Facebook Grapples With Grisly Content

LONDON (AP) -- Facebook announced Tuesday it was working on new ways to keep users from stumbling across gruesome content on its website following an outcry over the discovery of beheading videos there.

The controversy -- which has drawn critical comment from British Prime Minister David Cameron -- illustrates the difficulty of setting a universal standard across the social network used by 1 billion people. Facing sharp criticism, Facebook issued a statement clarifying that violent videos were only allowed if they were presented as news or held up as atrocities to be condemned.

"If they were being celebrated, or the actions in them encouraged, our approach would be different," the company said in a statement. "However, since some people object to graphic video of this nature, we are working to give people additional control over the content they see. This may include warning them in advance that the image they are about to see contains graphic content."

Facebook banned beheading videos in May but recently lifted the prohibition -- a development flagged by the BBC on Monday. A few groups have since condemned the social network for potentially exposing users to the violent content.

Cameron, whose right-leaning government has unveiled several initiatives to censor objectionable content online, said Tuesday allowing the beheading videos back on Facebook was "irresponsible."

Facebook's administrators face constant pressure from interest groups trying to impose their own forms of censorship or fighting to lift restrictions they see as oppressive. Women's rights groups want the company to crack down on misogynistic content; others have ridiculed Facebook's ban on the depiction of female breasts. Some believers have urged the site to ban what they see as blasphemous content, while others decry what they claim is Facebook's censorship of pages critical of one religion or the other.

Violent news content poses particularly thorny questions for a website that allows children as young as 13 to join. Should photos of heroic rescuers working during the Boston marathon bombings be banned because some people object to the sight of gore? While images of torture and abuse helped fuel the rage of the Arab pro-democracy demonstrators, should they have been banned for being too bloody?

One free speech group said the fact that content is hard to watch didn't mean it should be hidden.

"Films about beheadings may be deeply upsetting and offensive, but they do expose the reality of violent acts that are taking place in the world today," said Sean Gallagher of the London-based Index on Censorship. "When trying to draw a line about what should or shouldn't be allowed, it's important to look at context, not just content."

link


Read/Post Comments (2) | Recommend This Article (0)

Comments from our Foolish Readers

Help us keep this a respectfully Foolish area! This is a place for our readers to discuss, debate, and learn more about the Foolish investing topic you read about above. Help us keep it clean and safe. If you believe a comment is abusive or otherwise violates our Fool's Rules, please report it via the Report this Comment Report this Comment icon found on every comment.

  • Report this Comment On October 28, 2013, at 4:45 AM, VikingBear wrote:

    Censorship is more trouble than it is worth. The technology for adults to limit the viewing of whatever they find objectionable by the minors they are responsible for exists, and is widely available for little or no cost.

  • Report this Comment On October 28, 2013, at 5:12 AM, VikingBear wrote:

    As I was saying before I was interrupted by the tab key, censoring your own children may be justifiable to yourselves, but interfering with other adults in their search for truth and/or entertainment is despicable.

    If an action be ojectionable to the point of illegality, supressing the action makes sense, but depiction of the action should be a matter for the tastes of the adults encountering it.

    I consider the female nude to be beautiful.

    I consider depiction of actual harm to a man, woman, or child to be reason for seeking out and destroying the perpetrator responsible.

Add your comment.

Sponsored Links

Leaked: Apple's Next Smart Device
(Warning, it may shock you)
The secret is out... experts are predicting 458 million of these types of devices will be sold per year. 1 hyper-growth company stands to rake in maximum profit - and it's NOT Apple. Show me Apple's new smart gizmo!

DocumentId: 2693387, ~/Articles/ArticleHandler.aspx, 9/30/2014 12:02:27 PM

Report This Comment

Use this area to report a comment that you believe is in violation of the community guidelines. Our team will review the entry and take any appropriate action.

Sending report...

Today's Market

updated Moments ago Sponsored by:
DOW 17,114.80 43.58 0.26%
S&P 500 1,980.73 2.93 0.15%
NASD 4,512.51 6.66 0.15%

Create My Watchlist

Go to My Watchlist

You don't seem to be following any stocks yet!

Better investing starts with a watchlist. Now you can create a personalized watchlist and get immediate access to the personalized information you need to make successful investing decisions.

Data delayed up to 5 minutes


Advertisement