PM Calls Facebook Irresponsible For Allowing Beheading Clips 201
An anonymous reader writes with this excerpt: "David Cameron has attacked Facebook as irresponsible for lifting a ban on videos of beheadings being posted on its site. The prime minister said the social network must explain its decision to allow images showing decapitations to worried parents. Facebook has said users should be free to view such videos and then condemn the content. Cameron wrote on Twitter: 'It's irresponsible of Facebook to post beheading videos, especially without a warning. They must explain their actions to worried parents.' Facebook introduced a temporary ban on such videos in May but has since decided to remove the block on the grounds that the site is used to share information about world events, such as acts of terrorism and human rights abuses."
Helping him censor the web for him now (Score:4, Insightful)
Excellent (Score:5, Insightful)
This is wonderful news. Facebook will now be blocked by default in the government porn filters, and thus far more people will opt out of them. Turns out Facebook is actually useful for something.
Won't somebody think of the children... (Score:5, Insightful)
'It's irresponsible of Facebook to post beheading videos, especially without a warning. They must explain their actions to worried parents.'
So much fail...
Facebook doesn't post any beheading videos. It's users do.
I thought we were allowed to be irresponsible as long as it's legal?
If my Facebook friends don't like the content that I may or may not post, then they can hide it or unfriend me.
Looks like he's trying to win Family Votes, and slashdot is helping to peddle this crap.
Shame on you timothy. Shame on you.
Re:PM? Which country (Score:5, Insightful)
Why not do what everyone else who lives outside the USA is expected to do (when they see the name of some US-based politician) and just Google it?
Re:Won't somebody think of the children... (Score:4, Insightful)
"Facebook has long been a place where people turn to share their experiences, particularly when they're connected to controversial events on the ground, such as human rights abuses, acts of terrorism and other violent events. People are sharing this video on Facebook to condemn it. If the video were being celebrated, or the actions in it encouraged, our approach would be different," Facebook said in a statement.
Re:Think of the worried parents (Score:0, Insightful)
The Taliban doing the beheadings are the tea party of the muslims. The majority aren't like that and prefer to get on with their lives in peace.
Re:PM? Which country (Score:4, Insightful)
Nah, he's just a 'Murican!
Seriously, this is a MAJOR problem with the so-called "news" in the US. It's so US-centric (and crime and entertainment-centric) that even the prime minister of the UK is not known by name.
Re:Won't somebody think of the children... (Score:5, Insightful)
Then allow people to post nudity and sex. I can't see how naked people can be considered worse than a guy getting his head cut off. American puritanism in its worse.
And before all the jingos start telling me "if you don't like American puritanism, then don't use Facebook", I declare: I don't use it.
Re:PM? Which country (Score:5, Insightful)
Perhaps he should know. Perhaps everyone should, but for any snippet of information, there will be a non trivial number of people who are not aware of it. Good journalists provide the information concisely withut forcing the reader to get key details elsewhere.
Damn... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Independence..... (Score:5, Insightful)
so what happened last time the British tried to enforce their morality across the pond....
I don't remember the American Revolution having much of a moral element.... In fact, while we've done a great deal to get over it, the US was substantially stocked by a mixture of moralizing assholes too moralistic to get along in Britain (ye olde puritans) and would-be feudal lords who couldn't compete with the incumbents at home and therefore went abroad (ye olde slave plantation regions).
Some political discontent, some economic interests; but King George wasn't exactly getting all up in our right to own filthy erotic lithographs...
Headless breasts? (Score:5, Insightful)
As pointed out elsewhere, Facebook has the same odd puritanical streak as found throughout the USA. You can watch people being beheaded, but they still firmly forbid pictures of breastfeeding moms. The sight of a female breast might excite prurient passions, whereas watching a murder is just spiffy.
Re:Won't somebody think of the children... (Score:5, Insightful)
You're right. But Facebook chooses if that's what they're willing to allow on their site.
Somehow I doubt this is some noble thing about freedom of expression like they're saying -- I strongly suspect it's more about the advertising revenue generated.
Zuckerberg and Facebook can claim some principled stand, but from what I've seen, it's likely just plain old greed.
I'm not convinced they're actually capable of being principled on these things -- they want to do two things, make as much money as possible, and collect as much of your personal information as they can (so they can make as much money as possible). But lets' not pretend that Zuckerfuck is, or ever has been, a principled actor in all of this.
Re:Won't somebody think of the children... (Score:3, Insightful)
I thought we were allowed to be irresponsible as long as it's legal?
If my Facebook friends don't like the content that I may or may not post, then they can hide it or unfriend me.
Facebook is not a common carrier because they already censor content. For example, they censor stills of breastfeeding in which you can barely see a breast. They are the only and ultimate arbiter of what content is permissible on their site, and therefore they should be legally responsible for all of it.