Tuesday, March 15, 2016

I really don't understand Facebook.


I really don't understand Facebook.

WARNING: The attached image may be upsetting to some.

27 comments:

  1. Ah, come on. It’s not Facebook you don’t understand. Forget about what makes sense, forget about what you think: you live in this society, and surely you must recognize that if they’re enforcing “community standards,” that this makes total sense? They removed the image that a lot of people found offensive, and didn’t remove the one that far fewer people found offensive.

    It’s not Facebook you don’t understand; it’s the society that finds the top image more offensive than the bottom one. But you know that it does.

    This is why “community standards” are bullshit. This is why being “offended” isn’t a real thing that I care about. If you allow that someone being “offended” is something that should silence someone else, then all is already lost—because other people are always, always going to be offended by the “wrong” thing, by your standards.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I went through the training for Google employees and contractors on how to enforce terms of service regarding sex and porn. It was all self-consistent, but it didn't match my personal conclusions. It's hard to automate this.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I recently got a telling of on Facebook, for a picture I posted of Melanie Knauss a lesbian porn star, she was not even naked, but laying cuddling another woman. It took 2 hours, from posting to removal. Melanie Knauss became Mrs Trump.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Steve S so what is the coaxiality around which terms of service can be reliably enforced? Is there a web page explaining this, because the old "I know it when I see it" clearly isn't very specific ;-)

    ReplyDelete
  5. I was going to share my thoughts on this, but because of Jeremy Nixon​, my comment would be superfluous.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Society isn't to blame when the business in question acts responsibly. Having manual oversight with clear directives is not difficult.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I checked out of Facebook a few years ago because, to me, it lacked interesting Dialogue and Civility.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Matt Schofield I don't believe I can discuss these details because it would make it too easy for people to dance right up to the line.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Steve S very interesting. OK, here's my take. If it's related to a medieval hagiography about someone being martyred, it's not porn, so blood and guts are just fine. If it's related to any pre-Christian tradition and involves people apparently being comfortable with their bodies or having fun, it is clearly porn, and that includes photos of women shamefully feeding their babies.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Matt Schofield Right, any rules can't be based solely on simple criteria like whether various body parts are displayed. There have to be exceptions for things like breastfeeding and art.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Steve S my distinction is precisely between sacred and profane art. Sacred art involves blood and guts. Profane art involves anything fun.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Matt Schofield Art is art. Pretty hard to make rules depending on the type of art.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Steve S​ my point is that most images are created in a context of two different artistic traditions. Images that tap into Christian traditions of saintly martyrdom, like the unpleasant lower image, aren't considered titillating because they were originally part of sacred art. Images of nudity following profane pagan traditions revived in the Renaissance are considered titillating. Porn isn't very inventive, as the typical porn dialog illustrates. It hits well-known buttons hard.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Matt Schofield As a rule, porn avoids the sort of skill and subtlety required for art.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Steve S that's not true in the slightest bit. Modern porn involves quite a bit of art from the set design down to the makeup. And don't forget that much of the classic art was porn for the day.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Steve Bertolacci Set design? Oh, you mean the house they rented for the day and used as-is? Makeup? Oh, you mean hiding distracting imperfections that might soften your boner? Please.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Steve S , you miss all the subtlety if you really can't tell the difference. The really successful outfits have distinctive styles. And distinctive style is just another term for art. And just like anything considered modern art, the acceptance of it is limited.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Steve Bertolacci A big part of art is intent. Porn, by definition, is primarily about titillating. It's not trying to invoke anything deeper or more subtle, to communicate anything more profound.

    Art can also titillate and you're right that classic art has always had some of that mixed in. However, there's a difference between part and whole.

    Also, note that I said that it's a rule, not a universal. There are more artistic types of porn out there. They're just buried under a flood of close-ups of moving skin tones.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Steve S​ , art among many things is about many things, but what defines art is nothing more than something inspiring any emotion.

    ReplyDelete
  20. And yes, you fail art appreciation class.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Steve Bertolacci And you fail porn appreciation class.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Steve S real art disrupts the way we see the world. It remakes the world for us. Porn doesn't - it reinforces what we were expecting, detaches us further from the objects we are viewing

    ReplyDelete
  23. Matt Schofield Yes, including prejudices. Consider the role of black men in porn.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Porn is nothing more than what your society considers taboo. In Saudi Arabia, that showing ankles.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Steve Bertolacci No, porn is pure titillation.

    ReplyDelete

Now I'm doubly intrigued!

Now I'm doubly intrigued!