Re: Facebook breastfeeding ban
On Dec 10, 2010, at 6:11 PM, Jon Louis Mann wrote: I have never heard of a Facebook rule outlawing pictures of women breast feeding in public. I don't know of any publicly stated rule, but I do know photos of women topless tend to vanish fairly quickly, and I'm certain of it in the cases where the photos show visible nipples. I also know that any image can at any time be "reported" by anyone seeing it, and my suspicion is that it's less of an outright policy than it is a matter of how many people complain -- although i know of a few images that disappeared even though they were privacy-restricted in such a way that the only possible audience was clothing-optional-aware and I doubt there were any complaints to speak of, so I may very well be wrong. The rules seem to be somewhat variable, and the only consistent cases seem to be ones with one or both nipples visible. I know of one friend who has pushed that about as close to the limit as they seem to tolerate -- the one of her in *only* a skirt and pasties is still up, as far as I know. Again, for the audience in question, unlikely to be objectionable. Hard to say. It's like probing a black box in some ways .. ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Facebook breastfeeding ban
On 11/12/2010, at 11:11 AM, Jon Louis Mann wrote: > > > NO way was she fully dressed! (although her nipples > were covered) I have never heard of a Facebook rule > outlawing pictures of women breast feeding in public. > Are you certain this, Alberto? http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/01/02/breastfeeding-facebook-photos/ They have a policy of removing pictures of people breastfeeding. Charlie. ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Facebook breastfeeding ban
>> Alberto, are you saying it's okay to use >> obscenities on this list, rather than censor >> speech, no matter who may be offended by it? >> Jon > I didn't say that. What I said is that only > sociopaths, perverts and babykillers can think > that breastfeeding is obscene. Alberto, I am curious why your reaction is so harsh? Breast feeding in public is not porn, but I do not feel that someone who objects to it, or considers it inappropriate is a sociopath, pervert or baby killer. Nor do I feel that ONLY sociopaths, perverts and babykillers can think breastfeeding is obscene. Would you agree that it is in bad taste to use foul language, even though it is an expression of free speech that some feel is disrespectful and offensive, or are they just prudes who don't deserve to have an opinion? > A very beautiful image, full of meanings. She's > an animal rights activist, isn't she? I can't think > of a better way to express the idea of the imorality > of killing pigs than showing that they are like us. > and another picture of the Google model: > http://www.iamboredr.com/media/1645/Boobs/ > The girl is fully clothed, what's the point? > Alberto Monteiro NO way was she fully dressed! (although her nipples were covered) I have never heard of a Facebook rule outlawing pictures of women breast feeding in public. Are you certain this, Alberto? >> I found some even more perverted pictures on FB, >> but out of respect for Debbie, I won't put those up. > So you don't think any of the other women (or > maybe even some men) on the list would be offended? > Debbie (and only Debbie) has to be protected? . . . ronn! :) You got me there Ronn!~) Apologies for singling you out Debi, although you are the only woman who commented. I have spotted a few brinlisters who have jumped ship over to Dr. Brin's Facebook page, where the discussion can get rather heated. If David is on FB, it's can't be that bad!~) Jon ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Titties on Facebook
On 11/12/2010, at 1:35 AM, Ronn! Blankenship wrote: And various types of "net nanny" software block and report any search for any string containing the word "breast," even though that may prevent a woman from learning about how to examine herself for cancer or about her options if she is diagnosed, primarily to keep junior-high-school-age males from using the computers in the school or public library to search for titillating images (p.i.), because whether one agrees or not, ...or, indeed, from recipes for chicken curry... Charlie. ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Titties on Facebook
Jon Louis Mann wrote: > > HOWEVER, just for you, Alberto, I did find this picture > on FB, of a hottie suckling a piglet at her breast: > http://www.shoutmouth.com/index.php/news/Greatest_Cleavage_in_Music_History?page=7 > A very beautiful image, full of meanings. She's an animal rights activist, isn't she? I can't think of a better way to express the idea of the imorality of killing pigs than showing that they are like us. > and another picture of the Google model: > http://www.iamboredr.com/media/1645/Boobs/ > The girl is fully clothed, what's the point? Alberto Monteiro ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Titties on Facebook
At 01:46 AM Friday 12/10/2010, Jon Louis Mann wrote: > Yes, I am a hater of censorship. But it's not fun > to get _here_ and distill hate against Iran's or > China's censorship. > Alberto Monteiro > How is different than, say, guidelines that > discourage obscenities on a mailing list? > Doug > Because breastfeeding is not obscene - as those sociopaths > and perverts that own Facebook think, and try hard to push > this evil and babykilling meme into children and their > mothers. > Alberto Monteiro Alberto, are you saying it's okay to use obscenities on this list, rather than censor speech, no matter who may be offended by it? I disagree with you that the owners of FB are evil perverts and baby killers because they choose to respect the morals of some of their users who are offended by breast feeding pictures. I'm sure they personally don't have a moral position on breast feeding, but are going along with it for business reasons. I just don't understand why it is such an issue. What is going on with Wikileaks is a far more important issue of government censorship. The people who own FB can do whatever they want. They probably figure they will gain more users than if they allowed rampant porn on FB. My guess is that they are doing it because the laws in many locations across the U.S. at least used to (and probably still in some locations: there are any number of lists, many predating the Internet, of outdated laws that sound ridiculous to people today but are still on the books) say that having any part of the [female] nipple or areola (or in at least one case I heard of, "any differently-pigmented portion of the female breast," which perhaps applies to women with birthmarks or perhaps even tan lines) is legally considered "obscene" or "public indecency" or something like that. Not so much to discourage women from breastfeeding their infants, but to prevent them from walking around town or performing in various "gentlemen's clubs" topless. And various types of "net nanny" software block and report any search for any string containing the word "breast," even though that may prevent a woman from learning about how to examine herself for cancer or about her options if she is diagnosed, primarily to keep junior-high-school-age males from using the computers in the school or public library to search for titillating images (p.i.), because whether one agrees or not, or whether one objects to health information being unintentionally censored, it is still the law in most locations that such images must be kept out of the possible view of minors under the age of 18. (Hence why "Playboy" and other such "men's magazines" are generally kept behind the counter, or in a separate section of the book/magazine store, and only available for sale to adults who ask for them, at least in some states/cities.) I found some even more perverted pictures on FB, but out of respect for Debbie, I won't put those up. So you don't think any of the other women (or maybe even some men) on the list would be offended? Debbie (and only Debbie) has to be protected? . . . ronn! :) ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Titties on Facebook
Jon Louis Mann wrote: > >> Because breastfeeding is not obscene - as those sociopaths >> and perverts that own Facebook think, and try hard to push >> this evil and babykilling meme into children and their >> mothers. > > Alberto, are you saying it's okay to use obscenities on > this list, rather than censor speech, no matter who may > be offended by it? > I didn't say that. What I said is that only sociopaths, perverts and babykillers can think that breastfeeding is obscene. > I disagree with you that the owners > of FB are evil perverts and baby killers because they > choose to respect the morals of some of their users > who are offended by breast feeding pictures. I'm sure > they personally don't have a moral position on breast > feeding, but are going along with it for business reasons. > I just don't understand why it is such an issue. What is > going on with Wikileaks is a far more important issue of > government censorship. The people who own FB can do whatever > they want. They probably figure they will gain more users > than if they allowed rampant porn on FB. > Except that breastfeeding is not porn. Alberto Monteiro ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
