Censorship in the age of Social media

[nyepee]

1 hour ago, Sensual said:

The censoring was definitely part of IG's policy. Lachlan Bailey had a photo of his removed for simply showing bare butt. I guess IG is clamping down on things even further.

IG is going full on 19th century.

[SympathysSilhouette]

35 minutes ago, nyepee said:

IG is going full on 19th century.

 

It is part of a broader move towards a far more prudish society. It is starting in the U.S. but some of that bullshit is already making its way across the Atlantic too.

 

I honestly thought we had these battles fifty years ago and they were won but apparently people want to return to that situation.

[Smarf]

You guys know 13 year old kids are on IG right

[SympathysSilhouette]

2 hours ago, Smarf said:

You guys know 13 year old kids are on IG right

 

Once upon a time it was the parents job to make sure kids didn't see stuff they weren't supposed to, not all of society's.

[Smarf]

39 minutes ago, SympathysSilhouette said:

 

Once upon a time it was the parents job to make sure kids didn't see stuff they weren't supposed to, not all of society's.

 

Facebook/IG are a publicly traded company whose main audiences include underage children, and they are currently under scrutiny from Congress.

 

If you don't understand why they're censoring nudity, I can't help you.

[nyepee]

1 hour ago, Smarf said:

 

Facebook/IG are a publicly traded company whose main audiences include underage children, and they are currently under scrutiny from Congress.

 

If you don't understand why they're censoring nudity, I can't help you.

They're censoring nudity as it is an extension of American protestant puritanism.  In France, for example, for decades they have used nudes in TV commercials, even for yogurt.  So far, as far as I can tell, French civilization has not collapsed as a result.  I have seen classes of grammar school age kids in museums in France drawing from nudes by Matisse, Picasso, Derain, etc and really not take any harm from it.

[Reventon19876]

Is this really the forum for discussion about this?

[SympathysSilhouette]

2 hours ago, Smarf said:

 

Facebook/IG are a publicly traded company whose main audiences include underage children, and they are currently under scrutiny from Congress.

 

If you don't understand why they're censoring nudity, I can't help you.

 

Why stop there then? Can Netflix still have shows that have nudity in them?

[SympathysSilhouette]

52 minutes ago, nyepee said:

They're censoring nudity as it is an extension of American protestant puritanism.  In France, for example, for decades they have used nudes in TV commercials, even for yogurt.  So far, as far as I can tell, French civilization has not collapsed as a result.  I have seen classes of grammar school age kids in museums in France drawing from nudes by Matisse, Picasso, Derain, etc and really not take any harm from it.

 

Pretty much, which is fine by me unless they try to impose their own ideology on the rest of the world, which is increasingly becoming the case.

[Smarf]

23 minutes ago, SympathysSilhouette said:

 

Why stop there then? Can Netflix still have shows that have nudity in them?

 

You need to be 18 or older in the US to have a Netflix account. You can't really be this dense...

[stewpidaz]

53 minutes ago, Smarf said:

 

You need to be 18 or older in the US to have a Netflix account. You can't really be this dense...

You have to be 13 to have a Facebook or an Instagram, what is your point?  Any potential scrutiny from congress towards Facebook is much more concerned with their collection and storage/usage of personal data than some nudie pics. The porn restriction seems like it is more of a Facebook policy to me, because porn is everywhere on Twitter.

[SympathysSilhouette]

1 hour ago, Smarf said:

 

You need to be 18 or older in the US to have a Netflix account. You can't really be this dense...

 

Do you honestly believe no one under the age of 18 watches Netflix? I will ignore your insulting tone.

[stewpidaz]

33 minutes ago, SympathysSilhouette said:

 

Do you honestly believe no one under the age of 18 watches Netflix? I will ignore your insulting tone.

I appreciate that you’ve moved the discussion rather than delete it as some mods would have done. I’m guessing this person views teenagers (13+) having access to viewing pornographic or sexual content as obscene because sex at that age is generally viewed as obscene, but in reality everyone at that age has seen that kind of sexual content and it’s this age even in a “prudish” society like America kids are being taught sex ed 

[Sensual]

5 hours ago, Smarf said:

 

Facebook/IG are a publicly traded company whose main audiences include underage children, and they are currently under scrutiny from Congress.

 

If you don't understand why they're censoring nudity, I can't help you.

Their censorship is more conservative on nudity than the catholic church. Perhaps we should ban underage children from catholic church, the evangelicals would love that probably.

[Grievous]

Why in the world is this thread showing up in my notifications????

[TheDude2k]

Photographer Asher Moss is testing IG's policy limits today... 

[SympathysSilhouette]

8 hours ago, stewpidaz said:

I appreciate that you’ve moved the discussion rather than delete it as some mods would have done. I’m guessing this person views teenagers (13+) having access to viewing pornographic or sexual content as obscene because sex at that age is generally viewed as obscene, but in reality everyone at that age has seen that kind of sexual content and it’s this age even in a “prudish” society like America kids are being taught sex ed 

 

The problem I have with this is the idea that it's Meta's job to make sure kids do not see this content on FB or IG.

It's nonsense! Like you say, it's not like kids only saw their first boobs or butt at 18 even 20-25 years ago (so pre social media era).

And if they did somehow get their hands on say a nudie mag when they were hitting puberty, it's not like people back then blamed Playboy for their kids being confronted with nude bodies. People knew that it was the parents job to make sure their kids were not confronted with anything that the parents did not approve of.

For whatever reason some people have now convinced themselves that it's not their job but the job of the government and private companies to do this. That is bullshit.

 

[stewpidaz]

1 hour ago, SympathysSilhouette said:

 

The problem I have with this is the idea that it's Meta's job to make sure kids do not see this content on FB or IG.

It's nonsense! Like you say, it's not like kids only saw their first boobs or butt at 18 even 20-25 years ago (so pre social media era).

And if they did somehow get their hands on say a nudie mag when they were hitting puberty, it's not like people back then blamed Playboy for their kids being confronted with nude bodies. People knew that it was the parents job to make sure their kids were not confronted with anything that the parents did not approve of.

For whatever reason some people have now convinced themselves that it's not their job but the job of the government and private companies to do this. That is bullshit.

 

The parents have more control over anyone else, but there is still only so much they can do to monitor what their child sees. When porn existed just in Playboy magazines before internet it was a little easier to control your kid getting their hands on it but with the internet it is a lot harder even despite the fact that you can use content blockers on your computers. (I know, my parents used these) So I think it is partially the parents responsibility but also partially society. But kids seeing that stuff I don’t think is a big deal in the grand scheme of things, and I also kind of feel like it’s something they are going to find their way to sooner or later anyway but especially likely during puberty. I mean they are giving elementary school kids their own iPads for use at school these days, how is a parent going to control what they see on there?  After all being a helicopter parent presents its own set of issues for the child

[SympathysSilhouette]

I'm sorry but the fact that certain aspects of parenting might now be harder than 25 years ago does not mean that these aren't still 100% the parents' responsibility.

 

"Won't somebody please think of the children?"

That is your fucking job!

 

Child-proofing all of society because some kid might see something he is not supposed to is insane. Again, setting boundaries and limiting access is the parents' job.

[stewpidaz]

18 hours ago, SympathysSilhouette said:

I'm sorry but the fact that certain aspects of parenting might now be harder than 25 years ago does not mean that these aren't still 100% the parents' responsibility.

 

"Won't somebody please think of the children?"

That is your fucking job!

 

Child-proofing all of society because some kid might see something he is not supposed to is insane. Again, setting boundaries and limiting access is the parents' job.

 

I never advocated for child-proofing society. I just don't agree with this notion of complete personal responsibility because society has a role in all of its citizen's life so those things are intertwined. People like to place all blame and responsibility on an individual to absolve themselves of any responsibility. On a similar token, there is no such thing as a "self-made man" this is a complete myth, because society among other things has a lot to do with each individual person's success. For example, Lebron James might have never had the career he has had if he was born in Uganda rather than America, and if he did still end up having the same career it probably would have been because he moved to America