I think the headline is implying that they were targeted for their ideological positions.
However the very first line reveals what the actual reason probably was: "posts showing non-explicit nudity triggering warnings"
However the very first line reveals what the actual reason probably was: "posts showing non-explicit nudity triggering warnings"
[1] https://imginn.com/p/ClT7Cufrk0k/
>A message from Meta to the group dated 13 November said its page “does not follow our Community Standards on prescription drugs”, adding: “We know this is disappointing, but we want to keep Facebook safe and welcoming for everyone.”
>“The disabled accounts were correctly removed for violating a variety of our policies including our Human Exploitation policy,” it added.
... which is much more in-line with the idea that the actual reason is ideological positions. And if you scroll all the way to the bottom of the article you'll see that the "nudity" that was banned was not nudity at all. So non-nude they actually included the drawing in the Guardian article itself.
> The offending post was an artistic depiction of a naked couple, obscured by hearts.
Given Meta, I’m more inclined to believe code bugs in an automated clean up job which they then move into their appeals process to get corrected.
that's a pretty heavily-worked little phrase. What is "non-explicit" nudity? That sounds to me like starting at the violation and then working backward to ensure that the people they want to be violators turn out to be violators.
As a European, it is a very American Puritan thing to have.
Somewhere along the way we decided that kids can't see boobs until they're 21, but should be fine watching people get murdered.
I don't have the words for it, but it seems like everyone is fine with MASSIVE violence in every piece of media. I feel like I've lost the plot somewhere.
They have become remarkably sexless, practically no titillation to be found anywhere
Yes, the highest-grossing movies (Marvel, etc) tend to be mostly sexless (aside from tight-fitting costumes and dirty jokes).
But, there are always plenty of critically acclaimed Hollywood movies with lots of sex. Poor Things being a recent example.
Movies that everyone sees that penetrate the public consciousness
> there are always plenty of critically acclaimed Hollywood movies
Movies that only critics see or care about are not blockbusters
However, it isn't universal. It is a specific ideological choice - that's my point!
I know it's against HN rules to ask if people have read the article, but you clearly didn't read the article.
The "non-sexual nudity" example is at the bottom of the article. It's a stylized cartoon drawing of a nude man and woman with arms around each others' waists viewed from the back as they walk along a path. There is a heart strategically placed around waist level so you can't even see their whole butts.
It's about the tamest artistic depiction of nudity you can imagine, certainly something that is totally fine anywhere else on Facebook. Very clear that this is a bullshit excuse being used by Meta.
"the organisation had received a message almost every week from Meta over the past year saying that its page “didn’t follow the rules”"
If you are getting content violation notices every week for a year, it is certainly not all because of this one cartoon.
[2] https://imginn.com/p/DCmnH4WPbXa/
[3] https://imginn.com/p/C-dBMzXRqnu/
> Fatma Ibrahim, the director of the Sex Talk Arabic, a UK-based platform which offers Arabic-language content on sexual and reproductive health, said that the organisation had received a message almost every week from Meta over the past year saying that its page “didn’t follow the rules” and would not be suggested to other people, based on posts related to sexuality and sexual health.
If you're getting a warning every week for a year, I would like to see the other 51 non cherry-picked examples that they didn't give to the guardian. Based on a quick look at some of their posts that are still publically available, I think Meta is completely justified in restricting visibility of some of these posts.