Civil liberties and the web
Re:
http://www.techcrunch.com/2007/09/07/breast-isnt-best-on-facebook/
So we were discussing this at work today...
Personally, I think it's strange that people complain about stuff like this? Facebook is a commercial operation that provides an application (for free!) with clearly set out terms and conditions. this isn't about what's socially acceptable... it's about whatever their terms of use are. Users of Facebook agree to this when they sign up. If they don't like it, then there is always the law of 2 feet: leave.
But Rich was arguing the point that this is essentially an infringement on civil liberties, because breast feeding isn't obscene, and Facebook has no right to censor it.
For me, there is definitely a judgement call about what makes nudity obscene. Personally I don't mind if women get their baps out in most situations, but I can also understand that some people may not be as liberal. The point is that context matters a lot. So if Facebook want to avoid this to protect their user-base, then surely they should be allowed.
I'm all for people protesting this, if they want. I guess my point is just why bother? You could spend your whole life worrying about little stuff like this. Or, like society does anyway, people could just relax and flock together or repel based on whatever common grounds they find.
Sure there's a danger of eroding our civil liberties, but there's also a danger in following the lowest-common-denominator of being overly politically correct.
http://www.techcrunch.com/2007/09/07/breast-isnt-best-on-facebook/
So we were discussing this at work today...
Personally, I think it's strange that people complain about stuff like this? Facebook is a commercial operation that provides an application (for free!) with clearly set out terms and conditions. this isn't about what's socially acceptable... it's about whatever their terms of use are. Users of Facebook agree to this when they sign up. If they don't like it, then there is always the law of 2 feet: leave.
But Rich was arguing the point that this is essentially an infringement on civil liberties, because breast feeding isn't obscene, and Facebook has no right to censor it.
For me, there is definitely a judgement call about what makes nudity obscene. Personally I don't mind if women get their baps out in most situations, but I can also understand that some people may not be as liberal. The point is that context matters a lot. So if Facebook want to avoid this to protect their user-base, then surely they should be allowed.
I'm all for people protesting this, if they want. I guess my point is just why bother? You could spend your whole life worrying about little stuff like this. Or, like society does anyway, people could just relax and flock together or repel based on whatever common grounds they find.
Sure there's a danger of eroding our civil liberties, but there's also a danger in following the lowest-common-denominator of being overly politically correct.
posted by sam court at 10:52 am
1 Comments:
If Facebook were attempting to ban breasts in public (in the real world), as an extension of their web site policy, I would protest.
But complaining about something you agreed to when you joined? That I have a problem with.
Jesus (and I'm not religious, so bare with me if if I get this wrong) raided temples to throw out the money lenders. If a banker had raided temples to allow money lenders in, I doubt he would have had as much success.
This seems to be the approach the baby-feeders are taking with Facebook. And while I agree it isn't offensive, if pictures of breastfeeding breach Facebook's current T&C's then they need to take a less whiny approach if they hope to change things.
Post a Comment
<< Home