Facebook’s ‘cheeky’ censorship and #bumgate
It’s not everyday that Dr Mumbo finds himself in the midst of such a ‘cheeky’ dispute, involving a regional local newspaper and global social media platform Facebook.
Yesterday Ballarat’s The Courier found that one its posts had drawn the ire of Facebook. The snap (see below) at the centre of the drama was from a reader photo competition held by The Courier after a recent downpour of rain.
The photo by Belinda Phelps showed her daughter, a toddler, playing in the rain in gumboots and nothing else. The image was then selected by The Courier’s digital editor as one of the two best images and featured it in a posting. It is at this point what staff at the paper have dubbed #bumgate began.
After The Courier reposted the image, it received two complaints on Facebook asking that it be removed. It also caused debate on The Courier’s Facebook page with the toddler’s mother Phelps even weighing in to explain to the person complaining: “It was my choice to put it out their (sic) not yours so back up and mind your own business”.
Could Dr Mumbo please post a picture of himself naked so we can see what happens?
It’s a little girl playing in the rain. Facebook needs to get its mind out of the gutter.
Here is what I want to know. Why is Facebook seeing this picture of a boy standing in water as sexual? Every time they see a baby nursing it’s mother, a nude child playing in sand or on the beach, they are thinking “Sex”! WHY?
When I see this, I see little kids that were given permission by reasonable parents to play in the yard naked without any sexual thoughts at all!
Has FB become perverted in their thinking? Is ALL nudity Porn and Sexual to them? They need to get their brains out of the gutter.
Cant believe that ANYONE could consider this pornographic OR sexual content …..LOL yet they allow pics of animals being beheaded and all sorts of other violence What is wrong with these people ?
Facebook are promoting attitudes resulting in enormous harm to the children and young people of the world with their prudery. The prudification of society is a serious and growing problem. One obvious example is breastfeeding. If breasts are demonised then of course mothers face more problems over breast feeding. There are many others. For example if that little girl grows up in the most prudish western countries she will be ten times more likely to become pregnant whilst still a teenager than if she lived in one of the least prudish. It is the same pattern for all the body-knowledge and body-attitude related indicators. More prudish, worse outcomes, often enormously worse. Facebook’s attitudes are not about community standards or family values, it is about prudery at the expense of communities and families.
Facebook’s blocked on our home network. (Just Facebook and the easy to open porn sites, we’re not that prudish.) Kids never complain.
Throw in Ghostery and Adblock Edge and Zuckerberg’s personal details business never hears of us or profits off our privacy. Except via those bloody drones that spy on his behalf, (you know the ones, dickheads who actually use facebook).
Blocking them is a bit harder, but achievable.
I agree that the image is innocent. And that as a society we have almost moved too far away from remembering we all once ran around in caves with no clothes on. However, it is that exact progression that makes this photo, unfortunately inappropriate. Yes, the Mother gave her permission, or rather even submitted the photo with the hop of winning and therefore sharing it in public. However, the basic rules of social media dictate that when we put something online we must consider the impact it will have on others, as well as the potential problems that may arise. While The Courier may cannot really be seen as a Global or even National news platform (sorry Ballarat!) and I’m sure the reach is somewhat limited to locals, this picture is now in the public domain. And since there are some very high profile cases of child sexual abuse in the news these days, in addition to a growing concern over online child pornography, I do think it sends the as slightly contradictory message. So I support Facebook here. Sadly it is impossible to know who will be looking at this picture. I’m sure at the end of the day, the Mother would be devastated if she ever discovered the photo was uploaded to a child pornography site by the SMALL percentage of bad people who have viewed it differently from the online majority who see it as harmless fun. To be honest The Courier should have known better…
@ Rhiannon –
Oh dear you sound like a rational person, but your comments are beyond logical.
There are a small minority who can find sexual gratification or abuse in ANYTHING! and if we fall for the prevent every thing concept, we will have nothing left to show, share and talk about.
Censorship is a dangerous tool
Rhiannon. If we treat children, and pictures of children, as if children are sex objects then more people will come to perceive them as sex objects, and that will increase the number of people who treat them as sex objects. It is a very nasty vicious circle that makes the problem worse. Nudity does not equal sex.