

The Facebook vs. Breast Feeders War Continues - charlierosefan
http://fredstechblog.blogspot.com/2009/01/facebook-vs-breast-feeding-ladies.html

======
tlrobinson
This guy's response is great, see his profile picture:
[http://profile.ak.facebook.com/v225/1392/39/n1401257834_1127...](http://profile.ak.facebook.com/v225/1392/39/n1401257834_1127.jpg)
...possibly slightly nsfw.

Found here
[http://www.facebook.com/topic.php?uid=2517126532&topic=7...](http://www.facebook.com/topic.php?uid=2517126532&topic=7943)

------
snprbob86
I'm willing to bet Facebook doesn't directly care at all about breast feeding.
I'm sure it is some advertisers who care that Facebook strictly enforce their
appropriate use policies.

Facebook is simply protecting their revenue stream. If the recent story about
Ning shutting down adult networks was any indication, this is a common thread
among ad-powered sites.

It is unfortunate that this is the way the world (or mainly America) works,
but the line has to be drawn somewhere. If you don't draw that line, you wind
up with crime dens like Ning dealt with. Facebook, very reasonably, drew the
line where the TV networks draw it. Advertisers have proven to accept that
standard.

~~~
nailer
The line is simple: Feeding a baby is allowed. Displaying breasts for another
reason is not allowed.

~~~
gaius
The issue is that breastfeeding has become highly politicized. For me it's
very simple: could a man bottlefeed a baby in any particular situation? I
think we'd all agree that a man bottlefeeding a baby in the middle of a
business meeting would be highly inappropriate, yet the same man bottlefeeding
the same baby sitting on a park bench would be perfectly OK. Yet to its
advocates it's ALWAYS appropriate for a woman to breastfeed in ANY situation,
and that of course is where the problems arise.

~~~
nailer
> Yet to its advocates it's ALWAYS appropriate for a woman to breastfeed in
> ANY situation, and that of course is where the problems arise.

Your analogy is wrong, as it would be generally inappropriate to bring a baby
to a business meeting regardless of gender.

How could it be inappropriate to feed a child? What else do you expect people
to do if their infant needs feeding?

This isn't politics, it's logic.

~~~
gaius
_it would be generally inappropriate to bring a baby to a business meeting
regardless of gender_

Yes it would! That's precisely my point.

~~~
nailer
But bringing a baby to a business meeting has nothing to do with feeding it.

If a baby was in an appropriate place for a baby to be, then of course it's OK
to feed it.

------
jhancock
Considering some of the very provocative pics I've seen on FB, this does
puzzle me. I"m sure its a reaction from their advertisers. But what a poorly
thought through reaction it is.

~~~
nailer
I'm not sure what things are like in the US, but in the UK advertisers
wouldn't want to associate with a company that's pissing off moms.

------
iamdave
Poll: Who among you on YC care to see someone breastfeeding?

The common thread argument is that it's a natural occurrence and shouldn't be
obscene; this doesn't change anything that it is something that some people
don't care to see as something publicized. Lately it seems that people are so
quick to jump to the argument of "protecting MY rights" in this case to
display something 'natural' that they completely forget to show consideration
for the people who just don't want those sort of things on their screens
everytime they want to leave a profile comment.

It's fine if you want to breastfeed your kid, it's not fine if you're pushing
it in the faces of people who just _do not want to see it_. Time has proven
the statement "your rights end where mine begin"

~~~
LogicHoleFlaw
Poll: Who among you on YC care to see a woman not wearing her burqa?

The common thread argument is that it's a natural occurrence and shouldn't be
obscene; this doesn't change anything that it is something that some people
don't care to see as something publicised. Lately it seems that people are so
quick to jump to the argument of "protecting MY rights" in this case to
display something 'natural' that they completely forget to show consideration
for the people who just don't want those sort of things on their screens every
time they want to leave a profile comment.

It's fine if you want to dress immodestly at home, it's not fine if you're
pushing it in the faces of people who just _do not want to see it_. Time has
proven the statement "your rights end where mine begin"

~~~
netcan
Exactly. That's why this is interesting. It's all arbitrary.

We can't just eyeball obscenity. Not if it's to be a law or a policy.

 _Obscenity needs to be prevented. Nudity is obscene. Bare breasts are nudity.
Exposed areola are bare breasts._

To make breastfeeding OK we could make an exception to the rule. So we'd need
to add in an 'unless' at the end of the above statements. Seems hopelessly
complex. We obviously can't live without all of the above statements.

~~~
axod
Or, we could just accept that our bodies are not something we should be
ashamed of.

Isn't it a bit weird how you cannot show a couple of nice boobs on a news
site, but you can show a man who's had his legs blown off by a bomb and is
lying in his own blood slowly dying? Which is more obscene/offensive/likely to
cause upset?

~~~
nailer
In the US or Australia you'd rarely see a man who's just had his legs blown
off by a bomb, unless it was fictional. News organizations are loathe to show
actual violence during wars.

~~~
netcan
watch sbs

~~~
nailer
Good point. SBS is indeed an exception.

------
nx
This is ridiculous.

