Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by janrinok on Saturday January 21 2017, @11:58PM   Printer-friendly
from the overly-prudish-views dept.

An obligatory moment of bad press for Facebook and its censorship team comes to us from the St. Louis Post-Dispatch:

Facebook says it made a mistake in disabling the accounts of an artist who posted images of tattoos that she created for breast cancer survivors following reconstruction. "A member of our team accidentally removed something you posted on Facebook. This was a mistake, and we sincerely apologize for they error," the social media site said in a message to Kerry Soraci. "We've since restored the content, and you should now be able to see it."

The note came after a story about Soraci's accounts was posted on stltoday.com Thursday afternoon, which launched other media inquiries into why Facebook took the action it did. "It is really annoying that we have to go through the media to get them to respond!" Sorachi told the Post-Dispatch Friday morning.

Facebook had disabled Soarci's page, Tattoos by Kerry Soraci, on Dec. 30, saying it did not meet the social media site's "community standards." "Your account has been disabled for not following the Facebook Community Standards, and we won't be able to reactivate it," Facebook's Steven Parker wrote in a response to Soraci. "We disable accounts that solicit others or feature content that is sexually suggestive/contains nudity."


Original Submission

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Sunday January 22 2017, @12:10AM

    by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Sunday January 22 2017, @12:10AM (#457163) Journal

    That's why we force women to go to the restroom to breast feed their babies, right?

    /SARCASM ladies, that is sarcasm - I certainly don't believe breasts are dirty!

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 22 2017, @05:38AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 22 2017, @05:38AM (#457267)

      After having mouths on it all day and see if you still agree :)

      • (Score: 2) by davester666 on Sunday January 22 2017, @09:09AM

        by davester666 (155) on Sunday January 22 2017, @09:09AM (#457293)

        What the fuck are you doing to that baby? I hope someone from Child Services comes over and shines a light on your baby and if they find any lip marks anywhere near any of the babies genitals...well, your genitals should be removed...with a hacksaw...

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 22 2017, @12:10AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 22 2017, @12:10AM (#457164)

    Enjoy your centralized overlords.

    Go ahead. Report on their behavior; I'm sure your "journalism" will make a difference.

  • (Score: 0, Flamebait) by kurenai.tsubasa on Sunday January 22 2017, @12:14AM

    by kurenai.tsubasa (5227) on Sunday January 22 2017, @12:14AM (#457167) Journal

    Yep, it's a grand conspiracy by every assigned male that's ever touched a computer. Better retaliate, especially against those assigned males who are raping the female form!

    • (Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Sunday January 22 2017, @12:17AM

      by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Sunday January 22 2017, @12:17AM (#457169) Journal

      For someone who wants to be a woman you sure seem to hate us. I see shit come out of you I'd expect to hear in some frat house.

      --
      I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 22 2017, @12:30AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 22 2017, @12:30AM (#457179)

        Welcome to the alt-right version of queer theory.

      • (Score: 2, Insightful) by kurenai.tsubasa on Sunday January 22 2017, @01:11AM

        by kurenai.tsubasa (5227) on Sunday January 22 2017, @01:11AM (#457202) Journal

        Want has nothing to do with it. One teacher even let it slip to me during a group punishment that I didn't act like a boy. Of course, when I was 7, I had no idea that that women viewed such a thing as the equivalent of rape.

        I'm fully expecting retaliation from what the Trump administration is going to do, because that's what you cisgendered women do. Consistently. You can't retaliate against somebody in power, so you retaliate against somebody you can. I let it take me by surprise last time.

        Why not retaliate against women who believe that you shouldn't have the right to an abortion? I'm pro-choice but like fuck that matters. Why not retaliate against women who actually voted for Trump? I voted for Clinton but like fuck that matters. Why not retaliate against women who don't believe you should have access to preventative health services unless it's ok with your employer? I'm not foolish with my money so I'd rather my taxes pay for that but like fuck that matters.

        A lame attempt to be on topic: Why not retaliate against the person who came down on that tattoo artist even if they're a woman?! Especially if they're a woman. How on earth does it do you any good to retaliate against assigned males when there are so many people assigned the female gender at birth who have every disgusting misogynist attitude you can image?!

        Once again, my mind control powers fail me. I can't stop the boy in the back of the class from being disruptive, but you punish me anyway. I can't stop the asshole who's putting XTC in drinks on campus, but you make it clear to me that if I'm anywhere near to a woman who may months later claim date rape at the supposed time of the incident, my ass is grass and I've just flushed several thousand dollars down the toilet. I CAN'T STOP FACEBOOK FROM BEING DIPSHITS ABOUT BREAST CANCER. I COULDN'T STOP IT LAST TIME. I COULDN'T STOP IT THIS TIME. I COULDN'T PREVENT THE END OF ROE V. WADE. I COULDN'T FORCE WOMEN TO VOTE FOR CLINTON. I COULDN'T DO JACK SHIT, SO FUCK YOU .

        • (Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Sunday January 22 2017, @01:17AM

          by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Sunday January 22 2017, @01:17AM (#457203) Journal

          Good grief. March your ass over to the medicine cabinet and take a benadryl, then sleep this off. You are in no shape for further internetting tonight.

          --
          I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
          • (Score: 1) by kurenai.tsubasa on Sunday January 22 2017, @03:59AM

            by kurenai.tsubasa (5227) on Sunday January 22 2017, @03:59AM (#457250) Journal

            What will sleep change? Think I'm drunk or something?

            • (Score: 2) by SomeGuy on Sunday January 22 2017, @05:35AM

              by SomeGuy (5632) on Sunday January 22 2017, @05:35AM (#457265)

              After Friday's inauguration, why wouldn't one be drunk?

              Between all the ranting, there is a completely valid point. Intolerance toward minorities such as race, gender, religion (including atheist) and even intellectual is very likely to increase. Sort of a chemical reaction between those who can't do anything about who is in power, and how who is in power more than condones it.

              Walmart is prepping to put the torches and pitchforks on sale...

              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 22 2017, @05:44AM

                by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 22 2017, @05:44AM (#457268)

                Now IS the time to be sober, unless you plan to go down with a sinking ship.

                While the unity concept is right, the problem right now is there has been a polarization in America that we are not going to see dissolve in our lifetimes, perhaps ever. this: https://xkcd.com/1127/ [xkcd.com] succinctly points out why. While the exact demographic split has changed over time, it really shows how the bipolar split in America has continued unabated for almost 250 years.

                Given the laws being pushed on both the conservative and liberal sides there will not be a 'Constitutionally Protected' American life to be had in the next 16 years if there ever was.

                You have nothing to hide, but if you walk around nude, you're going to prison. -- Sums up what is wrong with America today.

    • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Sunday January 22 2017, @12:30AM

      by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Sunday January 22 2017, @12:30AM (#457178) Journal

      conspiracy . . . assigned male . . . computer . . . retaliate . . . raping

      It kinda sorta almost makes some kinda sense.

      Simpler to say that our society has a perverse view of breasts. See my post above ^ I don't understand it. All of us liked breasts when we were infants. Something happens to some of us as we mature, and we see breasts as dirty, shameful, some kind of burden that needs to be kept hidden. It's just plain stupid.

      • (Score: 0, Troll) by Ethanol-fueled on Sunday January 22 2017, @12:39AM

        by Ethanol-fueled (2792) on Sunday January 22 2017, @12:39AM (#457186) Homepage

        The fear of exposed breasts originated in early Islam because its followers were prone to excessive rapes when having viewed bare breasts. They are animals with no self-control and the only way they can keep themselves from feeling urges to rape is to wrap their women in beach-towels from head to toe.

        • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Sunday January 22 2017, @12:46AM

          by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Sunday January 22 2017, @12:46AM (#457188) Journal

          I think you missed it, EF. Puritan prudes in northern Europe weren't overly influenced by Islam. Take another look at the history of European colonization. We met a lot of peoples around the world who felt no shame about exposing their breasts. But, Europeans treated those people like savages, or animals. Europeans beat those people into submission, forcing their women to hide their breasts. I don't think you can blame Islam for all this crazy shit. There is plenty of other crazy shit we CAN blame on Islam.

      • (Score: 1) by kurenai.tsubasa on Sunday January 22 2017, @04:03AM

        by kurenai.tsubasa (5227) on Sunday January 22 2017, @04:03AM (#457251) Journal

        I forgot to provide the citation. A feminist once said, “All transsexuals rape women’s bodies by reducing the real female form to an artifact, appropriating this body for themselves [rationalwiki.org].”

        See also this documentary [imdb.com] about transSEXuals.

        • (Score: 1) by kurenai.tsubasa on Sunday January 22 2017, @04:15AM

          by kurenai.tsubasa (5227) on Sunday January 22 2017, @04:15AM (#457256) Journal

          Also note that this isn't Facebook's first time [theguardian.com] giving somebody involved with breast cancer in some way the banhammer.

          If there's one rule that's been figuratively bashed into my skull, it's that people who aren't born with a womb are expressly forbidden from even talking about breast cancer. Bringing down the banhammer, not once, but twice (that I know of)… there's going to be retaliation.

  • (Score: 3, Informative) by shortscreen on Sunday January 22 2017, @12:39AM

    by shortscreen (2252) on Sunday January 22 2017, @12:39AM (#457185) Journal

    127.0.0.1 www.facebook.com

  • (Score: 2, Interesting) by butthurt on Sunday January 22 2017, @12:48AM

    by butthurt (6141) on Sunday January 22 2017, @12:48AM (#457191) Journal

    The artist described the photos as showing "what looks like nipples." That makes me somewhat uncertain what the photos actually showed. My impression is that they showed women's breasts after significant amounts of tissue had been surgically removed, and after the artist had applied tattoos to them. "What looks like nipples," I'm guessing, were photos of nipples. That, in my opinion, is nudity. This looks to me like Facebook correctly followed their policy, then reversed themselves when it proved controversial. Previous examples were the "napalm girl" photo and the Italian statue (can't be arsed to look them up, but we had stories about those). They seem to be striking a balance that minimises lawsuits from people whose nudes were posted against their wishes, advertisers who don't wish to be associated with smut, and bad press from suppression of nudity that has a high-minded purpose. As much as I despise Facebook, I hesitate to condemn them here.

    • (Score: 3, Informative) by Runaway1956 on Sunday January 22 2017, @12:59AM

      by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Sunday January 22 2017, @12:59AM (#457195) Journal

      "What looks like nipples," I'm guessing, were photos of nipples.

      "What looks like nipples", I'm fairly sure, are tats that look convincingly like nipples. That is, the nipples are gone, but if the lady allowed you to see her breasts, you would believe (at least initially) that she had normal breasts, aureoles, and nipples. The visual may fail after a few moments, or not. An actual inspection would fail. And, the touch test would certainly fail. But, casual viewing would leave you believing that her anatomy was complete and correct.

      • (Score: 2, Informative) by Ethanol-fueled on Sunday January 22 2017, @01:46AM

        by Ethanol-fueled (2792) on Sunday January 22 2017, @01:46AM (#457211) Homepage

        This [dailymail.co.uk] is likely what the article is about. I don't understand what all the fuss is about, it basically looks like the upper torso of a man.

        I'm guessing the censor was more put-off by the scars rather than the nipples, and/or confused it for some kind of fetishistic mutilation (known as BME).

        My Grandma actually had both of her boobs removed. First one, then the other. And she was more than happy to show anybody who was curious, often unbuttoning her shirt on the spot to brag about her battle-scars. I guess surviving the Great Depression will do that to a person.

        • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday January 22 2017, @03:43AM

          by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Sunday January 22 2017, @03:43AM (#457245) Journal

          https://www.facebook.com/kerry.soraci?pnref=story [facebook.com]

          Scroll down. Some images are obviously entirely "innocent", others are very convincing portrayals of breasts. Scroll far enough, you'll find a couple before and after photos. She can take a man-looking chest, and put very convincing images onto it.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 22 2017, @05:15AM

            by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 22 2017, @05:15AM (#457260)

            Thank you both. I get it now.

            --
            butthurt

        • (Score: 1) by Chrontius on Monday January 23 2017, @01:25AM

          by Chrontius (5246) on Monday January 23 2017, @01:25AM (#457505)

          I'm guessing the censor was more put-off by the scars rather than the nipples, and/or confused it for some kind of fetishistic mutilation (known as BME).

          I'm going to correct you here - BME is the Body-Modification E-Zine, a website that publishes photos and descriptions, testimonials and videos about a broad range of body-modification. Some of it is decorative, some of it is fetishized, and some of it is medical in nature.

      • (Score: 3, Informative) by purple_cobra on Sunday January 22 2017, @02:30PM

        by purple_cobra (1435) on Sunday January 22 2017, @02:30PM (#457336)

        This from the POV of an administration worker in the UK's NHS, so of course all other countries/healthcare services will vary...
        Post-mastectomy, women should (if appropriate to their individual case) be offered the option of reconstructive surgery and a nipple tattoo is part of that. Having one or both breasts removed is traumatic and a bare minimum reconstruction - i.e. a breast without a nipple - can make them feel just as bad as there being no breast there at all because it looks fake. It's a pretty specialised branch of the tattoo artists' work but it brings a worthwhile amount of psychological benefit to women who have had breast tissue removed. From a purely financial point of view, this is money well-spent as it helps to prevent issues with depression related to body image. It's also the right thing to do in terms of helping the patient through what is a shitty experience.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 22 2017, @03:26AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 22 2017, @03:26AM (#457239)

      I don't care if they showed nipples or not; Facebook is worthless and prudish (same thing really) if they have rules against that to begin with. But really, absolutely no one should be using that massive surveillance engine to begin with.

    • (Score: 2) by wonkey_monkey on Sunday January 22 2017, @12:22PM

      by wonkey_monkey (279) on Sunday January 22 2017, @12:22PM (#457316) Homepage

      That, in my opinion, is nudity.

      I'm a guy, and I have what look like nipples...

      --
      systemd is Roko's Basilisk
      • (Score: 1) by butthurt on Monday January 23 2017, @12:27AM

        by butthurt (6141) on Monday January 23 2017, @12:27AM (#457491) Journal

        I hadn't understood that the tattoos were intended to resemble nipples. I do understand that men can get breast cancer. I'm glad you're all right (?).

        • (Score: 3, Funny) by wonkey_monkey on Monday January 23 2017, @08:15AM

          by wonkey_monkey (279) on Monday January 23 2017, @08:15AM (#457568) Homepage

          Oh, no, the things I have which look like nipples are actually nipples.

          PS nipples

          --
          systemd is Roko's Basilisk
  • (Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 22 2017, @04:34AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 22 2017, @04:34AM (#457257)

    Runaway, Eth, and kurenai, discussing tits? And fake tits? Oh boy, this will end well! I will just kind of slip out this exit here, just pretend I was never even here. I know that I wish that I could.