Facebook Prudery Has Few Friends…Facebook censors French protest against its censorship of nudity

Read more EU Censorship News at MelonFarmers.co.uk

See article from huffingtonpost.com

Day of Nude on Facebook , a French protest aimed at challenging Facebook’s unnecessary censorship of photos was censored when Facebook took down the event page and suspended the accounts of some involved in the online demonstration. Launched by French photographer Alain Bachellier, the Facebook event asked its 8,000-plus participants to publish a nude picture on Monday, Le Huffington Post reports. While some chose to post of a photo of their own creation, most instead shared copies of famous nude works of art. Coinciding with the final day of the European Festival of Nude Photography, the Facebook event sought to fight against the ridiculous censorship that flouts the basic rules of our freedom of expression in the name of Puritanism or the moral rules of another age, A spokesman for Facebook France told the Agence France-Presse that page was closed in the early afternoon. Facebook authorizes users to mobilize around common causes, included cultural ones, but it can’t authorize the cause itself to encourage users to disrespect their conditions of use.

Facebook Act as Judge, Jury and Executioner…Facebook condemned by Article 19 for rubbish censorship procedures that were exploited to help hide allegations of torture in Syria

Read more Website News at MelonFarmers.co.uk

See  article from  hereisthecity.com

Facebook has apologised after it incompetently deleted a free speech group’s post on human rights abuses in Syria. The website removed a status update by Article 19, which campaigns for freedom of speech, that linked to a Human Rights Watch report detailing alleged torture in the Arab country. Dr Agnes Callamard, the executive director of Article 19, accused Facebook of acting like judge, jury and executioner in the way it removes material from the website. Facebook told the Guardian that the post was mistakenly removed after being reported as containing offensive content. A spokesman said: The link was reported to Facebook. We assess such reports manually and because of the high volume, occasionally content that shouldn’t be taken down is removed by mistake. We’re sorry about this. The organisation concerned should try posting the link again. Dr Agnes Callamard, the executive director of Article 19, was somewhat underwhelmed by Facebook’s censorship procedure. She said: The deletion shows the looming threat of private censorship. We commend Facebook for creating tools to report abuse, but if your post was wrongly deleted for any reason, there is no way to appeal. Facebook don’t notify you before deleting a comment and they don’t tell you why after they have. Facebook act like judge, jury and executioner. Facebook is now widely recognised as a quasi-public space and as such has responsibilities when it comes to respecting free speech. They can’t just delete content without some kind of transparent and accountable system. International law says that censorship is only acceptable when it is clearly prescribed, is for a legitimate aim — such as for public health — and is necessary in a democracy.

A Network of Censors…Facebook speaks of its censorship procedures

Read more Website News at MelonFarmers.co.uk

See  article from  mashable.com

Facebook have revealed some of their procedures used for responding to complaints about user posted content. Facebook employs 4 teams based in Menlo Park, Austin, Dublin and Hyderabad. Facebook explained: Reports of inappropriate content, which users can submit with just a couple of clicks, are directed to one of four support teams. An Abusive Content Team handles spam and sexually explicit content. Meanwhile, a Safety Team handles threats of vandalism, graphic violence, credible threats of violence and illegal drug use. A Hate and Harassment Team handles, well, reports of hate speech and harassment. The team that handles hacked and imposter accounts is called the Access Team. If found to be in violation of Facebook’s policies, Statement of Rights and Responsibilities or Community Standards, the content is removed and its publisher warned. Facebook’s support teams may also block users who post inappropriate content or ban them from specific features. A separate team handles appeals. Sometimes content on Facebook violates not just the company’s policies, but the law. Facebook says it will share reports with law enforcement when: we have a good faith belief it is necessary to prevent fraud or other illegal activity, to prevent imminent bodily harm, or to protect ourselves and you from people violating our Statement of Rights and Responsibilities.

In the Age of Facebook…Government know better than parents when their kids are ready to use Facebook

Read more UK Government Watch at MelonFarmers.co.uk

See article from telegraph.co.uk

Tim Loughton, the Children’s Minister, has accused mothers and fathers of aiding and abetting pre-teens to open accounts on Facebook. His whinge was in response to Labour MP Ann Coffey who urged the Government and mobile phone companies to do more to combat sexting, where teenagers send sexual pictures of themselves to each other using camera phones. Loughton said parents had a responsibility to monitor youngsters online, adding: Having a Facebook page, you should be at least 13 to do that. That is not legally enforceable. We know, and I know from personal experience, the temptations for younger children to set up a Facebook site and get involved with those social media. And I also know that in too many cases they do that aided and abetted by parents. So it’s not just a question of giving information to parents, it’s making sure parents are acting responsibly on behalf of their children too. A Facebook spokesman said: Facebook is currently designed for two age groups (13-18 year olds and 18 and up), and we provide extensive safety and privacy controls based on the age provided. If someone reports an underage account to use then we will remove it, and use back-end end technology to try and prevent them signing up again. However, recent reports have highlighted just how difficult it is to implement age restrictions on the Internet and that there is no single solution to ensuring younger children don’t circumvent a system or lie about their age. However, we agree with safety experts that communication between parents/guardians and kids about their use of the Internet is vital. Just as parents are always teaching and reminding kids how to cross the road safely, talking about internet safety should be just as important a lesson to learn.

All Set for the London 1984 Olympics…Spectators to be banned from posting their own photos on Facebook

Read more Liberty News at MelonFarmers.co.uk

See article from bigbrotherwatch.org.uk

Enjoy the Games! Well it seems that Olympic authorities are predictably going to treat spectators as shit. Amateur Photographer reports that it will be against Olympic rules to tweet, share on Facebook or in any way share your photos of the event. Quite how this will be policed is beyond comprehension and one would hope police officers are not going to be expected to pursue anyone seen posting photos on Instagram. The London 2012 conditions state: Images, video and sound recordings of the Games taken by a Ticket Holder cannot be used for any purpose other than for private and domestic purposes and a Ticket Holder may not license, broadcast or publish video and/or sound recordings, including on social networking websites and the internet more generally, and may not exploit images, video and/or sound recordings for commercial purposes under any circumstances, whether on the internet or otherwise, or make them available to third parties for commercial purposes. Coming after moves to restrict public demonstrations, photographers being interrogated on public footpaths and concern around heavy-handed commercial restrictions on what logos you can wear inside the Olympic village, this is yet another worrying development. Rather than being the celebration organisers promised, London 2012 is rapidly risking becoming one of the most intimidating and restrictive events seen for decades.

Anti-Cuts Chopped…Facebook deletes 50 groups associated with student protests

Read more UK News at MelonFarmers.co.uk

Based on article from blog.ucloccupation.com

There appears to be a political purge of Facebook taking place. Profiles are being deleted without warning or explanation. Facebook has just deleted around 50 sites. It may well be that these groups are technically in violation of Facebook’s terms of agreement, but the timing on the royal wedding and May day weekend, is deeply suspicious. We don’t know for certain, but this purge of online organising groups could be linked to the wider crackdown on protest by authorities in Britain. Either way, it is a scandalous abuse of power by Facebook to arbitrarily destroy online communities built up over many months and years. Ultimately, the anti-cuts movement in the UK will need to start organising through self-hosted, open source platforms to avoid reliance upon the very corporate power structures we are aiming to challenge. Facebook pages that have been deleted: Open Birkbeck UWE Occupation Chesterfield Stopthecuts Camberwell AntiCuts IVA Womensrevolution Tower Hamlets Greens No Cuts ArtsAgainst Cuts London Student Assembly Beat’n Streets Roscoe Manchester Occupation Bristol Bookfair Newcastle Occupation Socialist Unity Whospeaks Forus Ourland FreeLand Bristol Ukuncut Teampalestina Shaf Notts-Uncut Part-of UKUncut No Quarter Cutthewar Bootle Labour Claimants Fightback Ecosocialists Unite Comrade George Orwell Jason Derrick Anarchista Rebellionist BigSociety Leeds Slade Occupation Anti-Cuts Across Wigan Firstof Mayband Don’t Break Britain United Cockneyreject SWP Cork Westiminster Trades Council York Anarchists Rock War Sheffield Occupation Central London SWP North London Solidarity Southwark Sos Save NHS Rochdale Law Centre Goldsmiths Fights Back Occupy Monaco

Deviant From Their Own Guidelines…Facebook ban all sex related content even if it follows the published guidelines

Read more Sex For Fun News at MelonFarmers.co.uk

Perhaps an issue that will get more important as the internet incorporates more age filtering capabilities. It is easy to see that porn images can be rated 18. But what age classification should be assigned to say non-porn text that acknowledges and celebrates gay BDSM? Based on article from collaredevents.com

Collared is a series of gay BDSM club nights and social events, and an associated online community Last week Facebook wrote to Collared to confirm that it was actively enforcing a total ban on all fetish and BDSM content and that all fetish related groups and pages on its site will be subject to deletion without exception. The Collared page was deleted by Facebook following a complaint from a site user. The deletion angered and mystified many Collared members and supporters. As a community non-profit organization with a well-known and proven focus on safety and socialization the Facebook page was used merely as a means of communication between members. There was no explicit imagery or sexual content of any kind and the page was secret. The Page strictly followed the Facebook Terms at and especially condition (3.7): You will not post content that: is hateful, threatening, or pornographic; incites violence; or contains nudity or graphic or gratuitous violence. Facebook explained that: Any content that is primarily related to sexual activities is deemed to be in breach whether or not the there are any overtly explicit photos on the Facebook page. This applies whether the content is a closed or open group and whatever the nature of the sexual activity. When it comes to fetish content this is generally regarded as always sexual rather than social in nature and removed from the site. This apparent policy should concern the entire fetish and BDSM community as it signals a discriminatory and inconsistent application of an unethical policy. However following extensive communication with senior staff of the company Collared has successfully lobbied the Internet giant to review the ban. Facebook is currently engaged in a wide ranging internal dialogue to clarify the prohibition and to determine whether a total ban is justified. Collared will be consulted throughout this process. Facebook has reiterated that the review process will not necessarily result in a reversal of the ban. Instead it may focus on creating greater consistency, clarity and transparency in the enforcement of the prohibition.