
Facebook said images of dead girl didn't violate the site's terms and conditions - neverminder
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3617200/Man-killed-girlfriend-posted-pictures-dead-body-covered-blood-Facebook-site-refused-36-hours-didn-t-violate-terms-conditions.html
======
hNewsLover99
(Various edits) Facebook's justifications for its delay (i.e., waiting to
confirm that the site was hijacked, and disregarding the obvious violation of
community standards) are pure baloney.

Facebook's terms contain COUNTLESS LOOPHOLES that seek to PROTECT it in all
cases, let alone its taking down a murder victim's bloody murder photo at the
request of her family. For example:

\--Facebook disclaims all liability for to its account holders and all other
persons for any of its actions.

\--Facebook Account holders and site users must defend, hold harmless and
indemnify (reimburse) Facebook for any liability that might be imposed on
Facebook by the account holder or any other person.

\--Facebook reserves the right to pull material offensive to community
standards or as necessary to facilitate law enforcement activities.

\--Facebook Account holder's right to jury trial for claims against Facebook
is replaced by "arbitration" by arbitrators (i.e., moonlighting corporate
defense attorneys, who are well-known to favor corporate defendants).

Even assuming Facebook had some reason to disbelieve the family's assertions
of murder and site hijacking - which it did not - how could it possibly have
been sued or even criticized if it had promptly removed the bloody photos?

In the worst-case scenario, what measure of damages could possibly be imposed
on it? What financial or property damage could possibly have flowed from its
removal of the material were by some miracle held to be inappropriate in light
of the family's assertions of murder and site hijacking? How about ZERO.

Facebook's actions clearly facilitated the murderer's goal of terrorizing the
victim's family. I'd say that violates T&C and community standards. Of course
Facebook also continued to earn revenue from ads as the site went viral. In a
sense it is an accomplice after the fact.

Facebook's self-indulgently legalistic behavior in this case will incent other
gun-nut nut-jobs to imitate the murderer in question by offering them a free
36-hour pass to post photos of their bloody crimes

Contrast this situation to Facebook's immediate censorship of a respected
journalist's mere objection to Ferdinand Marcos' burial in the Philippine's
Heroes Cemetery on the specious ground of "community standards". Facebook acts
quickly to remove even the most innocuous content in order to protect its own
interests (e.g., avoiding backlash of Philippines' conservative extremists).
See
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11813354](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11813354)

In sum... this case encapsulates what is wrong with Facebook... and with
Silicon Valley's tech elite.

