Zone1 This picture was banned on FaceBook

[BlackSand]

It is because they did not have a letter of the law exception which matched. They will have to add another exception which describes this case exactly because that's how legal positivism works. A never ending litany of rules and exceptions because they can't accept it not being in writing.

.

There were no rules violated ... The only rule they could write to make any violation possible would be ...
"The Rules and Policies we write aren't really Rules and Policies".

I mean I understand Frederic Bastiat's assertion that Laws beget more Laws ...
But there are no "Exceptions" when you have specifically detailed a Policy down to a point there is no way it can literally avoid the Stated Policy.

.​

 

[Muhammed]

What does that matter? YOU are still belittling someone for something YOU don't agree with. Just as they did.

That does seem a bit hypocritical to be so judgmental about another person for being judgmental.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I wasn't sure if this was the place to post this.

And I know some people on this board have an intense hatred of Facebook. I don't care about that.


The picture below was banned from Facebook because of a complaint from some uptight crazy woman.

View attachment 668831

The woman survived breast cancer. She had a double mastectomy. And then she had a lovely tattoo done to cover the scars of her life-saving loss.

How can some puritanical busybody object to such a picture of triumph?

We’re all thankful that the woman survived breast cancer; I have a family member who is a 20 plus year survivor.

But that’s not the issue.

Private social media are at liberty to edit content as they see fit – where how they edit content in no manner ‘violates’ free speech or free expression; it is not being a ‘puritanical busybody.’

Indeed, private social media may edit content as they see fit and determine who will or will not participate protected by the First Amendment right to freedom of the press and freedom of association.

 

[westwall]

We’re all thankful that the woman survived breast cancer; I have a family member who is a 20 plus year survivor.

But that’s not the issue.

Private social media are at liberty to edit content as they see fit – where how they edit content in no manner ‘violates’ free speech or free expression; it is not being a ‘puritanical busybody.’

Indeed, private social media may edit content as they see fit and determine who will or will not participate protected by the First Amendment right to freedom of the press and freedom of association.

The problem you have is there is clearly a parrnership between social media, and government.

Once that happened the social media companies are no longer private entities. They are now actively engaged in suppressing information that the goverment finds embarrasing, or refutes government claims.

Thus, no protection.

 

[WinterBorn]

What does that matter? YOU are still belittling someone for something YOU don't agree with. Just as they did.

If someone belittles the victim, I have no problem belittling them.

 

[WinterBorn]

So if a guy has a vasectomy then gets a tattoo, would the results be the same, or justified?

If he were to have to have his penis and balls removed to save his life from cancer? Yes, it would almost be the same thing.

 

[JoeMoma]

.

There were no rules violated ... The only rule they could write to make any violation possible would be ...
"The Rules and Policies we write aren't really Rules and Policies".

I mean I understand Frederic Bastiat's assertion that Laws beget more Laws ...
But there are no "Exceptions" when you have specifically detailed a Policy down to a point there is no way it can literally avoid the Stated Policy.

.​

Often, the minions that enforce the rules can be very subjective or perhaps not understand the rules themselves.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

WinterBorn

This was a mistake that actually does not align with their policy.

"We also restrict some images of female breasts if they include the nipple, but our intent is to allow images that are shared for medical or health purposes. We also allow photos of women actively engaged in breastfeeding or showing breasts with post-mastectomy scarring. We also allow photographs of paintings, sculptures and other art that depicts nude figures."

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

If he were to have to have his penis and balls removed to save his life from cancer? Yes, it would almost be the same thing.

But then the tattoo of the elephant wouldnt look as good....

 

[ding]

.

There were no rules violated ... The only rule they could write to make any violation possible would be ...
"The Rules and Policies we write aren't really Rules and Policies".

I mean I understand Frederic Bastiat's assertion that Laws beget more Laws ...
But there are no "Exceptions" when you have specifically detailed a Policy down to a point there is no way it can literally avoid the Stated Policy.

.​

Women can't show their chests can be the only reason.

 

[BlackSand]

Women can't show their chests can be the only reason.

.

There's no need to make something up that isn't stated in the policy ...
And pretend it applies when they have already addressed the exact type of photo in their policy.

They not only stated that there are conditions where they allow a woman to show her chest ...
But they specifically referenced post mastectomy photos as among the things they allow.

That's why I originally indicated it would be interesting to know why Facebook banned the picture ...
Because it doesn't violate their policy.

.​

 

[ding]

.

There's no need to make something up that isn't stated in the policy ...
And pretend it applies when they have already addressed the exact type of photo in their policy.

They not only stated that there are conditions where they allow a woman to show her chest ...
But they specifically referenced post mastectomy photos as among the things they allow.

.​

So according to your logic FB just randomly deleted the photo for no reason?

I don't think so. I think it's how they interpreted the rules.

 

[BlackSand]

So according to your logic FB just randomly deleted the photo for no reason?

I don't think so. I think it's how they interpreted the rules.

.

Exactly ... And their Rules and Policy have been posted in this thread twice (copied directly from their website).
It doesn't have anything to do with her showing her chest ... Because their Policy specifically states that she can show her chest in that manner.

That's why I was interested in understanding why they banned the photo ...
It's not my logic ... It's their words, they picked them, you cannot interpret them to mean something they don't ...

.​

 

[ding]

.

Exactly ... And their Rules and Policy have been posted in this thread twice (copied directly from their website).
It doesn't have anything to do with her showing her chest ... Because the policy specifically states that she can show her chest in that manner.

That's why I was interested in understanding why the banned the photo ...
It's not my logic ... It's their words, they picked them, you cannot interpret them to mean something they don't ...

.​

You are an idiot if you believe that FB randomly deleted that picture for no reason.

 

[BlackSand]

You are an idiot if you believe that FB randomly deleted that picture for no reason.

.

I never once indicated that Facebook randomly deleted the picture.
I have continuously indicated (from my first post in this thread) I was ... "interested in knowing why they deleted the photo".

Those words mean exactly what they mean as well ...

.​

 

[ding]

.

I never once indicated that Facebook randomly deleted the picture.
I have continuously indicated (from my first post in this thread) I was ... "interested in knowing why they deleted the photo".

Those words mean exactly what they mean as well ...

.​

 

[frigidweirdo]

I wasn't sure if this was the place to post this.

And I know some people on this board have an intense hatred of Facebook. I don't care about that.


The picture below was banned from Facebook because of a complaint from some uptight crazy woman.

View attachment 668831

The woman survived breast cancer. She had a double mastectomy. And then she had a lovely tattoo done to cover the scars of her life-saving loss.

How can some puritanical busybody object to such a picture of triumph?

A big problem with facebook, all it takes is one complain and the algorithms decide whether you're guilty or not.
But if you report someone who replies to a post with a sticker of a bell and a sticker saying "end", it won't get taken down.

Facebook sucks so badly.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Often, the minions that enforce the rules can be very subjective or perhaps not understand the rules themselves.

Usually because it's a computer doing it.

 

[EvilEyeFleegle]

I wasn't sure if this was the place to post this.

And I know some people on this board have an intense hatred of Facebook. I don't care about that.


The picture below was banned from Facebook because of a complaint from some uptight crazy woman.

View attachment 668831

The woman survived breast cancer. She had a double mastectomy. And then she had a lovely tattoo done to cover the scars of her life-saving loss.

How can some puritanical busybody object to such a picture of triumph?

I think that this is totally bad-ass..the tattoo, I mean.

The banning? Their house, their rules.

FYI--I've never had a FB account..nor will I.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

I wasn't sure if this was the place to post this.

And I know some people on this board have an intense hatred of Facebook. I don't care about that.


The picture below was banned from Facebook because of a complaint from some uptight crazy woman.

View attachment 668831

The woman survived breast cancer. She had a double mastectomy. And then she had a lovely tattoo done to cover the scars of her life-saving loss.

How can some puritanical busybody object to such a picture of triumph?

Jax did something on FB celebrating the visual of a women with a double masectomy.