On Facebook, No Nipples Allowed. (But Crushed Limbs are OK.)

What’s more offensive than crushed heads and mangled limbs? Exposed female nipples, according to Facebook’s criteria for deleting user content, published for the first time on Gawker two weeks ago.

What's the Big Idea?


What’s more offensive than crushed heads and mangled limbs? Exposed female nipples, according to Facebook’s criteria for deleting user content, published for the first time on Gawker two weeks ago.

The documents were leaked by a former employee at oDesk, the California-based firm that outsources content moderation for both Facebook and Google. They contain a set of strict guidelines for enforcing Facebook's vague Statement of Rights and Responsibilities, which have heretofore eluded public scrutiny.

A cheat sheet of rules for moderators lists violent speech as unacceptable, but says "crushed heads, limbs, etc are ok as long as no insides are showing." Blood and deep flesh wounds are also ok. Users may upload as many pictures of marijuana as they want, unless it is clear that they're selling, buying, or growing it.

This laissez faire attitude doesn't extend to sexual content, however. Moderators are instructed to delete images portraying "naked 'private parts," any sexual activity -- "even if naked parts are hidden from view by hands, clothes or other objects" -- and "female nipple bulges," "cartoon/art included." (Male nipples get a pass, but J. Lo's Oscar dress is out.) Pixelated or black-barred content showing nudity is also banned, as are pictures of sex toys, camel toes, and breast-feeding.

The contrast between Facebook's stringent policing of "private parts" and its permissiveness towards depictions of violence led Gawker editor Adrian Chen to dub the oDesk moderators "Facebook's anti-porn brigade." The Guardian attributed the “odd prejudices against sex” to Facebook's American roots. Rowan Davies, a campaign consultant for parenting site Mumsnet, called on mothers to post pictures of themselves breastfeeding in open defiance of the rules, which Davies (half-jokingly) referred to as a "Papal Index" for the digital age. The thing is: she's got a point.

What's the Significance?

Facebook is a company, but it's not just a company. Like Google before it, it has become -- quite intentionally -- a default form of online navigation in a world where the internet is a precious resource. Its ubiquity as the largest social network on Earth gives it the power to mediate and define what we share on the web, while its newly public status means that it is accountable to shareholders, not to users. The question is, why is Facebook allowed to harbor "odd prejudices," or any prejudices at all? Who decides that pictures of weed are allowed, but images of breastfeeding aren't? In other words, is Facebook censoring us?

The legal answer is clear: no. By joining the community, you've agreed to the terms of use. Participation equals consent. The Statement of Rights and Responsibilities notes, "by using or accessing Facebook, you agree to this Statement."

What's unclear is whose values are being reflected in Facebook's guidelines for content moderation. Are they shaped by what Facebook executives want, or what they think we want? And how long will that matter? In 2003, after appearing before the Harvard Ad Board to defend FaceMash (the precursor to Facebook), Mark Zuckerberg famously told the Harvard Crimson, “I’m not willing to risk insulting anyone.” Now that one out of every ten people in the world has a Facebook profile, the chance of insulting any one of its users is far greater, while the stakes for the company are far less.

Perhaps what we need to reckon with is the fact that a handful of people own what has now become public space. We see our friends as our network and our network as something we build, but of course, Facebook owns anything posted to Facebook. We think of Facebook as a free service, but of course, advertising still accounts for 85% of its revenue. Again, what's being exchanged is not money, not exactly, but consent: your data becomes the property of Facebook. They promise to use it nicely, but ultimately, these guidelines are one more reminder that regulation of the community -- and of Facebook -- is in the hands of Facebook, not its users.

Image courtesy of Tomislav Pinter / Shutterstock.com

Got a question for a real NASA astronomer? Ask it here!

NASA astronomer Michelle Thaller is coming back to Big Think to answer YOUR questions! Here's all you need to know to submit your science-related inquiries.

Surprising Science

Big Think's amazing audience has responded so well to our videos from NASA astronomer and Assistant Director for Science Communication Michelle Thaller that we couldn't wait to bring her back for more!

And this time, she's ready to tackle any questions you're willing to throw at her, like, "How big is the Universe?", "Am I really made of stars?" or, "How long until Elon Musk starts a colony on Mars?"

All you have to do is submit your questions to the form below, and we'll use them for an upcoming Q+A session with Michelle. You know what to do, Big Thinkers!

Keep reading Show less

Is technology corrupting humanity? History says no.

Build up, tear down—new technology stirs up a cycle of progress and cynicism we've seen all throughout history.

Videos
  • "Every time that there's a new technology, particularly around media, there's a set of outcries around how that media is corrupting culture or how it's destroying certain aspects of our life," says entrepreneur and author Elad Gil.
  • In some cases there are real concerns, but taking a historical view can quell unnecessary panic. Progress and cynicism work in a cyclical fashion. New tech is unveiled, the media builds it up, then the media tears it down in a wave of backlash.
  • Today we worry about kids and smartphones; 80 years ago we worried about kids and the radio; same cynicism, different day.
  • Technology lifts the lid on human potential and quality of life, says Gil. We should be duly cautious, but optimism is more valuable (and arguably more rational) than pessimism.
Keep reading Show less

Take the Big Think survey for a chance to win :)

Calling all big thinkers!

  • Tell us a little bit about where you find Big Think's videos, articles, and podcasts.
  • Be entered for a chance to win 1 of 3 Amazon gift cards each worth $100.
  • All survey information is anonymous and will be used only for this survey.
Keep reading Show less