×

Announcing: Slashdot Deals - Explore geek apps, games, gadgets and more. (what is this?)

Thank you!

We are sorry to see you leave - Beta is different and we value the time you took to try it out. Before you decide to go, please take a look at some value-adds for Beta and learn more about it. Thank you for reading Slashdot, and for making the site better!

Anti-Porn Facebook Page is Deleted, Then Restored

Roblimo posted more than 3 years ago | from the let's-make-up-our-minds-here dept.

Censorship 145

Slashdot regular contributor Bennett Haselton writes: "An anti-porn organization's Facebook page is disabled by Facebook, and then resurrected. Was the page the victim of a 'complaint mob,' and could the previously-discussed 'voting algorithm' have saved the page from being shut down?"

Speaking of Facebook pages being unjustly shut down, on Monday the anti-porn Facebook page http://www.facebook.com/PornHarms/, run by the non-profit Morality in Media, was abruptly disabled by Facebook. The page had 35,000 "likes" at the time the plug was pulled. Morality in Media CEO Patrick Trueman, who also ran the Facebook page, says he never received any warning from Facebook before the page was removed.

Some time on Wednesday, the page was restored. I had emailed a contact at Facebook to ask why the page was shut down, and he replied later to say that it had been deleted in error and the page had been restored. (He didn't say whether the page was on track to being restored anyway, or whether it would have remained down indefinitely if I hadn't pinged him.)

Facebook did not respond to inquiries as to why the page was removed, but as Evgeny Morozov has pointed out regarding political pages (and as many other users have heard from people's anecdotal experiences having pages pulled without explanation), it's common for pages on Facebook and YouTube to get removed that were almost certainly not violating those sites' Terms of Service. If enough users decide to file "abuse complaints" simultaneously against a piece of content on Facebook or YouTube, this has a good chance of getting the content removed, whether the complaints were legitimate or were simply part of an organized campaign of filing false complaints.

Meanwhile, I correspond with dozens of people every week on Facebook (usually people who use my proxy sites to get on Facebook at school or work), and about once a week I get an automated message from Facebook that says, "You have been sending harassing messages to other users," and goes on to sternly list the types of messages that violate Facebook's TOS. (Only twice has this resulted in my account actually getting locked, and it was unlocked after I bugged my friend at Facebook about it.)

I figure that these are either the result of users clicking "Report this message" accidentally, or parents hacking into their kids' accounts, reading their messages, and then trying to get the account shut down of the person who was talking their kid about proxy sites. In either case, I assume it's not the result of an "organized campaign," but perhaps your account gets locked if you're unlucky enough that two or three people file complaints within the same short time frame.

So I have no reason to doubt Mr. Trueman's claim that the PornHarms Facebook page never contained any content that violated Facebook's TOS. He says the page mostly contained links to academic research supposedly demonstrating the harmful effects of pornography, and that while the target audience was adult academics, there was nothing in the content that most parents would consider inappropriate for underage viewers. There was certainly no actual pornography on the page, not even in censored form with the fun parts blurred out (although I didn't check every single academic paper linked from the site to see if any of them might have used pixellated/censored porn for illustrative purposes). Trueman also says that they prevented third-party users from posting on the PornHarms page directly, and regularly monitored the page's content to remove any "inappropriate" comments that users had written in response to the officially authorized posts. (Of course, even if the page admins hadn't done this, inappropriate comments should be the basis for penalizing the user who posted them, not the Facebook page that they were posted on, but it was a moot point in this case.)

Because of the word "Pornography" in the title of the page, it's also of course possible that a human at Facebook actually did review the complaints, but thought the word "pornography" meant the page was a porn-trading hub, without looking to closely at it. (It's also possible that the word triggered an automated filter at Facebook. Obviously, there is no filter pre-emptively preventing pages with words like "pornography" in the title from being created, since otherwise the page never could have existed in the first place. But it's possible that an automated algorithm does something like the following: If a page receives X complains within time period Y, and the page contains certain keywords in the title or the content, then shut down the page automatically.)

Previously I'd suggested an algorithm that Facebook could use to stop users from coordinating phony complaints in order to shut a page down. The gist was: If a page receives a sufficient number of complaints, have the page reviewed by a random sample (chosen by Facebook) of Facebook users who had signed up to review abuse cases in situations such as these. If enough of those users vote that the page was violating the TOS, the page gets shut down, but if not, then it stays up. What makes this algorithm difficult to abuse, is that in order for a "coordinated mob" to swing the vote of the jury, they would have to comprise a majority (or a significant minority) of the entire set of users that the randomly-selected jury could have been chosen from -- a difficult task if thousands of people have signed up as content reviewers. I offered a $100 prize to be split between readers who submitted the best suggested improvements or criticisms of the idea; their ideas were summarized in a follow-up article. A couple of readers commented that there was no point in debating the idea since I don't work for Facebook and have no influence there; they have a point, but the idea has to start somewhere. If engineers at Facebook are looking for a way to fix the problem, one thing that can be said about this suggestion is that it was posted to a large audience of smart people, and several readers suggested very clever improvements, while nobody found any obviously fatal flaws in it.

It seems pretty likely that a process like that for reviewing abuse complaints, would have saved the Pornography Harms page from being yanked from Facebook. Anybody who seriously reviewed the page's contents for more than twenty seconds would have understood the page's real purpose and seen that it was not actually distributing pornography or otherwise violating the Facebook TOS. In my experiences posting surveys on sites like Mechanical Turk, where you can pay users a penny apiece for filling out surveys or performing other tasks, I've gotten the impression that people will take such tasks seriously, even for zero (or virtually zero) pay, if they find them interesting. In the case of the Facebook "jurors" who are voting on whether a page violated the TOS, you're talking about users who voluntarily signed up to be jurors, after all -- not underpaid workers grinding through as many tasks as they can squeeze into their working hours.

Finally, it would be easy to point out the irony of a pro-censorship group being censored (and some people did, on the mailing lists where I saw this news announced), but I don't think that's really fair to Morality in Media, since even MIM doesn't oppose people's right to express their opinions in favor of pornography. Likewise, MIM presumably supports the use of Internet blocking programs in schools, even though their Facebook page (as well as the companion website PornHarms.com) would probably be blocked by default by most Internet blockers because of the word "porn" in the URL -- but even that is not as richly ironic as it would seem. Neither Morality in Media, nor almost anyone else, is in favor of political sites about pornography being blocked because of the word "porn" in the address; presumably they'd just want the error corrected by the blocking company, and if a left-wing site on the opposite side of the debate happened to be blocked because of the word "porn" in the URL, I have no reason to think that Morality in Media would be opposed to correcting that error and unblocking that site as well. So this really isn't a case of them being given "a taste of their own medicine."

No, the real irony in this particular case -- at least, if I did have a role in getting their Facebook page restored -- is that not only would I support their right to express their view (duh), I would support students' right to bypass their school's Internet blocker to view the page from school if they had to, and I would even support the right of under-18-year-olds to view the page even if their parents were specifically trying to block them from it. I highly doubt that even anyone at Morality in Media would go that far.

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Without porn (5, Insightful)

0racle (667029) | more than 3 years ago | (#36263094)

Without porn, what is the point of the Internet?

Re:Without porn (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36263144)

I've used the Internet since ~96 and I dont look at porn, on or off the net. Your point?

Re:Without porn (2)

onkelonkel (560274) | more than 3 years ago | (#36263186)

So you're the guy.

Re:Without porn (1)

Robert Zenz (1680268) | more than 3 years ago | (#36263526)

Who said it's a guy?

Re:Without porn (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36263676)

This is Slashdot.

Re:Without porn (3, Insightful)

The Moof (859402) | more than 3 years ago | (#36263986)

On the Internet, all men are men, all women are men, and all children are the FBI.

Re:Without porn (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36264042)

Who said it's a guy?

The normal economics of supply-and-demand don't apply to pussy. If they did, pussy would be a nearly worthless commodity since: a) women are 52% of the population and b) each woman's pussy is instantly replenished after use. Therefore women unconsciously and consciously conspire to implement a model of artificial scarcity to increase the market value of pussy, what they can get in exchange for it. It is similar to copyright but the mechanisms are different.

Each individual woman pretends to be disinterested in sex in order to raise its cost. Truth is, the average woman has more of a libido than a man and has her "mind in the gutter" more than a man, but she has learned to repress this (causing the fundamental female neurosis and cognitive dissonance, leading to irrational behavior). As a group, women hate "sluts" and "whores" and treat them with contempt to discourage those who do not participate in the artificial scarcity, giving them a lower social status and a bad reputation, in an attempt to decrease both their standing with other women and their perceived desirability to men. It is like the way the media companies feel about bittorrents.

Therefore a user who never looks at porn likely is a woman, or could also be a feminized man. A feminized man has been taught to think it is bad to have a penis, to be a heterosexual male, to feel the effects of testosterone, to look at the world rationally and not emotionally (he is accused of being "cold" if he does that). He has unconsciously adopted the female agenda of artificial scarcity. Both women and feminized men work to permit and encourage the phenomenon of legalized prostitution, where all men married or single are expected to pay in some way or another for the sex act despite the female's mutual enjoyment of it. The archetypical model here is the poor woman who marries into money because she happens to be very attractive and knows what price she can get on the pussy market, though even women who are millionaires tend to marry men who are multi-millionaires.

The major difference between a street prostitute and the average woman is that the prostitute has no illusions about the nature of the transaction. The other major difference is that a prostitute won't talk about her character, her mind, or her outgoing personality as things men should want her for. Average women by contrast give lip service to these things while the vast majority of time they spend working on themselves is spent on their physical bodies, in the form of cosmetics, tanning beds, hairstyles, clothes, etc. Their actual behavior contradicts their overt statements that they value something more than physical attraction. It is a rare women who actually does.

Anyway that's where most of this Puritannical bullshit comes from. It gets packaged in religion and moral crusades but its roots are immensely practical and designed to achieve a goal.

Re:Without porn (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36263202)

Trolling comes in at a close second.

Re:Without porn (1)

PIBM (588930) | more than 3 years ago | (#36263418)

Don't give them ideas!

Re:Without porn (4, Informative)

maxwell demon (590494) | more than 3 years ago | (#36263344)

Without porn, what is the point of the Internet?

Slashdot.

Re:Without porn (3, Insightful)

Bill_the_Engineer (772575) | more than 3 years ago | (#36263632)

God help us all.

Re:Without porn (1)

jd (1658) | more than 3 years ago | (#36264230)

Gos is too busy maintaining the Linux kernel.

Re:Without porn (1)

SeakingFUKyea (1980200) | more than 3 years ago | (#36264266)

reddit

Re:Without porn (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36264326)

Please, oh please, let Slashdot remain porn free.

Hot, horny CowboyNeal. Rock hard Taco oiled up.

Those are nightmares that would never end.

Re:Without porn (1)

tool462 (677306) | more than 3 years ago | (#36264468)

True, but porn loses some of its appeal without the taboo, so I say kudos to the anti-porn crowd, and thanks for making my solo sexy-times that much more exciting.

Perfectly natural... (2)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 3 years ago | (#36263126)

As we all know, "The Internet Is For Porn." Like any large organism, the internet has a sort of immune system that rejects dangerous or invasive entities attempting to disrupt its homeostasis. That is why the facebook page in question was brought down, and why a thick "network cyst, preventing packets from spreading further into the network" is growing around locations like China and Iran.

Re:Perfectly natural... (1, Insightful)

DNS-and-BIND (461968) | more than 3 years ago | (#36263362)

a thick "network cyst, preventing packets from spreading further into the network" is growing around locations like China and Iran.

What the hell are you talking about? Citation, please? Or did you just make that up because it sounded cool?

Re:Perfectly natural... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36263610)

You might actually be retarded.

Who Gives A Flying Fuck (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36263194)

Facebook can do whatever the fuck they want. Ultimately, it is their site, so why would you get your panties in a bunch over what was deleted?
If facebook "censors" you, it is really of no consequence. Just take your ball and go home if you don't like it. This is not like the government censoring you, or anything of the sort.

Stop whining over what Facebook or twitter deletes or "censors". Its really none of our business. You have no right to tell them what is right or wrong to delete.

Re:Who Gives A Flying Fuck (2)

sseaman (931799) | more than 3 years ago | (#36263322)

You have no right to tell them what is right or wrong to delete.

I'm never good at this--is it irony when someone thinks they have a right to tell people they don't have a right to tell other people to do or not do stuff, or when someone makes it their business to tell someone else, whom presumably they don't know, that something else is none of their business?

Re:Who Gives A Flying Fuck (1)

Abstrackt (609015) | more than 3 years ago | (#36264054)

You have no right to tell them what is right or wrong to delete.

I'm never good at this--is it irony when someone thinks they have a right to tell people they don't have a right to tell other people to do or not do stuff, or when someone makes it their business to tell someone else, whom presumably they don't know, that something else is none of their business?

That depends on whether you interpret it as a statement of fact or an imperative. Irony would only apply in the latter case.

Re:Who Gives A Flying Fuck (1)

jdgeorge (18767) | more than 3 years ago | (#36263384)

Facebook can do whatever the fuck they want. Ultimately, it is their site, so why would you get your panties in a bunch over what was deleted?
If facebook "censors" you, it is really of no consequence. Just take your ball and go home if you don't like it. This is not like the government censoring you, or anything of the sort.

Stop whining over what Facebook or twitter deletes or "censors". Its really none of our business. You have no right to tell them what is right or wrong to delete.

I partly agree with the parent. It's reasonable for Facebook to control the algorithms and decisions that affect what content may appear on their site.

On the other hand, various governments may not entirely share this view due to issues around privacy, users' rights to control "their" information, and possibly other concerns.

Re:Who Gives A Flying Fuck (2)

Moryath (553296) | more than 3 years ago | (#36263600)

The trouble is when a "non-governmental entity" grows so large that it becomes a de facto "governmental" body, or filter on what people receive.

Left-wingers and right-wingers like to complain they are being "censored out" from various forms of media. Right-wingers started Faux News specifically because they believed they were not being given a fair shake by the likes of NBC, CBS, etc - and they weren't completely incorrect, though as Stephen Colbert loves to say, "reality has a liberal bias." Left-wingers complain about their lack of representation in talk radio formats, a fair charge given that the owners of most talk-radio formats (including the Clear Channel pseudomonopolists) are crazed right-wingers and "Tea Party" kool-aid drinkers.

If "the government" doesn't censor, but a small number of entities who control the communication channels DO censor heavily, we still have a problem.

Re:Who Gives A Flying Fuck (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36264250)

Left-wingers complain about their lack of representation in talk radio formats, a fair charge given that the owners of most talk-radio formats

For whatever reason lefties seriously don't do well on talk radio. They have had shows before. None of them were terribly successful commercially. I think it's because the format lends itself to debate and most of Leftism is about emotion and mutable definitions of "fairness", things which tend to decay into religious matters when you try debating them.

Re:Who Gives A Flying Fuck (2)

darkshadow88 (776678) | more than 3 years ago | (#36264634)

I'm overwhelmingly anti-censorship, but this group should have remained deleted. I say this not because of their views (which I do strongly disagree with), but rather that they abused Facebook to shut down a perfectly legitimate pro-porn page by lodging false complaints, and then had the nerve to boast about it on their page. That screams "TOS violation" and should be grounds for an immediate and permanent ban, irrespective of their views.

My thought (1)

bigsexyjoe (581721) | more than 3 years ago | (#36263230)

My theory is that the page was taken down by mistake and the email claiming that is was was basically true. There is probably an algorthim that deletes based on complaints and the appearance of words like "porn." In any case, the page is back up. Nothing to see here, let's move on.

Re:My thought (5, Informative)

_xeno_ (155264) | more than 3 years ago | (#36263326)

Not necessarily. It's happened before that a group maliciously reports a page [zdnet.com] to get Facebook to take it down. From the article:

But we weren't anti-porn, and conservatives on the page "Porn Harms" rallied their page members to report us to get the page taken down. It worked. On the "Porn Harms" page, they openly celebrated and discussed their successful bogus takedown of our page [ourpornourselves.org] .

(Note: I have no idea if that link from the article is work safe, and I'm not about to try it and find out. But I figured I'd leave it in anyway.)

...Wait a minute. "Porn Harms." Why does that sound familiar?

I expect that in this case, their page was in fact maliciously removed - as a response to their getting an actual porn page pulled.

Re:My thought (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36263492)

You linked to Violet Blue. Fail.

Re:My thought (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36264224)

I decided to report them as hate speech.

Re:My thought (1)

budgenator (254554) | more than 3 years ago | (#36264582)

Now the situation is clear as mud, anti-porn group cyberbullying a pro-porn group.

Re:My thought (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36263366)

Heck, I don't even think the algorithm goes so far as to analyze the page. If it receives a certain number of reports in a short amount of time, goodbye... and then the page's owner can just petition to have it restored (possibly with a bool saying "don't auto delete this page in the future").

Re:My thought (2)

hedwards (940851) | more than 3 years ago | (#36263908)

It wasn't a mistake and Facebook should have stuck to their guns and refused to reinstate the page. If you go to their website it's basically just man bashing. This is currently the to story on the front page Porn & Trafficking [pornharms.com] This is little better than those stupid bitchs who proclaim all men to be rape supporters even those where there is no rational reason to draw such a correlation.

Re:My thought (1)

jd (1658) | more than 3 years ago | (#36264262)

So what if you, I, and a million others disagree with them? What right do you have to abuse Facebook's complaint system through mob action to censor them?

If you don't want to be censored, if you object to being censored, you AUTOMATICALLY lose all rights to censor others, EVEN IF those others are advocating censorship.

Re:My thought (2)

causality (777677) | more than 3 years ago | (#36264350)

It wasn't a mistake and Facebook should have stuck to their guns and refused to reinstate the page. If you go to their website it's basically just man bashing. This is currently the to story on the front page Porn & Trafficking [pornharms.com] This is little better than those stupid bitchs who proclaim all men to be rape supporters even those where there is no rational reason to draw such a correlation.

To some people, the feeling of being a victim is very precious to them. It is and has been a core part of their identity for so long that they will not give it up easily. A victim is always in relation to some "other" or some system, so It's yet another reason why a true individual is so hard to find. Of course this is strongly encouraged in politics, since broken people will cry out for someone to save them and won't scrutinize too heavily the motives and characters of those who answer that call.

Eventually this mentality demands a broader and broader definition of who the "oppressors" are. It's not difficult to understand why it would eventually expand towards blaming all men. That's where it has room to grow after it stops being reasonable.

Okay, I give up (2, Insightful)

cforciea (1926392) | more than 3 years ago | (#36263308)

What is this guy giving to the /. editors to keep getting these useless stories front page'd? Do we really have to be subjected to this guy's "novel" musings over what is essentially a copy of the /. mod system every few weeks?

Re:Okay, I give up (3, Insightful)

Roblimo (357) | more than 3 years ago | (#36263408)

New Slashdot policy: you are no longer required to read stories that don't interest you.

Really. Just skip over them. The Slashdot Goon Squad will *not* come to your house and smash your computers.

Re:Okay, I give up (2)

cforciea (1926392) | more than 3 years ago | (#36263454)

It hurts the SNR. I am not even one that normally complains about posted stories, but I can't help but wonder if these articles are somehow a running inside joke about how many paragraphs can get posted about what is essentially /.'s mod and metamod system without anybody breaking character. If I post a 3 page long article about how we could solve some of the internet's problems if we just came up with some hypertext markup language standard and then asked for opinions on it, would you post that, too?

Re:Okay, I give up (1)

idontgno (624372) | more than 3 years ago | (#36263580)

It hurts the SNR

Impossible, like colder than absolute zero or faster than light. It takes whole new branches of number theory to come up with a conceptual representation of a worse SNR than now.

It's Slashdot. It's always been this way. People submit worthless articles, counterproductive articles, pointless articles, slashvertising articles, articles which perceptibly reduce the collective IQ of the universe.... which editors (don't) improve...

It's a slightly more interesting take on what would otherwise be /b/. Just roll with the trolls. If you don't think the article is interesting, worthwhile, or valid, just don't read it. (I don't mean don't RTFA.... of course, don't do that either. You'll disrupt the Slash-time continuum. But just skip the editorial summary, the comments, the whole shooting match. Maybe go browse the firehose.)

Re:Okay, I give up (3, Funny)

thijsh (910751) | more than 3 years ago | (#36263706)

It's Slashdot. It's always been this way. People submit worthless articles, counterproductive articles, pointless articles, slashvertising articles, articles which perceptibly reduce the collective IQ of the universe.... which editors (don't) improve...

... and people complain about this... Don't forget the complaining part!!! It's an integral part of the traditions in Slashdot history... As is complaining about all the complaints when people should know better because this is Slashdot after all... ;)

Re:Okay, I give up (1)

idontgno (624372) | more than 3 years ago | (#36263844)

You're right. You're absolutely right. It's all a part of the never-ending glory of the Circle of Slashlife.

Thank you and bless you for reminding me of that. <sniff>. I'm tearing up a little. It's all just so beautiful.

Re:Okay, I give up (1)

maxwell demon (590494) | more than 3 years ago | (#36263978)

It's Slashdot. It's always been this way. People submit worthless articles, counterproductive articles, pointless articles, slashvertising articles, articles which perceptibly reduce the collective IQ of the universe.... which editors (don't) improve...

... and people complain about this... Don't forget the complaining part!!! It's an integral part of the traditions in Slashdot history... As is complaining about all the complaints when people should know better because this is Slashdot after all... ;)

... and people complaining about the complaints about the complaints ...
... and people complaining about the complaints about the complaints about the complaints ...
... and people complaining about the complaints about the complaints about the complaints about the complaints ...

Re:Okay, I give up (1)

just_another_sean (919159) | more than 3 years ago | (#36264116)

Just give it up man, it's people complaining all the way down!

Re:Okay, I give up (1)

Ross D Anderson (1020653) | more than 3 years ago | (#36263602)

I agree, and it's the same guy who posted this arguing with you. Roblimo, I'd listen to your audience if I were you. Not even mentioning that the whole thing is a complete non-story. There aren't even any facts backing any of the points up! Just "Was this page automatically blocked because it says "porn"?" Yes. Probably. It was restored so who cares? 35,000 censorship crazed nutjobs?

Re:Okay, I give up (1)

jd (1658) | more than 3 years ago | (#36264302)

If you don't like the SNR, my first question would be whether you're voting on the Firehose. My second question would be why not.

After that, I'll give up and go into a sulk on behalf of the Slashdot editors, contributors and advocators.

Re:Okay, I give up (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36263540)

New Slashdot policy: You are no longer required to keep posting stories that the rest of us aren't interested in. Really. Just don't bother writing them. Nobody will miss them.

Re:Okay, I give up (2)

UnknowingFool (672806) | more than 3 years ago | (#36263944)

Then can we have a Bennett Hasleton section so I can set my preferences to filter out his submissions. I don't mind a synopsis. I don't mind opinion. I don't like wordy theses that are at times longer than the stories. If Bennett Hasleton wants to write a blog then submit a link with it, I have no problems with that.

Re:Okay, I give up (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36264128)

New Slashdot policy: you are no longer required to read stories that don't interest you.

Wait, so the policy changed so I have to read the stories that interest me now? I thought we weren't supposed to read anything! Gah!

Re:Okay, I give up (1)

jd (1658) | more than 3 years ago | (#36264284)

Damn, Rob. I was just about to go over there. You're spoiling the fun!

Ok, can we at least ask the Patron Saint of the Internet (there is one) to place a curse on K5?

Re:Okay, I give up (1)

bigsexyjoe (581721) | more than 3 years ago | (#36263504)

I have also noticed a decline in story quality as of late. But to be fair, I might just be becoming old and curmudgeonly and Slashdot is running the same amount of nonsense it always has..

Re:Okay, I give up (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36263718)

It's not really "of late." Bennett has never contributed anything of value, or at least nothing that wasn't buried under a mountain of self-congratulatory crap. That's why the "ohnoitsbennett" tag exists.

Re:Okay, I give up (1)

Bill_the_Engineer (772575) | more than 3 years ago | (#36263748)

I don't mind Roblimo's postings. I just wish he did it a little differently.

Roblimo, please post your thoughts as journal entries and then submit a link to said journal entry with a short summary of your topic. This way we can decide if we want to read your article.

Of course no harm - no foul, the front page does make a short synopsis. However it does make me question if Roblimo wrote the article responding to Bennett Haselton's post, or posting the article for Bennet. Linking to Robimo's or Bennett's journal entry would make this clear.

I'm pretty sure I'm not alone in this one.. (4, Insightful)

nightfire-unique (253895) | more than 3 years ago | (#36263314)

I have to say. Nothing gives me the chills quite like an organization called "Morality in Media."

I'm dead serious when I say it's only a hop and skip from denying girls education and stoning people for sex before marriage. Their attitudes are derived from the same imperative - moral superiority, and the belief that they have the right to dictate the personal behavior of others.

It's a good thing the constitution denies our government the privilege of restraint on speech, because this is one group I would like to silence.

Re:I'm pretty sure I'm not alone in this one.. (4, Insightful)

DNS-and-BIND (461968) | more than 3 years ago | (#36263450)

So in other words, your morality is superior and that enables you to silence disagreeable groups, because it's in our best interest (or at least what you consider to be so). Nice one, there. You're not so different from them. Not so different at all. Do you know what a "heel realization" is?

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."
-- Evelyn Beatrice Hall (1906)

Re:I'm pretty sure I'm not alone in this one.. (2)

geekoid (135745) | more than 3 years ago | (#36263874)

Well, I think he is saying silencing groups the specifically want to silence other as a whole.

So it's a bit more tricky.

It's different hen someone saying their shouldn't be porn, or don't watch porn.

It's a group that want to actively shut down other speech; which is deferent then voicing an opinion about something.

Re:I'm pretty sure I'm not alone in this one.. (1)

jd (1658) | more than 3 years ago | (#36264450)

Does it matter? If freedom is considered a fundamental right, it must include the freedom to advocate views you don't like. Yes, even if those views advocate not allowing you your freedom. Further, if a right of one person is removed through the abuse (not use) of another right of others, then it is the abusers who are in the wrong, no matter what that one person was saying or claiming.

It is the failure to recognize this that has been at the heart of all abuses of power. Many evil dictators are no better than one evil dictator, and arguably far far worse. One person you can imaginably persuade to moderate their views.

You DID try to moderate their views, right? ......Right?

Ah. So I was correct on the army of evil dictators then.

No, I don't agree with the anti-porn person. I disagree with them utterly. But unlike those who merely mouth that they'll defend the other person's right to a view or to express an opinion (I imagine a lot of the censorous lot who flash-mobbed the Facebook abuse system have - at one time or another - said something like that), I'm actually here doing so rather than violating my own principles. If you say you stand for another's right to disagree with you, go ahead. I dare you to do so.

Re:I'm pretty sure I'm not alone in this one.. (2)

hedwards (940851) | more than 3 years ago | (#36263972)

If you go over to their site, they've got a clearly misandrous agenda and the correlations they draw in order to rationalize the hatred of men are absolutely stunning. This isn't about rationally stating a legitimate view this is about bashing men as much as possible.

Re:I'm pretty sure I'm not alone in this one.. (1)

jd (1658) | more than 3 years ago | (#36264528)

I was unaware that the right to express an opinion said anything about being rational or legitimate. Either they - and you - have a right to express opinions or they - and therefore you - do not.

Which would you prefer? To censor them is to say that you aren't entitled to a single opinion that isn't peer-reviewed, and that you are open to censorship if you happen to be passionate about a subject. To reject censorship of them, regardless, is to say that you reject utterly the notion that anyone has the right to dictate what opinions you are allowed to hold.

I disagree utterly with the anti-porn movement and regard them as deluded, but unlike those who merely chant the words that they'll stand up for another's right to an opinion, I'm happy to do so. I pity those contemptible to not hold their own views strongly enough to not censor.

Re:I'm pretty sure I'm not alone in this one.. (1)

GrumblyStuff (870046) | more than 3 years ago | (#36264032)

So we should be tolerant of other people's intolerance as well?

Re:I'm pretty sure I'm not alone in this one.. (2)

Asic Eng (193332) | more than 3 years ago | (#36264254)

Yes, we should let intolerant people exercise their freedom of speech. We are free to have the better arguments.

We should not tolerate when they are actually bringing in laws to restrict our freedom, that's where it stops.

Re:I'm pretty sure I'm not alone in this one.. (1)

nightfire-unique (253895) | more than 3 years ago | (#36264100)

So in other words, your morality is superior and that enables you to silence disagreeable groups, because it's in our best interest (or at least what you consider to be so). Nice one, there. You're not so different from them. Not so different at all. Do you know what a "heel realization" is?

Sorry; I meant that a little tongue-in-cheek. Didn't come through well. :)

What I meant was - it is a good thing our forefathers fought for and enshrined the rights they did in the constitution, because we all have groups we'd like silenced. I think these moralists damage society, in the same way they think I (an a-moralist?) damage society. Luckily, our government lacks the privilege required to silence either of us.

Re:I'm pretty sure I'm not alone in this one.. (1)

Tim C (15259) | more than 3 years ago | (#36264154)

Ironic that you quote that, given that this is one of those groups that not only disapprove of what some people say, but would actively seek to prevent them from being able to say it.

Re:I'm pretty sure I'm not alone in this one.. (1)

carpefishus (1515573) | more than 3 years ago | (#36263828)

The Left wants the Right to get out of their bedroom. The Right wants the Left to leave the rest of their lives alone.

Re:I'm pretty sure I'm not alone in this one.. (1)

mcgrew (92797) | more than 3 years ago | (#36263834)

I'm a Christian, and I agree with you. Morality varies from culture to culture. To the wolves in sheep's clothing like Pat Robertson or Newt Gingrich, "morality" has to do with other people not living like they'd want them to -- being gay, for instance. My view (as the bible states), immorality is exactly what Robertson and Gingrich (and Tipper Gore) are doing -- being judgemental, unforgoiving, greedy. To the Bhudist Thais, swatting a fly is immoral.

I don't think these right wingers would like me to push MY morality on them, they shouldn't try to push theirs on me or you.

Re:I'm pretty sure I'm not alone in this one.. (1)

Farmer Tim (530755) | more than 3 years ago | (#36264026)

To the Bhudist Thais, swatting a fly is immoral.

What if it's the fly on Gingrich's trousers, and you're swatting it with a baseball bat?

Re:I'm pretty sure I'm not alone in this one.. (2)

Hatta (162192) | more than 3 years ago | (#36264158)

Absolutely correct. This is the true American Taliban. Even the Westboro Baptist Church is superior to these people, as even they are able to appreciate that free speech protects everyone.

Morality? (1, Insightful)

Dog-Cow (21281) | more than 3 years ago | (#36263348)

What do morals have to do with porn? What could possibly be immoral about displaying one's body, no matter the context? I could understand a claim of indecency, but it's not as if everyone who participates in the creation of porn is exploited. To most, it's simply a job.

Re:Morality? (2)

LordLimecat (1103839) | more than 3 years ago | (#36263630)

It really sounds as though you dont believe that there is such a thing as morality. That being the case, isnt it rather odd to turn around and deny the immorality of something?

Re:Morality? (0)

maxwell demon (590494) | more than 3 years ago | (#36264142)

It really sounds as though you dont believe that there is such a thing as morality.

No, it doesn't. It sounds as if he doesn't see any moral issues in porn, and that's what he states. Indeed, he even hints at that he would find it immoral if people are exploited for making porn. Which completely contradicts your claim.

Re:Morality? (1)

LordLimecat (1103839) | more than 3 years ago | (#36264518)

Possibly i was reading things into the post that werent there.

Re:Morality? (1)

twidarkling (1537077) | more than 3 years ago | (#36263668)

The line I've been told is that women in porn aren't there because they want to display themselves, it's because they've no other choices, and are doing it for low pay, in bad conditions, and usually being abused during it. Therefore, it's immoral to support an industry based upon exploitation of human beings.

Keep in mind though, that was told to me by my Christian mother when I was a young teenager, so the validity is suspect.

Re:Morality? (1)

geekoid (135745) | more than 3 years ago | (#36263926)

Depends. I have talked with several actresses. on the whole they wan't to be there and worked hard.

These where American porn actresses.

And yes, sometimes the situation you mom mentions is true, BUT it's true of many industries, How many people in canning plants are there because that have no choice? bad pay, bad conditions, and often abused.

Porn has, and will always exist. The logical and kind thing to do is acknowledge it, regulate it, and give protections and avenues for the actors.

The greatest scare to the industry is the idea of their actors unionizing.

Re:Morality? (1)

idontgno (624372) | more than 3 years ago | (#36263996)

Therefore, it's immoral to support an industry based upon exploitation of human beings.

Does this mean I have to forswear fast food? It's sooooo tasty! Even if the employees are completely unfulfilled and exploited shamefully.

TBH, I have a hard time thinking of even one field of endeavor that involves labor-for-pay that isn't exploitative to some objective degree, and I'm not even a Marxist. What's the old joke? "Capitalism is where Man exploits Man, while Socialism is the other way around."

Re:Morality? (1)

hedwards (940851) | more than 3 years ago | (#36263998)

To be honest that argument holds a lot more water when it comes to prostitution than pornography. Some people do enjoy having other people see them engaging in sexual activity. And porn is a much less harmful means than doing it in public with people who may or may not want to see it.

Re:Morality? (2)

Hatta (162192) | more than 3 years ago | (#36264228)

You could say the same about many industries. How many coal miners are there because they want to mine coal? It's because they have no other choices, are doing it for low pay, in bad conditions, and could even lose their lives. Therefore it's immoral to support an industry based on exploitation of human beings.

This isn't an argument against porn. It's an argument in favor of eliminating poverty and providing meaningful worker protections in all industries. I would very much agree with that form of the argument.

Facebook Algorithms (1)

The O Rly Factor (1977536) | more than 3 years ago | (#36263364)

I've notice that if an algorithm on Facebook needs revising and it doesn't have something to do with showing more advertisements to more people in more intrusive ways, it usually gets pushed to the back of the queue.

How come they got theirs back? (5, Interesting)

Joe Helfrich (837865) | more than 3 years ago | (#36263368)

Considering this same group harassed members of a pro-porn Facebook group, and then got their group deleted (despite it not violating the ToS) and then gloated about it, my only problem with this story is that the group got restored, honestly. http://violetblue.posterous.com/my-letter-to-facebook-about-removing-the-our [posterous.com]

Re:How come they got theirs back? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36264538)

We should all do our part to get the group re-deleted. I've reported them for hate speech (which is a perfectly legitimate complaint given all the misandry on their page), and I'm sure if enough people report them they'll get deleted again.

TL; (0)

andrea.sartori (1603543) | more than 3 years ago | (#36263404)

DR

Re:TL; (2)

VortexCortex (1117377) | more than 3 years ago | (#36264564)

"DNR"
^ FTFY.

Imho, TFS: gtfo FB.
-TTFN

thats the summary? (1)

metalmaster (1005171) | more than 3 years ago | (#36263420)

is the article a series of books?

tl;dr

Can you hear that? It's the world's TINIEST VIOLIN (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36263468)

I'm playing it to commemorate the anti-porn theocrats realizing that the "get a bunch of your supporters to complain about stuff to get it removed" sword cuts both ways. (remember Parents Television Council spamming the FCC?)

Anti-Porn (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36263584)

WTF is anti-porn? If you could combine it with porn, would you get a vast amount of energy?

Re:Anti-Porn (2)

geminidomino (614729) | more than 3 years ago | (#36264018)

WTF is anti-porn?

Walking in on your grandmother in the shower.

Umm...interesting, I suppose (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36263650)

Is this the equivalent of a slow news day on Slashdot?

Parents Television Council (5, Insightful)

Hatta (162192) | more than 3 years ago | (#36263672)

"Complaint mobs" are exactly the kind of tactic supposedly christian moralizers use to keep free expression off the airwaves. For instance, the Parents Television Council is responsible for 99% of FCC complaints [arstechnica.com] .

As far as I'm concerned, it's time the pro-censorship crowd gets a taste of their own medicine.

Re:Parents Television Council (1)

ChinggisK (1133009) | more than 3 years ago | (#36263878)

So your solution to censorship is to to censor the censorers?
--insert "Yo dawg...." joke here--

Re:Parents Television Council (3, Insightful)

Hatta (162192) | more than 3 years ago | (#36263956)

Sure. Let them live by their own rules for a while and see how they like it. They argue that offensive subjects should be censored. I find censorship more offensive than anything that's ever been censored. Exposing children to pro-censorship beliefs is vastly more harmful than exposing them to pornography. Therefore, by their own argument their website should be taken down.

This is why free speech has to protect even the most offensive garbage you can imagine. No matter who you are, someone is going to find your speech offensive.

Re:Parents Television Council (1)

ChinggisK (1133009) | more than 3 years ago | (#36264214)

their website should be taken down

free speech has to protect even the most offensive garbage you can imagine.

Still confused as to what you're advocating :p

Re:Parents Television Council (2)

Hatta (162192) | more than 3 years ago | (#36264282)

Really? It's not so hard to understand. When the bully gets his ass handed to him, it's ok to cheer. Bullying is wrong, but turnabout is fair play.

Similarly, censorship is wrong, and it's OK to demonstrate that to the pro-censorship crowd by making them suffer the consequences of censorship.

Is that clear enough for you?

Is there a point in there? (1)

shish (588640) | more than 3 years ago | (#36263678)

I got bored around paragraph 3 when I still hadn't seen any point -- so facebook automatically takes stuff down if there is a flood of complaints, then manually checks it, then puts it back up if it's ok? Is that not a perfectly reasonable thing to do?

Re:Is there a point in there? (1)

geekoid (135745) | more than 3 years ago | (#36263940)

I would argue they should manual check it before taking it down. Sometime silencing a group for a short period is enough to do harm.

OTOH, sine this group abused facebook to their own agenda, I don't think they should have been put back.

What's a non-member of the Inner Party to do? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36263708)

The OP refers multiple times to his "friend at Facebook" who helps him when he gets into trouble. However, even from statistics, it is hardly plausible that most people have such contacts in the Inner Party. If you get into FB's crosshairs, what then? (oh, nevermind: you'll be blocked forever and ever amen)

Some Free speach issues (1)

StillNeedMoreCoffee (123989) | more than 3 years ago | (#36263774)

" (Of course, even if the page admins hadn't done this, inappropriate comments should be the basis for penalizing the user who posted them, not the Facebook page that they were posted on, but it was a moot point in this case.) "

The speaker seems to think that opinions should be punished and someone is the arbitor of appropriate.

"Anybody who seriously reviewed the page's contents for more than twenty seconds would have understood the page's real purpose and seen that it was not actually distributing pornography or otherwise violating the Facebook TOS"

Assumes that the people that were complaining were thinking that this was a porn site and not complaining that the anti-porn material was the offensive part. There is a body (small it may be ) that upholds the idea that God created the world in 7 days and that Global warming does not exist or its not our problem. I suspect the site has an agenda and does not publish research that shows that there is no harm (I suspect such research exists).

OK, and? (1)

thePowerOfGrayskull (905905) | more than 3 years ago | (#36263876)

I have been trying to register a page named "BBSSH - SSH and Telnet for BlackBerry". It keeps getting rejected because it has all caps in the name. They have a policy that says I can't do that. So I apply for an exception because that's the actual product and protocol name (and a page named BlackBerry Secure Shell - Secure Shell and Telnet for BlackBerry" would be dumb) but they keep rejecting it immediately without reviewing it. So I stopped trying; if I decide to host there, I'll find another name for the page. Why? Because ultimately if I want to use their resources, I have to follow their rules and decisions. Even those that seem arbitrary. If I don't want to follow their rules then I am free to go somewhere else.

Facebook is free to do whatever it wants, up to and including removing pages for any reason (such as a maybe-organized complaint campaign) or no reason. They own everything involved except the content supplied by users. They are under no obligation to publish or continue publishing any user-provided content. While I can understand how this seems like a big deal on the surface, it just isn't. We all know the rules of this game going into it. And if we don't, we shouldn't be playing.

Re:OK, and? (1)

maxwell demon (590494) | more than 3 years ago | (#36264056)

Well, I know "ssh" only in lower case.
I don't know about BBSSH, though.

Re:OK, and? (1)

thePowerOfGrayskull (905905) | more than 3 years ago | (#36264352)

In the sense that it's an acroynym SSH is mostly technically correct. Though an argument could be made for SSh, it's not common usage. Typically I see all caps when it's written about, and lowercase (obviously) when it's used as a program. BB is an abbreviated that's commonly accepted for BlackBerry

But regardless of either of the above - the actual product name is BBSSH, with all caps. I understand their rule against all caps, but it's annoying when they give the option to submit an exception request... then automatically deny the exception without review.

Re:OK, and? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36264212)

It is about freedom of speech. Of course, private companies don't have to be good citizens and permit you to have this freedom. But that doesn't mean we can't publicly shame them when they censor speech for any reason. Seems fitting that Facebook get some bad PR when they sought to engage in this against competitors systemically.

the Facebook Effect (1)

doperative (1958782) | more than 3 years ago | (#36263982)

I am curious as to the popularity of social networks, is it as most of us lead disconnected urban lives, where most of the people we run into through out the day are strangers, Facebook serves as a substitute for the kind of community we used to live in.

Porn Harms! (1)

boristdog (133725) | more than 3 years ago | (#36264180)

They're right you know.

My arms are getting really sore.

Bennett Haselton? (1)

Rhodri Mawr (862554) | more than 3 years ago | (#36264568)

If it had been Bennett Halverson [wikia.com] then it might have been worth reading.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?