|
Facebook (Privacy and Censorship) 
Facebook is a social networking
service and
website launched in February 2004, operated and privately owned by
Facebook Inc. It now has more than 900 million active
users. Users must register before using the site, after which they
may create a personal profile, add other users as friends, and exchange messages, including automatic
notifications when they update their profile. Additionally, users
may join common-interest user groups, organized by workplace, school
or college, or other characteristics, and categorize their friends
into lists such as 'People From Work' or 'Close Friends'. The name
of the service stems from the colloquial name for the
book given to
students at the start of the academic year by some university
administrations in the United States to help students get to know
each other. Facebook allows any users who declare themselves to be
at least 13 years old to become registered users of the
site
Facebook
was founded by Mark Zuckerberg with his college roommates and fellow students
The Web site's membership was initially limited by the founders to
Harvard students, but was expanded to other colleges in the Boston
area, It gradually added support for students at various other
universities before opening to high school students, and eventually
to anyone aged 13 and over. However, there are 7.5 million children
under 13 with accounts and 5 million under 10, violating the site's
terms of service
Facebook
is the most used social networking service worldwide and how on
earth did we stalk our exes, remember our co-workers' birthdays, bug
our friends, and play a rousing game of 'Scrabulous' before Facebook? Facebook has 139 million
monthly unique US visitors in May 2011 and an estimated 41per
cent of the US population had a Facebook account. Nevertheless,
Facebook's market growth started to stall in some regions, with the
site losing 7 million active users in the US and Canada in May 2011
Facebook filed for an initial public offering in Feb 2012
Users can
create profiles with photos, lists of personal interests, contact
information, and other personal information. Users can communicate
with friends and other users through private or public messages and
a chat feature. They can also create and join interest groups and
'like pages' (called 'fan pages' until April 2010) some of which are
maintained by organizations as a means of advertising. A 2012 Pew
Internet and American Life study identified that between 20 to30 per
cent of Facebook users are 'power users' who frequently link,
poke, post and tag themselves and others
To allay
concerns about privacy, Facebook enables users to choose their own
privacy settings and choose who can see specific parts of their
profile. The Web site is free to users, and generates revenue from
advertising, such as banner ads. Facebook requires a user's name and profile
picture (if applicable) to be accessible by everyone. Users can
control who sees other information they have shared, as well as who
can find them in searches, through their privacy settings
In Nov 2011,
several Facebook users reported that their accounts were hacked and
their profile pictures were replaced with pornographic images. For
more than a week, users news feeds were spammed with pornographic,
violent and sexual contents. It has been reported that more than
200,000 accounts in Bangalore, India were hacked. Facebook has denied the
claims, citing that safety of the users was on the top of their
priority list
There has
been much user discontent over Facebook's mandatory changeover to
the new Timeline profile. Some Facebook users reported
discontent with having many Facebook status updates and photos from
the past easily visible
|
US with 152.5 million members -
India 43.5 million members - Indonesia 43.1 million
members
Brazil with 37.9 million members -
Mexico with 32.0
million members
Also 5 million children under 13 with
accounts, and 5 million under 10 violating the site's terms of
service
Facebook is now the primary method for
communication by college students in the
US |
Mark
Zuckerberg Inside Facebook In just seven years, Mark Zuckerberg has gone
from his Harvard college dorm to running a business with 800 million
users, and a possible value of $100 billion. His
idea to make the world more open and connected
has sparked a revolution in communication, and now looks set to have
a huge impact on business too
Evolution of a Social
Superpower History of Facebook, a look at how a company
went from start up to Internet titan, and changed the way the world
uses the Web in the process
Privacy
Facebook collects as much data from its
visitors as Google and Microsoft, but considerably less than
Yahoo In 2010, the security team began
epanding its efforts to reduce the risks to users privacy but privacy concerns remain. On November 6, 2007, Facebook launched
Facebook Beacon , which was a failed attempt to advertise to
friends of users using the knowledge of what purchases friends
made.Facebook's usage of its users data is now under close
scrutiny
Updating data sharing
policy An attempt to give us more clarity on how they
use information they share, They are notifying more than 900 million
users of the changes through advertisements around
the site and on its mobile apps. Users who want to dig deeper can
read a version of
the policy that highlights the changes word by word
Membership Register and join here now
.
Facebook
Censorship
How Facebook decides what content is to be published and
what is to be banned has intrigued many users. Some light has now
been shed on this issue. A document in
this regard has been leaked to a company to which some of this
business is outsourced by Facebook. The document shows that there are
fairly strict guidelines about what is permissible and what is not,
although these guidelines can also be quite confusing
It
has been found that gory images such as those showing deep wounds or
crushed limbs are allowed. Of course, these images of crushed limbs
or such should not include a view of any internal organs. On the
other hand, pictures showing nipples, including of breast feeding
mothers are not allowed. Any
form of sexual activity is also banned even if the sexual parts are
covered. In contrast, foreplay even between same sex individuals is
allowed, though Facebook has historically displayed a degree
of bias
against gay and lesbian themed images
There is
some confusion with regards to material regarding drugs. It is
alright to show a picture of a person using marijuana but it is not
acceptable to show a drunk or unconscious person.
Guns are not
mentioned in this document. While Facebook doesn’t allow advertisers
to promote firearms or weapons, neither the content policy document
nor the 'Statement of Rights and Responsibilities' provide any
indication about whether Facebook condones or disallows promotion of
guns and weapons organically by users
While
Facebook monitors some of the sensitive material itself, some of
their content moderation work is
outsourced. This is
understandable, considering the amount of material that is uploaded
on Facebook by their 840 million users
On the
other hand, how they maintain the privacy of their users when they
outsource this material is debatable. Even though Facebook says that
they do not part with user information, a disgruntled employee of
the outsourcing company, said he was able to link content to users’
identities.This only
means that users should be careful not to upload material that they
would rather not have others see, even for private viewing. They may
say comments are irrelevant or
inappropriate and will
prompt you
saying that your comment can’t be posted. Commenter’s toss
around the very touchy censorship word.
.
Facebook banned
this website We
were puzzled and totally rejected all their allegations, as they
were
unfair and totally unjustified. But we didnt know what to do or who
to contact. We eventually
overcame this problem after a lot of research,work and enquiry. Many
thanks to our webhost Atspace for their advise, support
and help. We simply changed from a free sub domain name to our own
unique domain www.fleurcom.org
giving us full access without restriction to Facebook
and
Google
.
Project
Censored They examine the coverage of news and
information important to the maintenance of a healthy and
functioning democracy. They define Modern Censorship as the subtle yet
constant and sophisticated manipulation of reality in our mass media
outlets. On a daily basis, censorship refers to the intentional
non-inclusion of a news story or piece of a news story based on
anything other than a desire to tell the truth. Such manipulation
can take the form of political pressure (from government officials
and powerful individuals), economic
pressure (from advertisers and funders), and legal pressure (the
threat of lawsuits from deep pocket individuals, corporations, and
institutions). In
their view, the only valid justification for declining a news story is that in a medium
limited by time and space, another news story was simply more
important to the people of the community, whether local, national or
international
 .
Facebook Censorship
Problem Facebook removed a photo of two men
kissing from a user’s Wall due to an apparent violation of the
site’s terms of service
They wrote
that 'Content that you shared on Facebook has been
removed because it violated Facebook’s 'Statement of Rights and
Responsibilities'. Shares that contain nudity, or any kind of
graphic or sexually suggestive content, are not permitted on
Facebook. This message serves as a warning. Additional
violations may result in the termination of your account. Please
read the 'Statement of Rights and Responsibilities' carefully and
refrain from posting abusive material in the future. Thanks in
advance for your understanding and cooperation'
This act of censorship has received
considerable attention. Certainly, it
is within Facebook’s right to try to control the type of content
shared on its platform, and there are some social good to be gained
through content filtering and censorship (i.e. you might want to
censor child porn, or links to malware sites, etc)
But there are
some fundamental concerns with this case, that point to a growing
censorship problem within Facebook
First, the message sent to the user
indicated that 'Shares that contain nudity, or any kind of
graphic or sexually suggestive content, are not permitted on
Facebook' However, if you review the site’s much lauded
Statement of Rights and
Responsibilities that
particular language is not present. The Statement does include the
directive that you will not post content that: is hateful,
threatening, or pornographic; incites violence; or contains nudity
or graphic or gratuitous violence. Again, this is
probably a reasonable restriction (although not completely without
controversy) That said, nowhere in the Rights statement does it
prohibit, or suggest a prohibition, on 'sexually suggestive' content
as it merely restricts pornography and nudity. Therefore, not
only does Facebook misquote its own 'Statement of Rights and
Responsibilities' to the user when justifying the removal of
content, it misapplies the statement
Elsewhere, in the site’s Community Standards page (and I’m not sure how Facebook has
resolved the attitudes and preferences of a community of 800 million
users into a single shared set of standards) it notes
that they have a strict no nudity or pornography policy
and say that any content that is inappropriately sexual will be
removed. Again, the photo includes neither nudity
nor pornography. How it violates the community standards remains
baffling
Let’s assume for a moment that the Statement
does include mention of 'sexually suggestive' content as mentioned
in the warning to the user. Does the photo in question fit that
description? Two fully clothed adult men kissing in public? While
the image does convey emotions and affection, and perhaps might
elicit arousal for some, the image is really no different from the
thousands (millions?) of similar images of male female kisses
that exist on Facebook. Why this is considered ‘sexually suggestive’
to such an extent that it mandates removal is beyond
me
It
appears that this removal was done by a (at least one) human being,
and not by some automated process or algorithm. The original contributor
provides a screencap of a
description in Facebook’s help page answering the question 'Does
Facebook remove everything that gets reported?' The answer provided
indicates that a Facebook administrator looks into each
report thoroughly in order to decide the appropriate course of
action. Based on this, it appears that a human took a
look at that photo, and decided it was indeed sexually suggestive or
pornographic, and then removed it. I think I’d almost rather it had
been an algorithm, as it is quite troubling that a Facebook admin,
wielding such power would arrive at this
conclusion
If
we assume that a human is indeed deciding what is'sexually
suggestive' and removing photos based on his/her judgment, who is
this person (or team of people), and what standards are being used?
I’ve already done pretty simple searches on Facebook and
found plenty of images much more
sexually suggestive than this one (including nudity) and these all
remain. What does “sexually
suggestive” even mean? Just suggesting the existence of human
sexuality in general? Does a hug with a contemporary sex symbol
count?
Seriously, though, while the desire to restrict nudity and
pornography is reasonable, a standard of 'sexually suggestive' is
almost impossible to define, and apply evenly across 600 million
users, each with their own sexual predilections
Now, there are reports that Facebook has
apologized and restored the image. A statement from Facebook is
provided in the Advocate Saying that the photo in question does not
violate their Statement of Rights and Responsibilities and was
removed in error. They apologised for the inconvenience
and that’s it. No blog posts, press releases, or
broader explanation by Facebook on how such an 'error' happened,
what kind of content review processes are in place, or any promise
to take better care. This lack of proper communication and
contrition is very disappointing, but not really surprising
.
Censorship by Becca
Calvert I had a discussion recently with
someone on twitter who is a controversial artist. They explained all
the forms of censorship which I agreed with in their accuracy of
identifying them. They also went onto further say how a lot of it
becomes embedded into society without citizens realizing and
therefore continue its mindset inadvertently and most times without
recognizing it’s occurring
I
always considered myself a fairly open minded and accepting person
and the more I thought about it the more I realized that I was
myself a victim of this mindset. I understood that what they talked
about was very true and it is embedded into our not just society as
a whole but to the independent person as well. I thought oh, wow ! I'm so contradicting myself,
and how can I expect to really truly be free or think I live in a
free country if I, and others impose our own ideas onto others
without respecting the reverse
I
know Jai had mentioned the issue of censorship but I hadn't really let the full
meaning of it to be fully understood because of my own engrained
justifying against it. I think what really set it in tho was a
discussion I had with another person on twitter where I criticized
them for quoting a phony band and the question arises what right I
had to tell them not to and ironically my response was the same
right that have you to quote it in the first place. You don't have
to like it or agree but I'm allowed to as much as
you
So, then I got to thinking about this issue and
realized, ooh wow I was not being fair and society won't be, if we
can't accept everyone’s values and opinions and in whatever form that comes in. That my
freedoms of expression will only be preserved if we work to allow
all of them and it’s a duty to uphold this ideal and principle no
matter how against it I may be otherwise it’s a farce and it doesn't
really truly exist
..
Breastfeeding Mums Facebook
Bans
Over 400 Facebook users have had images of breastfeeding taken
down. They are just doing a normal and natural thing but
they’re told they're performing sexually explicit and pornographic
acts. Facebook said that their policies strive to fit the needs
of a diverse community while respecting everyone's interest in
sharing content that is important to them, including experiences
related to breastfeeding
Women around
the world decided to tell the site to grow up. They are staging
protests in order to get Facebook to change its longstanding
policies against breast-feeding pictures. Ms Allen said that
Facebook didn’t actually give her reason over banned
photos. Lucy Allen, was locked out of her Facebook
account for two days after she uploaded a photo of herself
breastfeeding and pumping milk at the same time. She said the social
network did not specify why her account was suspended, merely citing a breach of their terms of
use. Its rules
state that breastfeeding pictures are OK, as long as they don't
feature an exposed breast and the child is not actively engaged in nursing The terms of use states users cannot upload
content that is hateful, pornographic, contains nudity or incites
violence. She believes that breastfeeding is just a normal part of
everyday life
Women around
the world, fed up with Facebook's policy of not allowing
breast-feeding pictures, staged protests at Facebook offices and
using Facebook to coordinate those efforts. Facebook has
a long and tortured relationship with breasts It was in
2008 that Facebook first seems to have gone around removing
breast feeding pictures from the site
At the time,
Facebook claimed it couldn't allow pictures of breasts on a site
where teenagers roam. Its stance has become more nuanced over the
years. However,
the San
Francisco Chronicle reports that some of the world's mothers believe their
pictures have been flagged as inappropriate and their accounts shut
down a little too often. So they
organized 'nurse-ins' around the world. And they used Facebook to coordinate their
activities.The main
focus of the protests was the Facebook page
of breast-feeding activist Emma Kwasnica of Vancouver. She said that her
account had been shut down four times and that 30 of her pictures
had been flagged as inappropriate. The problem with that, of course,
is that anyone can flag any of your public pictures as
inappropriate
Facebook said
that honest mistakes do occur, especially as more than 800 million
people are on Facebook. Some would add another especially as
Facebook doesn't actually have all that many employees for its vast
alleged worth. The company also explains that its breast rules are
akin to those of many other media outlets.
Kwasnica
insists that what she was doing is perfectly normal. She told
the Chronicle that people share their whole days on
Facebook. When they're eating, where they're eating,
pictures of them feeding their kids spaghetti. We just see this as
feeding our children
She told the
Huffington Post that it is obvious to now that Facebook
really has lost control of their network, especially when their
written policy clearly states they support the sharing of breast
feeding images, yet they say they cannot control the actions of
their employees who keep removing breast feeding images and who
block accounts of the users who post them usually in error, this is
exasperating
.
Ex Lover Punished for
Revenge Experts say the RavshanUsmanov's case has exposed
the 'Tip of the Iceberg' of online offences that rarely go punished.
Sentencing 20 year old Usmanov, the Deputy Chief
Magistrate Jane Mottley said she was deterring both the offender and
the community generally from committing similar crimes. She said
that new age technology through Facebook gives instant access to the
world. Facebook as a social networking site has limited boundaries.
Incalculable damage can be done to a person's reputation by the
irresponsible posting of information through that medium. With its
popularity and potential for real harm, there is a genuine need to
ensure the use of this medium to commit offences of this type is
deterred
The harm to the victim is not difficult to
contemplate. Embarrassment, humiliation and anxiety at not only the
viewing of the images by persons who are known to her but also the
prospect of viewing by those who are not. It can only be a matter
for speculation as to who else may have seen the images. And left
wondering whether those images have been stored in such a manner
which at a time the complainant least expects, they will again be
available for viewing, circulation or distribution
The court could cite just one other relevant
case in which a 20 year old New Zealand man was sentenced to four
months jail in Wellington in 2010 for posting nude pictures of his
ex girlfriend on Facebook
Court papers from the original sentencing
reveal discussion over the gravity of Usmanov's offence. His lawyer,
Maggie Sten, argued his was not a serious offence. Ms Mottley fired
back saying what could be more serious than publishing nude
photographs of a woman on the internet ? She added that it's one
thing to publish an article in print form with limited circulation.
That may affect the objective seriousness of the offence but once it
goes on the worldwide web via Facebook it effectively means it's
open to anyone
In a sense this is the tip of the iceberg,
there are very few convictions under harassment and indecent
publication. It's not treated as the same way as, say, breaking into
a bank website. There is more police support for criminal damage. In
this case, he didn't slash her tyres in an act of revenge, he
slashed her reputation
Facebook’s says that their
‘Statement of Rights and Responsibilities’ Sites that contain
nudity, or any kind of graphic or sexually suggestive content, are
not permitted on Facebook
Liberal Party website extends online
concerns Racist and sexist comments have recently been
revealed on a Facebook page, used by past and present Defence Force
members but is the problem a much wider one? They say the sites
should be pre-moderated and not left to Facebook. The organisation
posting should take the responsibility to vet the
messsages
.
Facebook removes
photos Diane Cornwell did what many parents of
children with disabilities do after a successful experience with a
child who has more needs than many. She posted photos of her 7 year old son, Cole, who
has Down Syndrome and is non-verbal on Facebook. On Friday
afternoon, Cole had attended his first Special Olympics event, at a
local high school in Davison County, North Carolina. As his mother
told WCNC (News Channel
36) he was all smiles
Diana Cornwell uploaded pictures on Facebook
Friday night. There were 40 pictures in a new album. Then she logged
into Facebook Sunday for another look. Facebook asked her to remove
pictures of her son. Diana said the Facebook message
she received mentions violating Facebook terms and asks her not to
upload pictures which include hate speech, support for violent
organizations or include threats to harm others. Her account was
blocked for three days as a result. She said the
pictures show nothing more than her son Cole having a great time.
She took pictures of him whenever she could as it was a very proud
moment for them
There were a lot of special needs kids having a
blast, playing games and receiving commendations for what they
accomplished that day she said. And that 'remove'
checkmarks were by every picture she uploaded. So she removed one,
Cole with a scarecrow just to see what would happen
She got a 'thank you' for removing pictures
that violate Facebook terms and her account was blocked for three
days for uploading it in the first place. Cornwell said that to flag
an entire album and for Facebook just to write it off as no big deal
and allow it to be flagged and told to remove pictures just
astounded her. Cornwell said she doesn't know if Facebook
flagged the pictures, or if someone else did and Facebook picked up
on it.
You do have to wonder if Facebook or some
live human being working for Facebook, actually looked at the photos to see why they
had been flagged. Sure, it could be said that Facebook can’t be
expected to look at every single photo but she was
not informed. She didn't even get a notice
before her account was blocked
NewsChannel 36 contacted Facebook and asked how
these pictures violate their terms and who determined that, but for
now haven't heard back. Cornwell added she has contacted Facebook as
well but has not yet
received a response. and is still waiting for an answer. Her
account is still locked
But given the acknowledged popularity of the
social media site and of Facebook today, they show a deep degree of
insensitivity to special needs children and their families, by
charging Cornwell with 'violating' the site’s terms and requesting
that she remove her photos of Cole. Such censorship of photos of
children having a happy experience at a Special Olympics event is
simply uncalled for and troubling
Some Responses from
Facebook (How to communicate and get
a response from them is a mystery)
Facebook
representative said that honest mistakes do occur, especially as
more than 800 million people are on Facebook. Some would add
another, especially as Facebook doesn't actually have all that many
employees for its vast alleged worth. The company also explains that
its rules are akin to those of many other media
outlets
There are reports
that Facebook apologized and restored the image. A statement from
Facebook is provided in the Advocate The photo in
question does not violate our Statement of Rights and
Responsibilities and was removed in error. We apologize for the
inconvenience. and that’s all. No blog posts, press releases,
or broader explanation by Facebook on how such an error occured,
what kind of content review processes are in place, or any promise
to take better care. This lack of proper communication and
contrition is very disappointing, but not really
surprising
NewsChannel 36 contacted Facebook and asked how
these pictures violate their terms and who determined that, but did
not hear back. Cornwell said she had contacted too Facebook as
well but did not
received a response. Her account was locked
They said that
content that was shared on Facebook had been removed because it
violated Facebook’s ‘Statement of Rights and Responsibilities’
Shares that contain nudity, or any kind of graphic or sexually
suggestive content are not permitted on Facebook and this message
serves as a warning. Additional violations may result in the
termination of the account. Please read the 'Statement of
Rights and Responsibilities' carefully and refrain from posting
abusive material in future. Thanks in advance for your understanding
and cooperation
Facebook at centre of debate
Their censorship record is
at the centre of the convergence debate. Australians
appear to have growing expectations of the social media that
their kids commonly use, will be regulated in some form like old
media. Facebook, with its lack of responsiveness and idiosyncratic
approach, hasn’t helped the anti-regulation cause in this
instance.
Free speech
advocates may need to resolve this tension if they’re to
successfully fend off further restrictions from
governments
Conclusion Clearly from the few examples on
this page which are just the ‘Tip of the Iceberg’ and the whole
matter of censorship, copyright infringements and pirating is an
enormous ‘Can of Worms’ with no solution with only one logical
conclusion . Website users are subject to courts of law and can be
prosecuted for posting 'inappropriate' material. It’s also clear
that websites such as Facebook and Google are so big and with so few
staff, they are unable to police their guidelines, as it’s an
impossible task. It’s also impossible to stop pirating online and
control copyright laws and undesirable
ISP’s have recently been judged by
the courts as not responsible for their customer website material
and again it is not their function, business and would be impossible
for them. Some countries like Australia are trying to pass
legislation to store your activities from two years to
forever. There are millions of Internet and Facebook young
users and millions are very young and underage. They are
technologically savvy, and accessing whatever they want
including pornography which many say is fine, healthy and desirable.
All banned materials such as those of breast feeding women and gay
men and other material, causes or issues are available on the
Internet and can be found quickly and easily through the many
excellent search engine services
Facebook has a Community Standards page (How
does Facebook resolve the attitudes and preferences of a community
of 800 million users into a single shared set of standards) Its
impossible !
Many people object to the new
Facebook Timeline as they want to protect their privacy and history.
But the trend is for user profile to be shared between websites
as they are are considered a valuable resource. In Australia
even our medical records will be are online soon, which despite
claims that they are secure and private, can be hacked
|
|
Social media and the
internet are a revolution, desirable and very
popular and help us make friends, communicate and share
thoughts and ideas. We believe that it’s fine, important
and desirable for there to be guidelines, but they
should be more easily available and broadbased and
realistic. It is clearly impossible
for Internet Service Providers or
Government to enforce them and they
should just suggest and encourage user to
be responsible. If not they may have to face the law and
court
Everything is available
on the Internet now, and kids too, are finding
what ever they want.We firmly believe that
there is only one solution which is desirable and
healthy. There should be NO CENSORSHIP on the
Internet and everyone should be able to post and
express and share whatever they wish. The Internet and
websites should be easily accessible, uncensored and
freely available to everyone to use. They may be subject
to prosecution under the normal rules
of various countries, but its not hard or
desirable but some people choose to be
anonomous |
|
For more great information on Censorship
Please see Internet
Resisting internet
access
Also Censorship (banned
this site)
.
References and Links
Facebook Wikipedia
Known
Issues Facebook
Liberal Party website extends comment
concerns Video
Dont Censure Kids with
Disabilities Petition
Facebook Removes Photos of Downs
Syndrome
Ex Lover Punished for Facebook
Revenge Sydney Morning Herald
Stop Banning Breast Feeding
Pics Cnet
Breastfeeding Mums to Protest
Bans Nine
News
Facebook Censorship Guidelines
Facebook Censorship
Problem Michael Zimmer
Letter
Censorship Becca Calvert
SURBL
Tera.ca/photos Images removed by social networks
Zuckerberg - Inside
Facebook
Video
Facebook - comments
inappropriate
Project Censored
Facebook banned this
website
Facebook at centre of debate Crikey
|
