The Icelandic artist Borghildur Indridadóttir is blaming Facebook for having taken over her account after she had posted pictures featuring bare female breasts. "Facebook told me the pictures were against their community standards and did not only take those away from my timeline, but also deleted my friends and likes," she says.More Demoncrazy — watch out for breasts — here.
The pictures were part of her work Demoncrazy, which deals with how older men continue to dominate certain public and social spaces in Iceland. As part of the Reykjavik arts festival in June, Indridadóttir showed photographs of topless young women standing in front of painted portraits of older men...
Facebook should have a viewpoint neutral standard, not a ban with an exception for the right political ideas. And if posing your naked model in front of a picture of an old man was enough to get special treatment, then anyone could set up their photoshoot like that.
पोस्ट्स
७२ टिप्पण्या:
My kind of clickbait.
Breasts are like dicks:
Nobody wants them in their face - unless they want them in their face.
Facebook disabled my feed during the 2016 election.
I thought it was just broken. So I went searching around the website to find help. I was clicking on help, help, help.
You know where all those help links took me?
Facebook was showing me how to report the speech of other people. How to report the speech of people who annoyed me. That was the Facebook help desk.
Meanwhile, my stupid feed wasn't working right. I kept trying to report that. And they had no interest, apparently, in fixing their broken website.
A month or so after the election was over, my Facebook feed started working again. I do not believe any of that was a coincidence.
These people who run Facebook, and who are trained in Ivy League schools, they are very smart. And yet, simultaneously? They are very dishonest, very corrupt, and very untrustworthy. They deserve all the bad press they get and more. I'm totally okay with the government breaking up that monopoly into two Facebooks. I think they ought to.
I think all young women should be encouraged to use their bare breasts to protest the perfidy of the patriarchy.
OK, no Playboy art on my Face is up here Book. Maybe they can approve pasties.
So now it's progressives who are the prudes. Remember the fun they made of Ashcroft for covering up the Justice statue.
New Puritans same as the old.
Facebook has always prohibited nudity. What’s political about this?
I think it's OK for Facebook to keep naked breasts like those off the site.
There's lots of other places on the Internet to post and look at naked breasts.
Borghildur Indridadóttir is claiming an exemption for her political art.
What a name!
Facebook should have a viewpoint neutral standard, not a ban with an exception for the right political ideas.
THe problem I have with all these right-wing laments against "politicization" of blah blah blah is that it echoes the Islamic excuse that all terrorism results from "politicization" of religion. Right. Just because the only things the right-wing likes/knows how to politicize are racism, wealth, and aristocracy does not mean that anyone else can't align a viewpoint or value of their own with the power necessary to protect it.
The number of things the right-wing has politicized in the last three years makes any appeal on their part to avoid being subjected to left-wing (or just popular, normal/moderate) politics completely ridiculous.
All Icelandic women are named after men. e.g., -dóttir
If you hate men, change your name.
"Facebook has always prohibited nudity. What’s political about this?"
You're asking the wrong question. Look at the artist's complaint. She wants an exception from the general rule on the basis of politics. I'm saying Facebook's rule is viewpoint neutral (ie, not political). Who are you disagreeing with?
When I first read this post, I misunderstood what you wrote. I thought you were criticizing Facebook's action.
At some point people should just quit Facebook and Twitter. Unless you need that time suck in your life and you are OK supporting approved censorship of 'non-State approved' groups or free speech, there is not a reason in the world to support those platforms. None. There are other ways to communicate. Use them. Get your life back. Tell the Totalitarians- good bye.
Just one person's opinion.
"Indridadóttir showed photographs of topless young women standing in front of painted portraits of older men..."
That'll teach 'm not to dominate public spaces.
"Facebook should have a viewpoint neutral standard, not a ban with an exception for the right political ideas."
Ah, yes, viewpoint neutrality at Facebook.
"And if posing your naked model in front of a picture of an old man was enough to get special treatment, then anyone could set up their photoshoot like that.
There you go again, with your liberal logic. If, then--isn't that how white guys view the world, according to NYT editorialist Sarah Jeong?
Why should Facebook have a viewpoint neutral standard?
You know the right-wing has jumped the shark when they can't even accept a huge major company's right to free expression and to hold its own views. Sounds like you incoherent babblers will have to overturn the silly Citizens United ruling now? What gives? Only once its views are used to fund a political candidate are they acceptable... but not when it comes to basic company policy? WTF? The incoherence is baffling.
Your faction is going down. Hard. Nothing you weirdos say makes a damn bit of sense any more. In the past it was just factually unsupported weasel arguments. Now it's about just any basic semblance of coherence whatsoever.
If her breasts could talk, the artist might have a case. A very weird one.
Why can't they understand and accept that Facebook is not a government entity and not a public space and so not obligated to First Amendment and free speech laws and codes?
-sw
Brace yourself for eyebrows.
“She wants an exception from the general rule on the basis of politics. I'm saying Facebook's rule is viewpoint neutral (ie, not political). Who are you disagreeing with?”
Then I’m disagreeing with her and agreeing with you.
“When I first read this post, I misunderstood what you wrote. I thought you were criticizing Facebook's action.”
Me too.
“Facebook should have a viewpoint neutral standard, not a ban with an exception for the right political ideas.”
This is the sentence that caused the confusion. It sounds as if you’re saying Facebook does not have a viewpoint neutral standard. In your header you do say clearly that Facebook does have viewpoint neutrality, but I took it as sarcasm.
As for Facebook standards and policies, as a private company they should be able to have internal policies that government cannot meddle with.
"Etienne said...
All Icelandic women are named after men. e.g., -dóttir"
Actually all Icelanders, male and female, last names are their father's first name and then the applicable suffix son or dottir.
As for Facebook standards and policies, as a private company they should be able to have internal policies that government cannot meddle with.
Right wingers say no. They say freedom to donate unlimited funds to whichever politician you want to buy off is the important speech consideration, but not who can post what on your website.
Baffling, ain't it?
Total facepalm.
We know they aren't view point neutral when it comes to things like threats and targeted harassment like doxing. So good that nudity is viewpoint neutral.
"Right wingers say no. They say freedom to donate unlimited funds to whichever politician you want to buy off is the important speech consideration, but not who can post what on your website."
-- This is incorrect. For the most part, people on the right are much better about Free Speech than those on the left. What people on the right say though is that if a standard exists, it needs to apply equally. For example, Antifa groups on Facebook that post pictures of people and ask for them to be stalked, harassed and doxed are left standing, when Alex Jones was allegedly removed for the same.
The right is saying: "If you're using Community Standards, then apply it across the community. If you are just kicking people off because you don't like their particular views, SAY SO."
It is a plea for honesty from media and social media, not censorship.
There's a fun/easy solution for the artist. Have the models identify as men and then show them as topless trans men. FB definitely allows men to show their chests on FB so it should allow trans men to do so as well unless it is transphobic. Have fun figuring that one out MZ.
“Facebook should have a viewpoint neutral standard, not a ban with an exception for the right political ideas.”
-- The exception is generally for the left political ideas.
Inga...Allie Oop at 11:09 AM
This is the sentence that caused the confusion. ....
I was puzzled about why I misunderstood Althouse's opinion, but you have explained what happened to me too.
These ladies are just following fashion.
They wouldn't have done this if they weren't mainly seeking approval from foreigners.
Facebook is a channel for female fashions, for the most part.
So it is truly Facebooks fault in the first place.
No Facebook, or other social nedia, no naked women in front of official portraits.
Also, to answer: "Why should Facebook have a viewpoint neutral standard?"
Because they claim to have one. It really is that simple. If Facebook says they make decisions because of X, but really are doing it because of Y, then I'd rather them either fix their broken process so that they're actually making decisions using X, or just be honest and say Y is really what drives their decisions, so people can make informed decisions.
Iceland is basically a small town of a few hundred thousand people. Most of the people seeing this probably know these artists' mothers.
Or, I guess, you could just tell Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, Air BnB and all the others who have suddenly decided they can discriminate against people -- "Bake that cake, bigot."
“I was puzzled about why I misunderstood Althouse's opinion, but you have explained what happened to me too.”
Yes Mike, I think this was the reason that Althouse’s viewpoint wasn’t clear to us. I’m glad you too were confused by it, because I was waiting for someone to accuse me of stupidity as is the usual insult here.
Actually FB does allow the showing of nipples in connection with protests. https://www.facebook.com/communitystandards/adult_nudity_sexual_activity
don't show:
"Uncovered female nipples except in the context of breastfeeding, birth giving and after-birth moments, health-related situations (for example, post-mastectomy, breast cancer awareness or gender confirmation surgery) or an act of protest."
So use in connection with protest is fine. Also, if you're a guy and you change sexes and grow big breasts with nipples you can post them, and if you're a woman who claims to be a guy then your nipples are no longer female and you can post them. Seems pretty easy to get around this bright line rule.
What about protesting pubes?
-- This is incorrect. For the most part,
Weasel words, Mr. Muskrat. I said for the specific part. But nice try generalizing as a way to avoid the specific point of your desire to regulate the speech of a corporation. Skate away from that point a little less sloppily next time.
people on the right are much better about Free Speech than those on the left.
Oh, right. "People." Let's get the right people expressing the right opinions. Sure, I have no doubt that right-wingers realize that the comedically destructive stupidity and overwhelming unpopularity of their opinions make them feel that free speech is important for them.
What people on the right say though is that if a standard exists, it needs to apply equally.
Standard. THat's funny. The standard for private speech is whatever the corporation wants to say or host. And the beauty of it is, that just with any individual person, each company gets to decide that for themselves. No, there won't be any right-wing "hive mind" mentality imposed upon our corporations based on some policy or ambiguous "standard" that right-wingers said the culture warriors decided upon to force upon free enterprise.
Nice try.
If you had trouble understanding this post, I recommend reading more slowly. I keep it short, so it really shouldn't take that much time. It's not my style to belabor things, and I do it in a short way to be more amusing, but if you rush through it like some laboriously spelled-out thing, it won't work for you. You're supposed to notice all the words and think. That's my idea of a way to have fun reading, but maybe not yours.
"The standard for private speech is whatever the corporation wants to say or host."
-- And I said that, if that's the standard the company WANTS to enforce, they're free to do that. They should just say that's the standard. Imagine going to a club or party, or whatever, and being told something is taboo and can't be discussed. One person discusses it and gets kicked out, another person doesn't. The hosts are clearly not ACTUALLY enforcing the taboo, they're just getting rid of people on their own whim. Which is perfectly within their rights -- but it is also dishonest.
"If you had trouble understanding this post, I recommend reading more slowly."
-- I'd gamble that most of the confusion either came from rushing or missing the title, which gives away the point entirely -- at least for people who understand viewpoint neutrality to be a good thing.
"Let's get the right people expressing the right opinions."
-- The fact that you go to that interpretation (which is the far left interpretation of free speech, with mic checks and heckler's vetoes and outright violence to deplatform people) instead of understanding what being a free speech absolutist actually means kind of helps reinforce my point, huh.
Isn't facebook opening a can of worms when it censors based on content? It is exerting editorial control. If Facebook assumes responsibility for "hate speech" published on its platform, why is it not then responsible for publishing libelous speech?
Facebook does not allow me to publish hate speech.
But Facebook does allow me to publish defamatory statements about coworkers or friends.
Facebook is either the phone company or a newspaper, it can't be both.
And I said that, if that's the standard the company WANTS to enforce, they're free to do that. They should just say that's the standard.
Why? Aren't you from the party that opposes consumer labelling?
The fact that you go to that interpretation...
Sarcasm.
Must send my husband a link to Demoncrazy. He's doing an important research project on Icelandic patriarchy.
In New Orleans, beads are required.
These attention whores work for free.
Nothing makes a better political statement than BEWBS.
Just ask PETA.
I mean, the world is filled with people who claim, "Well, I was ambivalent on that issue until I saw those breasts, and then I thought, 'Gee, I should really change my mind about that'."
If you had trouble understanding this post, I recommend reading more slowly.
Now you're blaming the victims of your confusing writing.
You should have written:
Facebook does have a viewpoint neutral standard ....
Matthew Sablan at 11:53 AM
... most of the confusion either came from rushing or missing the title
Like Inga, I thought the title was sarcastic.
@Matthew Sablan... I think the larger issue regarding Facebook et. al. censorship is that if they were honest, it would open a whole can of worms around political “in-kind” contributions and them being activist publishers of content rather than neutral dispassionate observers... Just like Ma Bell, they need to be broken up and regulated as common carriers...
Facebook does have a viewpoint neutral standard
Far too straight forward for blogs.
From the Wikipedia article about Björk Guðmundsdóttir (as an example): "This is an Icelandic name. The last name is a patronymic, not a family name; this person is referred to by the given name Björk."
Here's an idea. Stop using Facebook. And then you aren't subject to the whims of King Zuckerprick.
Darn! I missed the exhibition.
Mike said:
Althouse: If you had trouble understanding this post, I recommend reading more slowly.
Now you're blaming the victims of your confusing writing.
You should have written:
Facebook does have a viewpoint neutral standard ....
Me: Yes. Mike is right on point. Why should I slow down for you? I don't slow down for Dostoevsky, Melville or Joyce. But it's your blog so you can hand in sloppy writing if you wish.
It is very revealing to read these comments and see who is engaging in an honest debate and who is owning the straw men.
Very revealing.
Joshua Barker wrote:
Just like Ma Bell, they need to be broken up and regulated as common carriers...
This would be a good thing. But the hedge fund people would hate it, because "netspace" would then be a commodity. Nobody wants to be in the business of selling a commodity. It is almost impossible to make huge gains when selling a commodity, or by owning the stock of a company that sells a commodity.
The photographer has the unique ability to make the female breast boring.
Do they ban naked-breasted males? Like males on the beach?
Are they misogynists who can't tolerate females, breasts or no breasts?
Sexist pigs.
Btw, do they ban Code Pinks who love to bare their breasts in protest?
Indridadóttir showed photographs of topless young women standing in front of painted portraits of older men...
I thought the exhibit was displaying classic portraits of older men being blocked by topless younger women. Depends on your viewpoint I guess.
Ladies, do something more significant than showing your tits and you might get your portrait (face) displayed somewhere.
Remember andrea dworkin?
She said that ALL PORN was RAPE!!!!
. Except for lezzie porn, which was COOL! and GREAT!
And, She said that ALL SEX was RAPE!!!!
. Except for lezzie sex, which was COOL! and GREAT!
It's important to have standards, Andrea's standards were that the only Old, Fat, Ugly people that should be able to hook up with hot young babes... Was Her.
Our beloved Professor takes out her ruler and says:
If you had trouble understanding this post, I recommend reading more slowly. I keep it short, so it really shouldn't take that much time... if you rush through it like some laboriously spelled-out thing, it won't work for you. You're supposed to notice all the words and think.
Whamm!!!! Burn!!!! I'm glad *I* pay attention in class, and the Prof doesn't sting ME like that! It's Gotta Hurt! Of Course, like i say; i (at least TRY to) pay attention, so i should be safe(r)
I guess the artist was trying to be shocking and violate some cultural mores.
She got her wish, and massive publicity by Facebook banning this.
Kinda like femen, but not as exciting.
I takes oh so little to be an artist today. It takes oh so little to make an edgy (yeah, sure) political statement today.
It takes oh so little to get people to self segregate into their primary tribes today.
But reading Althouse is WORK!
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा