×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

PM Calls Facebook Irresponsible For Allowing Beheading Clips

timothy posted about 6 months ago | from the please-don't-do-that dept.

United Kingdom 201

An anonymous reader writes with this excerpt: "David Cameron has attacked Facebook as irresponsible for lifting a ban on videos of beheadings being posted on its site. The prime minister said the social network must explain its decision to allow images showing decapitations to worried parents. Facebook has said users should be free to view such videos and then condemn the content. Cameron wrote on Twitter: 'It's irresponsible of Facebook to post beheading videos, especially without a warning. They must explain their actions to worried parents.' Facebook introduced a temporary ban on such videos in May but has since decided to remove the block on the grounds that the site is used to share information about world events, such as acts of terrorism and human rights abuses."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

201 comments

PM? Which country (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45198993)

There's a bunch of countries in the world with PMs. I have no fucking idea which one David Cameron runs. How bout throwing us a bone and just telling us which country we're talking about?

Re:PM? Which country (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45199029)

There's a bunch of countries in the world with PMs. I have no fucking idea which one David Cameron runs. How bout throwing us a bone and just telling us which country we're talking about?

Why not do what everyone else who lives outside the USA is expected to do (when they see the name of some US-based politician) and just Google it?

Re:PM? Which country (1)

g0bshiTe (596213) | about 6 months ago | (#45200065)

I live within the US and regularly have to google to find out which US-based politician the news is talking about.

Re:PM? Which country (1)

flyneye (84093) | about 6 months ago | (#45199033)

Are you really so crippled as to not have heard of Google?

Re:PM? Which country (3, Insightful)

cbope (130292) | about 6 months ago | (#45199117)

Nah, he's just a 'Murican!

Seriously, this is a MAJOR problem with the so-called "news" in the US. It's so US-centric (and crime and entertainment-centric) that even the prime minister of the UK is not known by name.

Re:PM? Which country (1)

metrix007 (200091) | about 6 months ago | (#45200011)

What makes you think the UK is important enough that people from other countries should know the UK PM by name?

Re:PM? Which country (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45200069)

Nah, he's just a 'Murican!

Seriously, this is a MAJOR problem with the so-called "news" in the US. It's so US-centric (and crime and entertainment-centric) that even the prime minister of the UK is not known by name.

Bullshit. S/He like so many others, are just plain ig-no-rant. Cameron gets mentioned frequently by the lamestream media, but there's more interest in the size of Kardashian's ass than knowing anything about the world of politics.

Re:PM? Which country (5, Insightful)

91degrees (207121) | about 6 months ago | (#45199183)

He's criticising Slashdot. Whether he googles or not, Slashdot should still have provided this information. There's no reason not to say "British PM".

Perhaps he should know. Perhaps everyone should, but for any snippet of information, there will be a non trivial number of people who are not aware of it. Good journalists provide the information concisely withut forcing the reader to get key details elsewhere.

Re:PM? Which country (1)

JeanInMontana (2020420) | about 6 months ago | (#45199515)

He's criticising Slashdot. Whether he googles or not, Slashdot should still have provided this information. There's no reason not to say "British PM". Perhaps he should know. Perhaps everyone should, but for any snippet of information, there will be a non trivial number of people who are not aware of it. Good journalists provide the information concisely withut forcing the reader to get key details elsewhere.

Slashdot did not make the submission. The link provided in the submission gives the reader all the information needed. There is no need for the poster you are defending to react in such a rude way.

Re:PM? Which country (1)

91degrees (207121) | about 6 months ago | (#45199639)

Point taken about rudeness (although that's not uncommon amongst slashdotters). I do think that Slashdot editors could edit once in a while though; providing the information would be good form.

Most non-US publications will refer to "US President Barrack Obama" for prety much this reason even though it would be pretty astounding to find someone who doesn't know who Barrack Obama is. Adding the word "British" to the headline would have made this more immediately comprehensible.

Re:PM? Which country (1)

JeanInMontana (2020420) | about 6 months ago | (#45199861)

Point taken about rudeness (although that's not uncommon amongst slashdotters). I do think that Slashdot editors could edit once in a while though; providing the information would be good form. Most non-US publications will refer to "US President Barrack Obama" for prety much this reason even though it would be pretty astounding to find someone who doesn't know who Barrack Obama is. Adding the word "British" to the headline would have made this more immediately comprehensible.

LMAO you criticize Slashdot for not editing, when you don't bother spell checking your own stuff? Not up for an argument but you might want to follow your own advice. Slashdot is not edited, it is user submitted snippets of info with links back to the source, more about the discussion of the subject than journalistic skills. Slashdot has many 'Anonymous Cowards' who are rude posters and trolls. However that is no reason to condone that behavior or participate.

Re:PM? Which country (1)

TheRaven64 (641858) | about 6 months ago | (#45199915)

Slashdot is not edited, it is user submitted snippets of info with links back to the source, more about the discussion of the subject than journalistic skills

Last time I had a story accepted, it was edited. By which I mean they deleted random bits and introduced a typo. If they're going to modify things, they could at least improve them...

Re:PM? Which country (1)

metrix007 (200091) | about 6 months ago | (#45200041)

LMAO you criticize Slashdot for not editing, when you don't bother spell checking your own stuff?

A single post is not the same as a submission on one of the worlds most popular tech news sites.

Think before you post next time.

Re:PM? Which country (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45199881)

Slashdot did not make the submission.

Slashdot edited the submission, and the submitter should have said what country Mr. Cameron is from. I knew, and I know who is premier (or whatever they have) of Russia, I know that Mexico's President is Fox, but as to Canada, France, Australia, China, VietNam, Argentina? No fucking idea. If it's a story about Obama, don't say "President Obama." How do we know that the president of Fuckallistan isn't also named Obama?

Do you know the name the leader of every country in the world? Unlikely. The internet is international. When mentioning any country's leader, not saying what country is just fucking retarded, and stupidity should not be tolerated at a nerd site. If you act like a nitwit here, expect the rudeness you deserve.

Re:PM? Which country (2, Interesting)

TheP4st (1164315) | about 6 months ago | (#45199075)

I have no fucking idea which one David Cameron runs. How bout throwing us a bone and just telling us which country we're talking about?

How about that you read or watch news about world events once in a while? Note that by world events I do not mean what Rihanna wore on the red carpet or what Justin Bieber did last night but actual politics as in that stuff that pretty much play an important part in our daily lives. Bone for the search engine impaired and generally ignorant. [lmgtfy.com]

Re: PM? Which country (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45199345)

Politics is only as important as we let them make it. It's hard sometimes for the politically active to acknowledge, but that's the deal.

Re:PM? Which country (2)

tapi0 (2805569) | about 6 months ago | (#45199129)

There's a bunch of countries in the world with Presidents. I have no fucking idea which one Barrack Obama runs. How bout throwing us a bone and just telling us which country we're talking about

It really needs to be consistently applied, don't you think - there's often a reference to something particularly USian that needs further research. Either concede that it's going to be necessary sometimes, given the nature of a summary, or give the full background detail for all regardless of if it originates in the US

Re:PM? Which country (1)

geminidomino (614729) | about 6 months ago | (#45199299)

When Mr Cameron starts sticking his dick into US affairs the way POTUS shoves his into every pie on the damn planet, you might have a point, but regardless of where you are, someone in your government is either taunting or sucking off the head of USGOV.

Re:PM? Which country (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45199195)

I have no fucking idea which one David Cameron runs.

That's OK. David Cameron doesn't know either.

Re:PM? Which country (5, Funny)

TrollstonButterbeans (2914995) | about 6 months ago | (#45199241)

David Cameron is British. A few years ago, he moved to the US to play soccer in California.

Re:PM? Which country (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45199419)

No mate you're confusing your facts, thats David Beckham, the guy that inspired those two chicks that used to play footie and then went on to be a pirate (the whitey one) and a doctor at the County General in Chicago (the brown one). Good for them, clearly piracy and medicine are much more lucrative than kicking a ball around.

This Cameron fella used to be in the movies, I think, did he not? I loved him Growing Pains, and his ideas these days are so intriguing that I subscribed to his newsletter. His sister is a total hottie as well.

Re:PM? Which country (1)

mcneely.mike (927221) | about 6 months ago | (#45199481)

No mate you're confusing the facts, those two chicks got together with one cup.... and now I'll go be sick again...

Helping him censor the web for him now (4, Insightful)

Alex Kasa (2867743) | about 6 months ago | (#45198997)

Unfortunately this will likely help him in his quest for web censorship...

Re:Helping him censor the web for him now (1)

gl4ss (559668) | about 6 months ago | (#45199267)

yeah nevermind that if you don't have people posting beheading clips as friends or friends who comment on them then you will not see them.

I have not seen not one, and I got something around 200 fb "friends" on the feeds. they know that there's other venues for gore than fb. I don't send titty pics to my mom nor do I send her goatse.

you could get them in your email too, if someone was sending them..

Excellent (5, Insightful)

AmiMoJo (196126) | about 6 months ago | (#45198999)

This is wonderful news. Facebook will now be blocked by default in the government porn filters, and thus far more people will opt out of them. Turns out Facebook is actually useful for something.

Re:Excellent (3, Interesting)

fatphil (181876) | about 6 months ago | (#45199415)

I was expecting your post to veer in this direction:

This is wonderful news. Facebook will now be blocked by default in the government porn filters, and thus far more people will just give up on using facebook, and it will be forgotten about and disappear. Turns out the government is actually useful for something.

Re:Excellent (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45200073)

Why would a beheading picture run afoul of a porn blocker? Do the Brits wank to beheading videos or something?

Won't somebody think of the children... (4, Insightful)

Martz (861209) | about 6 months ago | (#45199005)

'It's irresponsible of Facebook to post beheading videos, especially without a warning. They must explain their actions to worried parents.'

So much fail...

Facebook doesn't post any beheading videos. It's users do.
I thought we were allowed to be irresponsible as long as it's legal?
If my Facebook friends don't like the content that I may or may not post, then they can hide it or unfriend me.

Looks like he's trying to win Family Votes, and slashdot is helping to peddle this crap.

Shame on you timothy. Shame on you.

Re:Won't somebody think of the children... (1)

91degrees (207121) | about 6 months ago | (#45199059)

Facebook doesn't post any beheading videos. It's users do.

Give him the benefit of the doubt here. It's clear what he means

I thought we were allowed to be irresponsible as long as it's legal?

Hasn't been the case in Nanny state Britain for a while. At least not as far as most politicians are concerned.

If my Facebook friends don't like the content that I may or may not post, then they can hide it or unfriend me.

But this leads to the question of why facebook blocked it in the first place, and how those factors no longer apply. If facebook feels that that harm is done and they want to prevent this then they can block them. If they feel these are not the case then they don't have to. Facebok should make up its mind which of these is the case.

Re:Won't somebody think of the children... (1)

gl4ss (559668) | about 6 months ago | (#45199529)

fb blocked it in the first place because nannies were asking for it. what they could do maybe would be to introduce a M18 tag and let everything go in that.

it's not quite clear what he means because the nanny orgs lobbying him are wording it like facebook is posting the stuff - as if it wasn't their little kids "online friends" who were posting the stuff(I've never seen ANY gore on fb. plenty on other corners of the internet though).

that being said, cutting them is a short way of censoring a lot of activist news stories.

and wait until they hear about goatse.......

Re:Won't somebody think of the children... (4, Insightful)

Barsteward (969998) | about 6 months ago | (#45199083)

I think banning porn videos, bare breasts etc but not beheading videos shows a complete hypocrisy especially with this statement from the dick heads.

"Facebook has long been a place where people turn to share their experiences, particularly when they're connected to controversial events on the ground, such as human rights abuses, acts of terrorism and other violent events. People are sharing this video on Facebook to condemn it. If the video were being celebrated, or the actions in it encouraged, our approach would be different," Facebook said in a statement.

Re:Won't somebody think of the children... (1)

TheCarp (96830) | about 6 months ago | (#45199209)

As much as I mostly agree, I think its more a bit of being spineless than dick heads. Facebook is, at the end of the day, not going to be banned in the UK, and the company is a US company anyway.

Standing up to Cameron doesn't take much spine, its basically just good PR for Facebook.

Porn and erotic images (a friend was recently ranting about people reporting a picture a friend of her posted where her friend was wearing body paint) on the other hand, while they likely could get away with it, and could fight the shitstorm that it kicked up....have no incentive to do so.

Instead they put it on their users. Lock down your porn so only a few people can see it, and there is no real restriction. Close the closet door and you are ok, until you piss someone off and they report everything on your page.

Plus it would likely create sticky situations for them in making the min age to have an account lower than 18.

Re:Won't somebody think of the children... (1)

Barsteward (969998) | about 6 months ago | (#45199499)

I think in cases like this where they try to prepare a clever "statement" to defend their idiotic choices, dick head==spineless

Re:Won't somebody think of the children... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45200047)

So FB is now the decider for how we behave? This is worse than banning the pictures. We'll allow it, as long as you all behave as we say? If I was ever on FB, I'd be off now.

Re:Won't somebody think of the children... (5, Insightful)

daem0n1x (748565) | about 6 months ago | (#45199167)

Then allow people to post nudity and sex. I can't see how naked people can be considered worse than a guy getting his head cut off. American puritanism in its worse.

And before all the jingos start telling me "if you don't like American puritanism, then don't use Facebook", I declare: I don't use it.

Re:Won't somebody think of the children... (1)

Impy the Impiuos Imp (442658) | about 6 months ago | (#45199509)

It's reasonable to ask them why they allow these postings without so much as a warning or parental filter, given their reason for taking over from MySpace orients around kids and permitting private pages.

Re:Won't somebody think of the children... (1)

JackieBrown (987087) | about 6 months ago | (#45199759)

Then allow people to post nudity and sex. I can't see how naked people can be considered worse than a guy getting his head cut off. American puritanism in its worse.

I guess you thought this story was about the American Prime Mister?

Re:Won't somebody think of the children... (4, Insightful)

gstoddart (321705) | about 6 months ago | (#45199269)

Facebook doesn't post any beheading videos. It's users do.

You're right. But Facebook chooses if that's what they're willing to allow on their site.

Somehow I doubt this is some noble thing about freedom of expression like they're saying -- I strongly suspect it's more about the advertising revenue generated.

Zuckerberg and Facebook can claim some principled stand, but from what I've seen, it's likely just plain old greed.

I'm not convinced they're actually capable of being principled on these things -- they want to do two things, make as much money as possible, and collect as much of your personal information as they can (so they can make as much money as possible). But lets' not pretend that Zuckerfuck is, or ever has been, a principled actor in all of this.

Re:Won't somebody think of the children... (1, Interesting)

prefec2 (875483) | about 6 months ago | (#45199305)

Cameron is presently converting the UK into a totalitarian state. He already has a central spy infrastructure, cameras at every corner, and a content control infrastructure (for pron of course, other stuff is allowed). He fights free press together with his friends in the conservative press (including Murdoch). Most likely, he will perform a referendum on UK-exit from the EU, which if it succeeds will help the EU and harm the UK in many ways. For Cameron it has the advantage that it is easier to dump the European human rights declaration, which he already blamed to be bad for the UK, because they have to treat foreigners/immigrants like humans.

But, yes he is right. The real problem are Facebook videos, photos, or posts. (Well FB sucks, but everyone is still free to not use it)

Re:Won't somebody think of the children... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45199657)

better if the UK-exit referendum is held at the same time as the Scottish independence referendum, win the result of UK going out and Scotland being a member of the EU.

I traveled around UK and Scotland was where I was beast treated.

Re:Won't somebody think of the children... (1, Interesting)

Pino Grigio (2232472) | about 6 months ago | (#45199731)

Oh do shut up. Cameron had nothing to do with the creation and activities of GCQH, before 2010. He also wasn't responsible for CCTV cameras being put up all over the country. Cameron is against regulation of the press. A referendum on leaving the EU is what the people fucking want [democracym...rrey.co.uk], regardless of what the end result would be. You have no idea whether that would be good or bad for the EU or the UK. His opposition to European Human Rights law is based on the fact that Islamic hate preachers can come to the UK and spread their shite, sponge benefits and resist deportation because they have a fucking cat, for 10 years at a cost of millions of pounds.

Re:Won't somebody think of the children... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45199889)

>A referendum on leaving the EU is what the people fucking want

And these same people honestly can't tell the difference between their ass and their elbow.

Re:Won't somebody think of the children... (2, Insightful)

drinkypoo (153816) | about 6 months ago | (#45199815)

I thought we were allowed to be irresponsible as long as it's legal?
If my Facebook friends don't like the content that I may or may not post, then they can hide it or unfriend me.

Facebook is not a common carrier because they already censor content. For example, they censor stills of breastfeeding in which you can barely see a breast. They are the only and ultimate arbiter of what content is permissible on their site, and therefore they should be legally responsible for all of it.

Re:Won't somebody think of the children... (1)

intermodal (534361) | about 6 months ago | (#45199905)

Every time I think Cameron has truly demonstrated how much he fails at understanding technology, he goes and does something like this and proves how much worse his failures on that front can get. We have to remember, Cameron thought it was reasonable to believe ISPs could magically block porn as well in some reliable fashion.

Irresponsible, yes (1, Interesting)

FriendlyLurker (50431) | about 6 months ago | (#45199007)

Irresponsible, yes, but it sure does help sell the whole war on terror. Look, this could be you if your country does not bend over and contribute to the world war on terror [truth-out.org] (Icelands experience).

Re:Irresponsible, yes (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45199315)

Iceland got itself in trouble because it lost other people's money and refused to pay it back.

That's nothing to do with the war on terror, it only has itself to blame.

So? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45199049)

There was also a beheading in Expendables movie...

Real problem (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45199053)

They must explain their actions to worried parents.

UK PM "Won't someone think of the children" Cameron can just explain that his opt-in internet policy will naturally prevent children watching YouTube. Or he could ask why those parents aren't supervising their child's internet time.

If the PM really wants to turn the internet into a babysitter, he can fund a law to rent appropriate content and create a walled garden.

so much for common decency (1)

Sterculius (1675612) | about 6 months ago | (#45199073)

I suppose it is OK to post rape videos and snuff films on Facebook now as well.

Re:so much for common decency (2)

Thanshin (1188877) | about 6 months ago | (#45199089)

I wouldn't mind. I don't have friends who'd do such thing.

If you have many friends who would like to post rape videos and snuff films maybe it's your problem and not everybody else's.

Re:so much for common decency (0)

daem0n1x (748565) | about 6 months ago | (#45199187)

If you're such an individualist that won't mind about anything outside your own asshole, what are you doing posting on Slashdot? Go back to your solitary confinement.

Re:so much for common decency (1)

Thanshin (1188877) | about 6 months ago | (#45199451)

"Minding about" does not equal "imposing one's view".

I don't like to live in a world where some people would post beheadings on their facebook for any but a very few reasons. However, I don't believe myself to be the judge of decency with the right to tell other people what they should or shouldn't share with their (and that's the key word) friends.

Re:so much for common decency (2)

MROD (101561) | about 6 months ago | (#45199261)

I suppose it is OK to post rape videos and snuff films on Facebook now as well.

Probably is... as long as you don't show any nipples!

Think of the worried parebts (4, Funny)

Chrisq (894406) | about 6 months ago | (#45199087)

The prime minister said the social network must explain its decision to allow images showing decapitations to worried parents.

I would strongly advise worried parents not to watch decapitation clips.

Re:Think of the worried parents (-1, Troll)

Chrisq (894406) | about 6 months ago | (#45199091)

The prime minister said the social network must explain its decision to allow images showing decapitations to worried parents.

I would strongly advise worried parents not to watch decapitation clips.

Excepting Muzzy parents who are worried that fellow Muslims are being too soft on the Kaffirs of course

Re:Think of the worried parents (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45199115)

The Taliban doing the beheadings are the tea party of the muslims. The majority aren't like that and prefer to get on with their lives in peace.

Re:Think of the worried parents (1)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | about 6 months ago | (#45199389)

In my country, during socialism, the majority also wasn't like that. They wouldn't imprison or hang people for political reasons. But they didn't do anything against it either.

Re: Think of the worried parents (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45199437)

That's one way of looking at it. Another is that they're the "Organizinag For America" for the Islamic world.

Re:Think of the worried parents (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45199475)

You mean they stand for limited government and obeying the constitution?

New Headline! (2, Funny)

flyneye (84093) | about 6 months ago | (#45199103)

Facebook calls PM sissy fop for censoring what the children already see in games, on t.v. and in the backyard with a Barbie and Ken execution playset.

" Who is this irritation and why does he not realize that "I" govern more people than his silly little country and the Catholic Church combined?" said Zuckerburg, wiping the powder from beneath his nostrils and grabbing another turkey leg. " Off with his head!"

Oh... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45199107)

...I wish the British would leave by their concept of "No sex please."

That way, they'd stop contaminating the gene pool and eventually die out...

Re:Oh... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45199131)

s/leave/live/

David Cameron... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45199109)

sounds like a twit.

That is all.

Independence..... (1)

nnet (20306) | about 6 months ago | (#45199157)

so what happened last time the British tried to enforce their morality across the pond....

Re:Independence..... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45199173)

By the looks of it, they're determined to bring the world back to the Victorian period.

Why else would they still make Victorian period costume dramas?

Re:Independence..... (4, Insightful)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | about 6 months ago | (#45199217)

so what happened last time the British tried to enforce their morality across the pond....

I don't remember the American Revolution having much of a moral element.... In fact, while we've done a great deal to get over it, the US was substantially stocked by a mixture of moralizing assholes too moralistic to get along in Britain (ye olde puritans) and would-be feudal lords who couldn't compete with the incumbents at home and therefore went abroad (ye olde slave plantation regions).

Some political discontent, some economic interests; but King George wasn't exactly getting all up in our right to own filthy erotic lithographs...

As a worried parent... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45199193)

...i'd be more concerned to show my kids (a video of) the likes of David Cameron than (a video of) a beheading (as tasteless as the latter might be).

Damn... (4, Insightful)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | about 6 months ago | (#45199201)

Is there any part of the internet (aside from its utility for dystopian surveillance) that hasn't caused David Cameron to open his horrible, gormless, marshmallow-face and drone on about 'the children' and 'irresponsibility'? It's as though his government has entirely run out of substantive policy or something...

No worries (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45199223)

Don't worry, it's halal.

Hmmm... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45199249)

A lot of comments in the news article seem to be pro-censorship.

You know what, fuck it. Maybe the British deserve to live in the pro-censorship cesspool they've created for themselves.

Don't get me wrong, videos of beheadings are disgusting and don't interest me in the slightest, but how much more retarded can you be?

Headless breasts? (4, Insightful)

bradley13 (1118935) | about 6 months ago | (#45199253)

As pointed out elsewhere, Facebook has the same odd puritanical streak as found throughout the USA. You can watch people being beheaded, but they still firmly forbid pictures of breastfeeding moms. The sight of a female breast might excite prurient passions, whereas watching a murder is just spiffy.

Re:Headless breasts? (2)

pla (258480) | about 6 months ago | (#45199523)

As pointed out elsewhere, Facebook has the same odd puritanical streak as found throughout the USA. You can watch people being beheaded, but they still firmly forbid pictures of breastfeeding moms. The sight of a female breast might excite prurient passions, whereas watching a murder is just spiffy.

How about "honor rape" as practiced by the same barbarians going around beheading infidels? I mean, as long as any visible breasts get blurred out, of course - Wouldn't want to accidentally titillate any impressionable young viewers, after all. Where does Facebook stand on that?

I mean, since rape has its basis in power, not sex, Facebook should have no more problem with it than with plain ol' boring murder. So let us know, Zuckhead - The world needs to know where you draw the line on poor taste! I'd hate to get banned from your fine stream of ads for posting the "wrong" kind of torture porn.

These are videos of crimes ... (2)

MacTO (1161105) | about 6 months ago | (#45199281)

One thing to keep in mind is that these are videos of crimes. That is certainly the case in the Mexican excample that I saw cited.

I'll leave it up to you whether you support the posting of videos of crimes, but I don't see a good reason for it. Even in the cases of political speech and exposing human rights violations, you rarely need to resort to messages that are so graphic.

Re:These are videos of crimes ... (2)

georgeb (472989) | about 6 months ago | (#45199453)

One thing to keep in mind is that these are videos of crimes. That is certainly the case in the Mexican excample that I saw cited.

Is there any case where a beheading is NOT a crime??? Not only should any decent human being consider such videos way outside any TOS for any website, but posting them should be a crime too. How come the same standard apply here as in the case of pedophilia? If owning a pornographic image/video involving minors is a major crime, how can there possibly be any argument that distributing beheading videos should be legal, tolerated, encouraged, anything really...

Re:These are videos of crimes ... (1)

andy.ruddock (821066) | about 6 months ago | (#45199757)

Is there any case where a beheading is NOT a crime???

Where it's the sentence of the court being carried out.

[Pedant mode off]

Although even in this case I'd much rather not see it. Saw one a number of years ago, still haunts me occasionally.

Re:These are videos of crimes ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45199769)

Is there any case where a beheading is NOT a crime???

Yes. Those cases go under the name "capital punishment". Morally, it's of course still just as wrong, but that usually doesn't stop those writing the laws.

Not only should any decent human being consider such videos way outside any TOS for any website, but posting them should be a crime too.

Chipping away freedom of speach, one piece at a time?

If owning a pornographic image/video involving minors is a major crime, how can there possibly be any argument that distributing beheading videos should be legal, tolerated, encouraged, anything really...

The theory is that people making kiddie porn are in it for the money, and even pirating a kiddie porn video is supporting the content producers, and will get them to produce more (unlike regular videos and music, where pirating it means the RIAA and MPAA member organizations are going bankrupt for the tenth year in a row, and there won't be any more movies and music produced).

The beheading videos, on the other hand, are made for religious reasons.

Religious speech and commercial speech are viewed differently.

Re:These are videos of crimes ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45199779)

It's not a crime in the Muslim countries of the Middle East, Saudi Arabia especially. As a matter of fact, it's basically a spectator sport.

Re:These are videos of crimes ... (1)

AHuxley (892839) | about 6 months ago | (#45199941)

Try it.
1. Line your home with a few cameras and mics.
2. Take up some cause on Web 2.0 with a visible local press/police stance.
3. Wait till your ip is reported and you get a 'visit' at home.
4. Speak loudly for the mic ;)

How about 'fake' beheadings? (1)

mysidia (191772) | about 6 months ago | (#45199303)

I'm thinking of like: a web application, where you can upload a picture of some random politician of your choice.

And then the site will create an animation where there is a fake beheading, and, through the power of computer graphics; a plain color background is displayed, with the head replaced with a stub.

These fake beheadings could then be virally shared on FB

Posting these videos is irresponsible (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45199325)

Facebook went too far, and has crossed the line by placing behavior that is either amoral or immoral on public display.

Civilized society can no longer permit this, Cameron is correct.

Re:Posting these videos is irresponsible (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45199621)

If beheadings are ok then probably other kinds of murder are also ok, I guess, so its high time someone uploads "2 guys 1 hammer" to FB. And let's not stop there, let's go all the way -- rape, bestiality, scat, pedophilia, etc. These are all world events and many of the human rights abuses, so people have the right to know!

Re:Posting these videos is irresponsible (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45199831)

Cameron is correct in one thing and one thing only, that there should be a warning. But not just for beheading videos, but all videos, detailing what is in the video. I can't tell you how many times I was tricked into watching some elementary school play, or a handegg game, or even the ever-common Rick Roll.

Solution (1)

vinlud (230623) | about 6 months ago | (#45199785)

Start posting CGI videos of beheading Mark Zuckerberg, I have a feeling he will change his mind

Oh god... I feel sick (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45200021)

I'm actually coming down on the side of facebook.I never felt so dirty.

Fuck Cameron. With a rake. Sideways.

Parents? (1)

tompaulco (629533) | about 6 months ago | (#45200037)

Why are parents worried? You have to be 13 to have a Facebook account. Surely parents aren't letting their children who aren't old enough to meet the ToS of Facebook to have a Facebook account?
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...