrage about posting the videos, morbid curiosity from the adolescent and torture porn crowd, it all gets Facebook traffice.

MadisonMan said...

I am unfriending anyone who posts snuff films.

My little way of protesting this issue.

Drago said...

You know what would be banned?

Any video of someone decapitating a caricature of obama.

You see, that would be beyond the pale.

Left Bank of the Charles said...

An enterprising blogger would take picture of her breasts in various degrees of exposure, post them all on Facebook, have a confederate report them for abuse, and see which pictures Facebook takes down and which picture it leaves up.

That would be a great blog post, and I'm sure it would get tons of traffic.

Robert Cook said...

"What about watching and deploring breasts"

Assuming no one else has addressed this point, there's a big difference between the bare female breast and a beheading. The one is healthy and beautiful, the other degrading and traumatizing.

Robert Cook said...

"Another lefty pretends to not understand why muslims enjoy watching their decapitation porn...and forget about cookie even being mildly curious about why so very very many muslims seem to enjoy the physical decapitation of their enemies so very very much."

Um, Drago, don't even try to pretend you don't know that tens of thousands (or more) non-Muslim, American voyeurs of violence would be eagerly clicking to see such atrocities.

That aside, why do you think Muslims would interested in watching such material any more than anyone else? What makes you think "very very many Muslims" enjoy decapitation videos? Do you equate "Muslim" with "terrorist?"

Lem said...

Any video of someone decapitating a caricature of obama.

The thought of being pressurised into that makes me crave a Hammon's pigs n' taters chocolate bar.

Lem said...

Maybe they got Obama's economic policy, decapitalisation, and decapitation were crossed up by face book, when they met via Skype and not face to face.

Oh my, does that mean Zuckerberg is a closeted birther?

Amazing what I can find out when I click through to the explanation of why Miss Johansson is the sexiest woman alive.

Brian McKim & Traci Skene said...

The FBI is looking into the threat against Ted Cruz. But apparently, they haven't leaned on Facebook to take down the profile of Troy Gilmore, Jr., the man who threatened Cruz. I suppose that Facebook "believes its users should be free to watch and condemn, but not celebrate" death threats to U.S. Congressmen and their families.

My favorite "The Capitol Police takes all threats to members of Congress seriously." (Even to "the damn scum bag of a U.S.Senator," Cruz, as Gilmore calls him!)

Lem said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Lem said...

The policy is incoherent, to be sure.

You could say that again.

Freeman Hunt said...

What about a video of someone decapitating a Spongebob with breasts? What if it takes place in a cemetery?

Freeman Hunt said...

How about a video of a woman who exposes her breasts but is then immediately decapitated?

Freeman Hunt said...

What about a video of a woman in a halter top who is decapitated, taking off her collar in the process, making her shirt fall down, and exposing the breasts of her corpse? Are corpse breasts okay? Is it okay as long as the video cuts just before the breasts are exposed?

richard mcenroe said...

Decapitation = boobies. Got it.

Lem said...

The possibilities are w/o end, that is to say fb watchers are counting their chicks before they hatch.

Lem said...

How are they controlling how people react to what they see?

Lets ask the people that build the ObamaCare website?

Danno said...

I agree with Althouse on the videos. However, the thought of having WashDC overrun with patriots that go through the DC bureaucracy and thin the herd via a guillotine does sound somewhat appealing, I must say.

chrisnavin.com said...

This is how Facebook stays head and shoulders above the competition.

LilyBart said...


I've never joined facebook - and have no regrets.

Partridge said...

Once again, the anti-Muslim contingency is out here in droves. Despite the fact that the only specific video mentioned in the article was reported as coming from Mexico...

YoungHegelian said...

@Partridge,

Once again, the anti-Muslim contingency is out here in droves.

No, we just pay attention to other news sources as well as this one article.

Here's a link to a news story from Britain about a Muslim guy who did post a decapitation video to FB. And here's a link to a story about a Muslim FB site that advocates clopping off the heads of infidels, even if it doesn't show it.

Jeez, Partridge, do you really want to go through life believing that the Jihadis aren't the primary purveyors of snuff propaganda in the world? Just because most of it isn't on FB doesn't mean it isn't out there.

Rock said...


I Agree with this post, we have best option to buy twitter followers. get more twitter followers cheap from here.
Buy High quality twitter followers

Clyde said...

Beheadings good, breasts bad?

I think they have it backwards.

As Mojo Nixon sang in his version of 'Twas The Night Before Christmas, "Fucking is better than killing."

I'm also not on Facebook. Way too many people sharing TMI.

MayBee said...

I have a Facebook friend who is forever pushing the boundaries of the bare breast rule, and has been on Facebook probation for it.

And all I can say is, I am grateful FB is foiling her efforts. They are doing all of is a favor, most especially her.

Toby said...

I don't think this indicates that FB finds nudity to be more objectionable than beheading videos. I suspect it's more about what they want FB to NOT be, i.e., a NSFW trading house for softcore images. It's reasonable to worry that a site that allows nudity will soon become focused on nudity. At that point, FB, the social media site with the goal of connecting the world, would cease to exist.

MayBee said...

Good point, Toby. And if Facebook allows nudity, they will soon enough run into child porn problems.

William said...

Just so long as these absurd rules don't bleed over into Game of Thrones, I'm ok with it.

Freeman Hunt said...

But Facebook is okay with becoming a site for trading snuff films? That's better than being a site for trading porn?

Being neither is another option.

n.n said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
n.n said...

So, would posting videos from abortion clinics be acceptable, or would it be classified as glorifying violence?

As for pornography, I would distinguish pornography from a woman breastfeeding her child by discerning the purpose of the image. The former is captured and published, while the latter is a natural act in the course of a day. For example, a magazine or website which publishes images of women naked is pornographic, since its only intent is to emphasize or degrade women to the sum of their parts for profit.

Toby said...

Freeman--I would say that there's a much, much smaller market for snuff films than there is for topless pics. I don't think there's a real chance for FB to become a snuff film site. If it started to move toward that, I'm sure they'd change their policies.

As far as breast feeding pics & pics meant to arouse, of course there's a massive difference. But FB is a huge site, and huge sites make simple, easy to apply rules. It's not ideal, but I understand where they're coming from.

And to clarify, I'm not pro-snuff film or anti-breast. I just think that banning one and allowing another has less to do with what's actually offensive and more to do with what the people who run FB want the site (and the business) to be.

Freeman Hunt said...

There is a not small audience for decapitation films outside of the cultural West.

Drago said...

Partridge: "Once again, the anti-Muslim contingency is out here in droves. Despite the fact that the only specific video mentioned in the article was reported as coming from Mexico.."

LOL

Yes, of course.

If we limit our "vision" to the "only specific video mentioned in the article".

Why look any further?

Let's just avert our gaze and pretend that the muslim beheadings of non-muslims don't exist.

You can go back to sleep now Partridge.

And have a cookie.

You've certainly earned it.

Guimo said...

The paramount question is who in the world would use or go to Facebook in the first
place.