Chit Chat

So grossed out by Facebook

2»

Re: So grossed out by Facebook

  • Actually I don't even know if "grossed out" is the way to describe it. Disgusted, disappointed, appalled?? 

    My dogs' vet has a Facebook account where they post cute photos of animals, health advice for pets, etc and it's really fun to see what they post. Yesterday they posted a link to an actual existing Facebook page for Dog Fighting. As in, the page/group is promoting it. Fans of it. The vet asked all their followers to report this page to Facebook so that it would be permanently taken down. Apparently the page is based out of India, where apparently dog fighting is legal? But I don't really care. No matter what the law states, dog fighting is atrocious and horrible. And for the record, it IS illegal in the US, in all 50 states, and Facebook is a US-based company. 

    I reported it and asked for the page to be taken down. This morning I get an alert from Facebook that my report had been "reviewed" and it was deemed that there was NOTHING WRONG WITH THE GROUP so it would not be taken down. 

    So let's call this what it is. Facebook is condoning dog fighting. It seriously makes me feel sick to my stomach just to know that there are "fans" of this horrific practice, but on top of that the group won't be removed? Just gross. Sad and gross. 
    Look- i'm not disagreeing with you that dog fighting is disgusting. But it is outrageous for you to think that this means that Facebook is condoning it. First let's address the real thing you are disgusted by- and that is the world. Awful things happen around the world and that is reality, facebook just brings it to your living room.

    Then, you say that dog fighting is legal in India. If that is the case than it should stay up because Facebook has no legal standing to take it down. They should respect the laws of individual countries and respond accordingly. Our standards are not the world's standards. What if, for example, Facebook used the laws of Saudi Arabia to dictate what content was OK or not. And you posted a photo of yourself in a tasteful dress but your hair was showing. Or there was a page dedicated to a female race car driver. People could report it and Facebook would take it down because it violates Suadi Arabian law. 

    We are not morally superior to other cultures and everything needs to be taken in context.
    image
    ashley8918
  • scribe95 said:
    I personally don't want FB being the arbiter of social commentary - First Amendment and all.
    Which is why they should leave breast feeding moms alone. Cuz as a PP noted, that page was taken down pretty fast. It's the illegal shit that I don't like. But yeah, you have a good argument. It's a public social media site on the internet. Should the company be interfering at all with content? (as Southernbelle brought up). But if they deem the breast feeding moms to be wrong, then I'm also going to demand that they deem dog fighting to be wrong. If none of it is wrong, fine. But they can't arbitrarily pick and choose like that. 
    image
    hellohkbchibiyui
  • SBmini said:
    Actually I don't even know if "grossed out" is the way to describe it. Disgusted, disappointed, appalled?? 

    My dogs' vet has a Facebook account where they post cute photos of animals, health advice for pets, etc and it's really fun to see what they post. Yesterday they posted a link to an actual existing Facebook page for Dog Fighting. As in, the page/group is promoting it. Fans of it. The vet asked all their followers to report this page to Facebook so that it would be permanently taken down. Apparently the page is based out of India, where apparently dog fighting is legal? But I don't really care. No matter what the law states, dog fighting is atrocious and horrible. And for the record, it IS illegal in the US, in all 50 states, and Facebook is a US-based company. 

    I reported it and asked for the page to be taken down. This morning I get an alert from Facebook that my report had been "reviewed" and it was deemed that there was NOTHING WRONG WITH THE GROUP so it would not be taken down. 

    So let's call this what it is. Facebook is condoning dog fighting. It seriously makes me feel sick to my stomach just to know that there are "fans" of this horrific practice, but on top of that the group won't be removed? Just gross. Sad and gross. 
    Look- i'm not disagreeing with you that dog fighting is disgusting. But it is outrageous for you to think that this means that Facebook is condoning it. First let's address the real thing you are disgusted by- and that is the world. Awful things happen around the world and that is reality, facebook just brings it to your living room.

    Then, you say that dog fighting is legal in India. If that is the case than it should stay up because Facebook has no legal standing to take it down. They should respect the laws of individual countries and respond accordingly. Our standards are not the world's standards. What if, for example, Facebook used the laws of Saudi Arabia to dictate what content was OK or not. And you posted a photo of yourself in a tasteful dress but your hair was showing. Or there was a page dedicated to a female race car driver. People could report it and Facebook would take it down because it violates Suadi Arabian law. 

    We are not morally superior to other cultures and everything needs to be taken in context.
    Just have to correct a few things. I said dog fighting is APPARENTLY legal in India, because that's what someone told me, but I was wrong. It is not legal there. Therefore, the page can still be taken down based on it promoting illegal activity, based on that country's laws. 

    By hosting the page, I do think Facebook is condoning that activity. When you look the other way on something or allow it to happen, whatever, you're not helping to stop it, so you're condoning it.
    con·done
    kənˈdōn/
    verb
    gerund or present participle: condoning
    1. accept and allow (behavior that is considered morally wrong or offensive) to continue.
     

    And I wasn't trying to imply that we're morally superior. I was saying animal cruelty is not ok in any place in the world. Just because it hasn't been made illegal yet doesn't mean it's ok by any standards. 

    That's all. 
    image
  • SBminiSBmini member
    500 Love Its 1000 Comments Second Anniversary Name Dropper
    edited November 2014
    Ok, with that new information I do think it is a little bit more upsetting. But at the same time we have to realize that Facebook is simply a forum to host social interaction. Just because it is there doesn't mean Facebook agrees with it or thinks it is OK. But as someone else said- it's a slippery slope when we start asking a private company to regulate speech in order to improve our own experience. Facebook has gotten into trouble in the past for erroneously removing photos of breastfeeding moms or drag queens because their names were fake. I would rather Facebook err on the side of allowing bad content then removing good content. For example, I think PETA is responsible for completely egregious acts against animals- but they should be allowed to have a Facebook page. Same with the KKK because it is free speech.  
    image
  • SBmini said:
    Ok, with that new information I do think it is a little bit more upsetting. But at the same time we have to realize that Facebook is simply a forum to host social interaction. Just because it is there doesn't mean Facebook agrees with it or thinks it is OK. But as someone else said- it's a slippery slope when we start asking a private company to regulate speech in order to improve our own experience. Facebook has gotten into trouble in the past for erroneously removing photos of breastfeeding moms or drag queens because their names were fake. I would rather Facebook err on the side of allowing bad content then removing good content. For example, I think PETA is responsible for completely egregious acts against animals- but they should be allowed to have a Facebook page. Same with the KKK because it is free speech.  
    Can you explain the bolded? I'm honestly curious because I don't know much about PETA but I thought they were an animal rights group? 

    And I get what you're saying. But that's the point, is that Facebook has taken plenty of things down which aren't actually illegal or even offensive. That's why they have the "report" button thing, cuz they have a list of standards on their site and they try to police their content to some extent. But then you come across extremely disturbing and offensive and illegal content, and they do nothing. That's the part that pisses me off the most. Do nothing all the time, or police it all consistently. Anyway. The PETA thing. What's up with that? 
    image
  • esstee33esstee33 Pittsburgh member
    Ninth Anniversary 1000 Comments 500 Love Its First Answer
    edited November 2014
    SBmini said:
    Ok, with that new information I do think it is a little bit more upsetting. But at the same time we have to realize that Facebook is simply a forum to host social interaction. Just because it is there doesn't mean Facebook agrees with it or thinks it is OK. But as someone else said- it's a slippery slope when we start asking a private company to regulate speech in order to improve our own experience. Facebook has gotten into trouble in the past for erroneously removing photos of breastfeeding moms or drag queens because their names were fake. I would rather Facebook err on the side of allowing bad content then removing good content. For example, I think PETA is responsible for completely egregious acts against animals- but they should be allowed to have a Facebook page. Same with the KKK because it is free speech.  
    Can you explain the bolded? I'm honestly curious because I don't know much about PETA but I thought they were an animal rights group? 

    And I get what you're saying. But that's the point, is that Facebook has taken plenty of things down which aren't actually illegal or even offensive. That's why they have the "report" button thing, cuz they have a list of standards on their site and they try to police their content to some extent. But then you come across extremely disturbing and offensive and illegal content, and they do nothing. That's the part that pisses me off the most. Do nothing all the time, or police it all consistently. Anyway. The PETA thing. What's up with that? 
    They're awful, basically: http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2012/03/petas-terrible-horrible-no-good-very-bad-history-of-killing-animals/254130/

    Or, really, just google "PETA kills animals" and you'll get tons of results. 
    chibiyui
  • esstee33 said:
    SBmini said:
    Ok, with that new information I do think it is a little bit more upsetting. But at the same time we have to realize that Facebook is simply a forum to host social interaction. Just because it is there doesn't mean Facebook agrees with it or thinks it is OK. But as someone else said- it's a slippery slope when we start asking a private company to regulate speech in order to improve our own experience. Facebook has gotten into trouble in the past for erroneously removing photos of breastfeeding moms or drag queens because their names were fake. I would rather Facebook err on the side of allowing bad content then removing good content. For example, I think PETA is responsible for completely egregious acts against animals- but they should be allowed to have a Facebook page. Same with the KKK because it is free speech.  
    Can you explain the bolded? I'm honestly curious because I don't know much about PETA but I thought they were an animal rights group? 

    And I get what you're saying. But that's the point, is that Facebook has taken plenty of things down which aren't actually illegal or even offensive. That's why they have the "report" button thing, cuz they have a list of standards on their site and they try to police their content to some extent. But then you come across extremely disturbing and offensive and illegal content, and they do nothing. That's the part that pisses me off the most. Do nothing all the time, or police it all consistently. Anyway. The PETA thing. What's up with that? 
    They're awful, basically: http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2012/03/petas-terrible-horrible-no-good-very-bad-history-of-killing-animals/254130/

    Or, really, just google "PETA kills animals" and you'll get tons of results. 
    Holy fucking hell. This part gave me serious chills: 

    When I contacted PETA for a comment on these numbers, Amanda Schinke, a spokesperson for the organization, sent a thoughtful and detailed response. In it she explained how "euthanasia is a product of love for animals who have no one to love them."
    image
    esstee33
  • They wouldn't remove rape joke pages, why would they remove this? They don't care. And if you stop using it, it doesn't really make a difference unfortunately.

  • kasmith1 said:
    They wouldn't remove rape joke pages, why would they remove this? They don't care. And if you stop using it, it doesn't really make a difference unfortunately.
    Yep! If I deleted my account, it definitely wouldn't be to send a message to the company, because what would it matter to them? It would just be to save myself from seeing all that awful bullshit. But that awful bullshit kind of exists everywhere in one form or another.
    image
    Kauris
  • Sugargirl1019Sugargirl1019 Deep in the Heart of Texas member
    Seventh Anniversary 1000 Comments 500 Love Its Combo Breaker
    And yet FB removed my wedding video trailer.

    Priorities, they have them.

    image   image   image

  • ashley8918ashley8918 Chicago Suburbs member
    2500 Comments 500 Love Its First Anniversary First Answer
    I honestly don't understand the insistence that facebook should take things down (with the exception of like, child porography or the like). The people who "like" that page would be supporters of dog fighting whether or not the page existed, no? So what good would it really do for the page to be taken down? 

    When I don't want to see something, I make the decision not to look. Simple as that.

    I am REALLY uncomfortable with the idea of censorship in any form.
  • esstee33esstee33 Pittsburgh member
    Ninth Anniversary 1000 Comments 500 Love Its First Answer
    novella1186 said:
    kasmith1 said:
    They wouldn't remove rape joke pages, why would they remove this? They don't care. And if you stop using it, it doesn't really make a difference unfortunately.
    Yep! If I deleted my account, it definitely wouldn't be to send a message to the company, because what would it matter to them? It would just be to save myself from seeing all that awful bullshit. But that awful bullshit kind of exists everywhere in one form or another.
    Not really. I mean, it DOES exist, but your exposure to it is limited to the media forms you subscribe to. As someone who deleted their FB, the lack of bullshit is astounding. I see awful bullshit periodically, but it's not all up in my shit all the time now. The most I see it is when Flipboard misjudges what I want to see, but even that is at least relevant to my interests. 
    novella1186
  • FiancBFiancB MinnesOOOta member
    500 Love Its 1000 Comments Second Anniversary Name Dropper
    I think it helps if a lot of people report it. I reported a page that was called "bodybuilders against feminism" that had a lot of misogynistic hate speech on it, congratulating that guy that shot the sorority girls, stuff like that. At first I got the same alert but about a week later it was taken down after all. 
    image
    novella1186
  • FiancBFiancB MinnesOOOta member
    500 Love Its 1000 Comments Second Anniversary Name Dropper
    SBmini said:
    Ok, with that new information I do think it is a little bit more upsetting. But at the same time we have to realize that Facebook is simply a forum to host social interaction. Just because it is there doesn't mean Facebook agrees with it or thinks it is OK. But as someone else said- it's a slippery slope when we start asking a private company to regulate speech in order to improve our own experience. Facebook has gotten into trouble in the past for erroneously removing photos of breastfeeding moms or drag queens because their names were fake. I would rather Facebook err on the side of allowing bad content then removing good content. For example, I think PETA is responsible for completely egregious acts against animals- but they should be allowed to have a Facebook page. Same with the KKK because it is free speech.  
    Can you explain the bolded? I'm honestly curious because I don't know much about PETA but I thought they were an animal rights group? 

    And I get what you're saying. But that's the point, is that Facebook has taken plenty of things down which aren't actually illegal or even offensive. That's why they have the "report" button thing, cuz they have a list of standards on their site and they try to police their content to some extent. But then you come across extremely disturbing and offensive and illegal content, and they do nothing. That's the part that pisses me off the most. Do nothing all the time, or police it all consistently. Anyway. The PETA thing. What's up with that? 
    Animal rights and animal welfare are two different things, and PETA basically doesn't actually do anything for animals, just harasses people they deem to be mean to them. They have ridiculous campaigns, like a kid's site trying to get them to call fish "sea kittens" because kittens are cute and therefore no one will eat them.

    Penn and Teller has a great Bullshit episode that pretty much covers how awful they are. It's on youtube.

    FWIW, HSUS is not much better. Donating to HSUS does not give money to shelters. There is no national hierarchy, which the name of HSUS sort of implies there is. Donate directly if you're so inclined. 
    image
    novella1186
This discussion has been closed.
Choose Another Board
Search Boards