
Facebook agrees to block sexual assault 'humor' - freditup
http://www.nbcnews.com/technology/facebook-agrees-block-sexual-assault-humor-6C10094982
======
JimJames
I find it strange that there is pressure from companies advertising on
facebook about this. They signed up for ads on a user generated content site
and then are displeased with some of the content?

Why are they even concerned about this? "Sexual assualt 'humor'" is in the
extreme minority of posts on facebook. Maybe they don't want their ads next to
it but _that's what they signed up for_. They wanted their ads next to
whatever people posted on facebook knowing that the content was out of their
control.

~~~
onan_barbarian
This is a rather disingenuous comment.

Maybe they didn't anticipate that a site that rigorously polices (for example)
breast-feeding pictures and race hate material wouldn't rigorously police
"rape a bitch" image macros.

They have discovered that having their ads next to this sort of content is
_not_ what they signed up for, after all, and are planning to unsign up for
this stuff. Companies change their minds all the time about where they
advertise - advertising on a service isn't some sort of lifetime promise.

~~~
JimJames
I will not be sad to see "rape a bitch" macros go but having their ads next to
stuff like this is exactly what they signed up for. They signed up for their
ads to be displayed next to whatever anyone posted.

Anyone who has used the internet for any length of time knows there are large
amounts of disturbing content on it which will definitely spill into any user
generated content site. I find it hard to believe that 15 separate companies
failed to realise this, especially since I would expect their advertising
departments to be well read on "the internet".

What I think may be happening is one company latching onto a group of
activists with a very reasonable request to get some positive press and a
bunch of companies "me too"ing along behind them. 4 companies were named in
this article and 2 of them got airtime on NBC with the most inoffensive sound
byte ever ("we are against rape"). That's free TV air time in a news slot
appealing to your core demographic.

~~~
lowboy
They signed up for having their ads shown next to content that is within
Facebook's posting guidelines. Or else why not advertise on /b/ if you truly
had no qualms about the content?

While I don't discount that they're going to get some press over this, raising
issues over Facebook tacitly supporting rape culture is perfectly acceptable
for a company.

------
nakedrobot2
This is (I would guess) a direct response to something that occurred last
week. There was a "photo meme" being passed around on facebook, showing a
photo of a girl with her mouth taped, with the caption "tape her and rape
her". Someone made a screenshot of this, with an add for Audible on the page.

A shitstorm ensued, with people blaming Audible and/or Facebook for showing an
ad next to such an image (it's rather hard to parse a meme photo for what text
is actually written on the image, right?) You can see more info about this on
a google search:
[https://www.google.com/search?q=facebook+audible+tape+her+an...](https://www.google.com/search?q=facebook+audible+tape+her+and+rape+her)

I guess Audible has leaned heavily on Facebook to respond to what has
apparently been a very difficult PR issue for them.

Disclosure: I have nothing to do with Facebook or Audible, I am just passing
on what I have heard from people involved.

~~~
user24
Useful background info, thanks.

> it's rather hard to parse a meme photo for what text is actually written on
> the image, right?

Actually it's trivial, but I suspect it's just not being done because most
pictures on facebook don't have text so why would facebook bother?

~~~
jrabone
Doesn't Reddit's meme caption bot actually do this, or is it in fact a human?
SFW example:
[http://www.reddit.com/r/AdviceAnimals/comments/1f8ld3/worked...](http://www.reddit.com/r/AdviceAnimals/comments/1f8ld3/worked_as_a_barista_for_4_years_more_people_need/ca7ty5d.compact)

EDIT: ah, no, it just scrapes QuickMeme's UI for the entered text. Oh well...

------
jimzvz
I wonder if rape jokes targeting males will also be removed as I have found
these much more common than rape jokes targeting females, particularly
regarding the rape of suspected male criminals. An example:
<http://i.imgur.com/X8cjv2v.png>

~~~
skore
This isn't reddit and it's especially not r/mensrights

[Edit] Since I got a downvote right away, here is my reasoning: Rape of any
form is terrible. But the reaction to rape of females shouldn't be changing
the subject to rape of males. It's diminishing the gravity of both by brushing
away the importance of one with an inappropriate overstating of the other. And
that's precisely the style of discussion prevalent in r/mensrights and it
would be terrible if that made its way over to HN.

~~~
tss20147
The poster wasn't changing the subject from the rape of females to the rape of
males. The title of the article is "Facebook agrees to ban sexual assault
'humor'" and not "Facebook agrees to ban sexual assault against women 'humor'"
yet the article only seemed to address sexual assault against women humor.
Asking if the policy also extends to humor regarding sexual assaults against
males is a fair question under the circumstances and in no way diminishes the
gravity of both.

According to surveys 7 - 12% percent of males report having been the victim of
a sexual assault with the vast majority of victims having been assaulted while
minors. The rate of sexual assaults against males is increasing. It is a
serious and increasing problem.

~~~
skore
It's a tough call to make, but you do have a point.

I suppose what kind of threw me off was that the image linked as an example by
the poster could be understood as both a male and female version of sexual
assault "jokes". Still, the _implication_ is clearly male, just as the
_implication_ of the article was clearly female. (Actually, a little more than
just implication, but the title sets to tone to be a little more general.)

One point I do still maintain is that there simply _is_ a clear imbalance
between sexual assault on females and males. Yes, that does not change the
gravity of either, but it does suggest how the conversation about it ought to
run. If it were the other way around, seeing society predominantly talk about
female sexual assault would be troublesome. But it is not and thus pulling the
conversation towards male sexual assault kind of rings my alarm bells. Just as
the _implication_ is universally female, bringing up male sexual assault
_implies_ trying to diminish it being a predominantly female issue.

It is accurate that sexual assault against females gets the center stage and
it is just as correct that sexual assault against males is a serious issue.

Your point about sexual assaults against males being _rising_ is interesting -
do you happen to have a link on that? My immediate theory would be that while
there might be a rise, it can only ever be a rise in _reported_ assault. So I
would guess that it is probably increased by the fact that we as a society
have become more open to accept males as victims of sexual assault in the
first place. But I would be interested in seeing actual data on that.

~~~
jimzvz
_One point I do still maintain is that there simply is a clear imbalance
between sexual assault on females and males. Yes, that does not change the
gravity of either, but it does suggest how the conversation about it ought to
run. If it were the other way around, seeing society predominantly talk about
female sexual assault would be troublesome. But it is not and thus pulling the
conversation towards male sexual assault kind of rings my alarm bells. Just as
the implication is universally female, bringing up male sexual assault implies
trying to diminish it being a predominantly female issue._

uhhh...???

Jokes about male rape are accepted by the mainstream more than female rape
jokes, in my opinion, specifically prison rape. Under almost any article/image
about some criminal (particularly violent criminals) or suspected criminal
that has numerous comments, you will find facetious comments about how that
criminal will/should be raped in prison. Now, I asked my original question
because, if facebook do start to remove jokes about male rape, it will affect
a larger number of people and perhaps affect people that do not feel that a
joke about male prison rape is actually a rape joke and I find that
interesting.

~~~
skore
Actually, I did not disagree with that, so I'm not sure what you mean.

------
smegel
Hard to see how this won't slide down the slippery slope of banning all
"offensive" content...at what point do you say we are OK with this particular
group being offended but not others?

Perhaps when the mainstream media starts agitating over it...

~~~
lowboy
At least you invoked the name of the logical fallacy.

And it's more than just offense in this case. Sexual assault is a very serious
and terrible thing to have happen. Joking about it legitimizes and normalizes
it, contributing to incidents. I imagine it's the same thing as with hate
speech: it could prompt acts of violence toward people of the targeted group.

~~~
smegel
And sincere discussions of alternative political systems could lead to another
Stalin/Mao/Hitler. Criticizing Islam might lead to another holocaust.

At what point do you let people share ideas freely without holding them
responsible for what "might happen"? When can a joke "just be a joke"?

~~~
lowboy
A joke with "tape her and rape her" is not a sincere discussion.

People posting on Facebook is a privilege granted at the sole discretion of
Facebook, it's not a right. While I support free speech, it's completely at
FB's discretion as to whether or not content is acceptable.

Also, this could help you: <https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/slippery-slope>

------
awjr
It's good that FB bowed to pressure, but not so impressed that they considered
the content not acceptable even when people flagged it as wrong.

<http://www.womenactionmedia.org/facebookaction/examples/>

------
Proleps
I don't understand why Facebook needs to block content. If I don't like what
people are posting I can just unfriend them.

~~~
masklinn
> I don't understand why Facebook needs to block content.

It may not need to, but it decided to do so years ago. And when breastfeeding
or breast cancer groups get blocked or partially censored, it's hard to
understand why rape apology groups are allowed to remain.

~~~
rubinelli
> rape apology groups

I don't even have a Facebook account, but is this real? Do people join groups
to defend their "right to rape"? That's beyond disgusting.

------
AlexanderDhoore
Facebook has gotten too big for it's own good. How can they be held
accountable for every single thing said by their users?!

It goes against human nature. People curse, people are horrible to each other,
people make fun of terrible things... It's a fact of life. You can't cleanse
the world of bad human behaviour. That's a fight you can't win. Facebook will
try and censor their systems, people will hate it, and Facebook will die
trying.

EDIT: I guess I'm being overly pessimistic here. Facebook has no choice but to
do something. It just feels like:

"We have to do something." "This is something!" "Therefore we have to do it!"

~~~
masklinn
> How can they be held accountable for every single thing said by their
> users?!

That _could_ stand if they didn't try to police their users at all, but they
do, significantly, on a number of areas: facebook has banned or censored
groups and images on such sujects as breastfeeding, breast cancer or children
with birth defects[0]. Yet, and there's the rub, rape and violence groups were
allowed to run unimpeded and reports were generally ignored when they didn't
lead to the complainer being blocked.

[0] [http://www.elephantjournal.com/2012/11/does-facebook-hate-
al...](http://www.elephantjournal.com/2012/11/does-facebook-hate-all-women-or-
just-feminists/)

~~~
AlexanderDhoore
I know that's the situation. What I'm trying to say is this: that list
(breastfeeding, breast cancer or children with birth defects, joking about
rape, violence...) is just going to grow longer, and longer, and longer...

In the article it says: "... Facebook says it will process more complaints and
will train its staff of reviewers ...". That means they are doing a big part
of the censoring MANUALLY! You will NEVER be able to remove garbage faster
than people creating it.

~~~
masklinn
> I know that's the situation. What I'm trying to say is this: that list
> (breastfeeding, breast cancer or children with birth defects, joking about
> rape, violence...) is just going to grow longer, and longer, and longer...

Sure, but that's got nothing to do with the part I quoted: you asked why they
can be "held accountable" (for extremely loose definitions of "held" and
"accountable") for everything their users say, and the answer is: because they
decided to police what their users say, once they start policing they're held
accountable for what they police and how they police it.

> That means they are doing a big part of the censoring MANUALLY!

Yes?

> You will NEVER be able to remove garbage faster than people creating it.

You probably won't do it automatically either, at least not without
significant collateral damages anyway (see: Google).

And as far as I know, Facebook mostly acts on reports (which happens to be the
way HN works as well), they generally don't remove content preemptively.

------
venomsnake
Well it would have been better to ban rape jokes (shorter stronger and easier
to communicate and connect to), but seems PR departments are quite busy in
transforming the English language to Bureaucracyspeak already.

It is good to see movement of the problem, although some for m of hellbanning
of pages and profiles is a better solution.

------
general_failure
I don't like this direction. I think any legal content should be allowed.

------
dmoy
Too bad negative keywords (what baidu/bing/google/yahoo/yandex/etc use in
search ads) don't really work in this context. Display ads are hard :(

