Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 16, 2014 16:17:12 GMT -5
I thought FB didn't allow nudity? I'm not sure what kind of photos a 13 year old could put up there that would get a guy thrown in jail, but nevertheless I know what you mean about the age limit of the ToS. The whole thing stinks of "hey we give you a service for totally FREE*" In which the * leads to about 19 pages of stuff you're giving up in lieu of paying money. Well, first of all, Facebook does now allow nudity to a certain extent. For some reason. Although obviously I'm sure they'd delete a naked preteen immediately (once they, you know, responded to the report, which takes them f***ing forever in every case I've ever seen). Secondly, a 13 year old can quite happily take a selfie of themselves on a family holiday in a bikini and put it on Facebook. Kids don't have to be completely ass naked for someone to get their kicks from it. Don't get me wrong, I'm not one of these paedophile witch hunters who wants no photos of children ever taken ever again, I just mean when you consider the difference between Mark Zuckerberg having a shitload of potentially titillating photos of your teenaged daughter and Ron, the 43-year-old neckbeard from work having them, there isn't a great deal of difference. That doesn't really bother me as much as the sheer volume of data (I'm talking football fields of servers) that social networks/google/etc collect on us. And how they use that data to ostensibly narrow the internet into a more manageable (marketable) environment. I'm re-reading this book called "The Filter Bubble" which talks alot about stuff like that - crazy stuff. I mean, Google Images, Flickr, where ever someone can post a photo, that danger exists. The photos thing - that's going to be a problem regardless of FB's ToS. That's just part of the flip side of Web 2.0.
|
|
|
Post by "Gizzark" Mike Wronglevenay on Dec 16, 2014 16:20:48 GMT -5
Well, first of all, Facebook does now allow nudity to a certain extent. For some reason. Although obviously I'm sure they'd delete a naked preteen immediately (once they, you know, responded to the report, which takes them f***ing forever in every case I've ever seen). Secondly, a 13 year old can quite happily take a selfie of themselves on a family holiday in a bikini and put it on Facebook. Kids don't have to be completely ass naked for someone to get their kicks from it. Don't get me wrong, I'm not one of these paedophile witch hunters who wants no photos of children ever taken ever again, I just mean when you consider the difference between Mark Zuckerberg having a shitload of potentially titillating photos of your teenaged daughter and Ron, the 43-year-old neckbeard from work having them, there isn't a great deal of difference. That doesn't really bother me as much as the sheer volume of data (I'm talking football fields of servers) that social networks/google/etc collect on us. And how they use that data to ostensibly narrow the internet into a more manageable (marketable) environment. I'm re-reading this book called "The Filter Bubble" which talks alot about stuff like that - crazy stuff. I mean, Google Images, Flickr, where ever someone can post a photo, that danger exists. The photos thing - that's going to be a problem regardless of FB's ToS. That's just part of the flip side of Web 2.0. Pretty much, yeah. We're digging our own graves and filling them up with photos of us passed out drunk in bars.
|
|
|
Post by "I'm Batman..." on Dec 16, 2014 16:41:57 GMT -5
I am gonna go with people being overly pc.
|
|