#1 By: Rob Beschizza, September 17th, 2013 11:27
#2 By: Boris Magocsi, September 17th, 2013 11:48
#3 By: cbuchner1, September 17th, 2013 11:48
I don't get it. Why would a recording made at a zoo run afoul of Facebook's community standards?
- animals are nude by default, unless they're forced into clothes by humans
- mammals and other penis wielding creatures (ducks, ...) tend to copulate every once in a while
does Facebook intend to ban each and every documentary showing sex between animals? if so, what's the criterion? Penis size? penis flexibility? penis maneuverability? rate of thrust? Facebook, please clarify.
#4 By: David Forbes, September 17th, 2013 11:51
That dig at the end of your post is the best, Rob. If you want to own your work, put it on your own site. Otherwise, you're the product.
#5 By: Boundegar, September 17th, 2013 12:06
I wonder what their policy is on tapir violence?
#6 By: Jens Reuterberg, September 17th, 2013 12:23
Well I love it when large established magazines or companies tell us small-timer plebs what chumps we are for having to use Facebook, Twitter et al to survive. I know, I know its probably ment as just kind advice but it always comes off as such snobbery...
If it was combined with advice on how to handle stuff that you DO need Facebook for in another way (in another similarly effective way) - it'd be brilliant but for some reason those kinds of advice are few and far between in comparison with the tut-tutting "you shouldn't rely on Facebook".
#7 By: James Riley, September 17th, 2013 12:26
I cut the chord to FB over a year ago. You really don't need it.
#8 By: Jens Reuterberg, September 17th, 2013 12:46
Really? I get about half of my work from Facebook connections. Since most people are more comfortable adding new friends on facebook (or similar) and they inevitably see images scrolling past their stream as an illustrator adding editors and others its almost impossible to cut out.
I'm trying to figure out another way that works, Twitter is way off since images aren't visible, too few editors use G+ (sadly although there are plenty of other illustrators there), same with Tumblr and since none of them do searches for "illustrator blog" thats out to. Linkedin isn't like that and the only thing I can think of beyond that is cold-call emails which are sort of ineffective in comparison to the Facebook method.
Again I wish I could figure out a way but since the illustration gig is already kinda slim cutting off half of it on a risk isn't really plausible.
#9 By: dculberson, September 17th, 2013 13:29
Careful mocking the word "unpublish," it's been used quite a bit by the BoingBoing powers that be! It's newglish.
#10 By: marco, September 17th, 2013 14:02
I didn't read that as "don't use Facebook" - more as "be aware of the implications of using Facebook, and perhaps think about a contingency plan in case they 'fire' you."
#11 By: WearySky, September 17th, 2013 14:27
Or, rather - if you depend on Facebook for your business, be careful that you don't offend anybody.
The crazy thing here is that it had to be somebody reporting the content to get it removed. I doubt that FB's content police just happened across that tapir penis.
#12 By: edked, September 17th, 2013 14:34
Just because you've come to need it, doesn't mean it doesn't suck.
#14 By: Rob Beschizza, September 17th, 2013 15:00
#15 By: dculberson, September 17th, 2013 15:25
"Uh, Earth to Meekus, duh, okay I knew that!"
#16 By: Rob Beschizza, September 17th, 2013 15:25
I work on the Facebook Public Policy and Communications team and was
alerted to the fact that content you posted had been removed after it
had been reported to us. I took a look, investigated and found that
the post did not violate our policies and the content was removed in
error. The content has been restored and we have removed any blocks on
associated accounts. With a community of over one billion people, our
team processes over one million reports each week and occasionally we
make a mistake. I apologize for the inconvenience caused due to the
removal of this content. Please let me know if you have any questions.
#17 By: Rob Beschizza, September 17th, 2013 15:25
#18 By: dculberson, September 17th, 2013 15:26
If you know what I mean. And I think you do.
#19 By: Jeff, September 17th, 2013 15:36
I really can see both sides of this. I personally do not want that content on my feed or associated with my FB account. Call me a prude or whatever but the article, while informative and interesting, is frankly going to be objectionable to some. I think that anytime the the title of a post contains the words enchilada and penis, you're not going for a mainstream audience which is what FB is.
Their policy is what it is. If you don't like it then don't post. There are ways to creatively syndicate yourself on conservative venues, in this case the squeaky wheel will only make a loud sound, no grease. Trying to rustle the jimmies of your readership, who already have a disdain for FB, is probably fruitless. If you want to widen your audience you'll have to homogenize your content to a degree...Boing Boing is not Time Magazine so get over it and stay true to your roots and syndicate with some imagination, not like the cranky old man who doesn't want anyone on their lawn.
#20 By: Funruly, September 17th, 2013 15:48
Respectable unpublications provide Tapir Warnings.
#21 By: Alice Weir, September 17th, 2013 15:57
Yeah, well. Kindly explain to us why it's ok to post tittypix, but a woman nursing a baby got banned. You really think we should all just go along to get along with that kind of stuff?
I'll be honest - I despise Facebook and only have an account in order to stay in touch with a few who hardly know how to use their computers for anything else. But, when the CEO claims that privacy is old-fashioned and unnecessary, and then they ban content BECAUSE it's too private to suit them? C'mon. That's pure bs.
next page →