Sun Dec 8 09:55:19 EST 2013 Attila Boros wrote: > On Sat, Dec 7, 2013 at 10:15 PM, Larry Colen <lrc at red4est.com> wrote: > > > On the subject of some people finding any nudity to be sexual: > > http://thefeministbreeder.com/why-subscribe/tfb-banned-facebook/ > > I agree that no sane person would find that sexual. However the FB > terms of service is meant to deal with the abnormal cases. > > "You will not post content that: is hate speech, threatening, or > pornographic; incites violence; or contains nudity or graphic or > gratuitous violence."
What a hideous use of language. They need grammar police. Their lawyers must have had a C- in English composition. > "We can remove any content or information you post on Facebook if we > believe that it violates this Statement or our policies." > They enforce it very strictly, not so much for our protection, but to > avoid getting themselves into trouble because some user posted > something that _might_ cause a lawsuit. But there are much stranger > terms: > It is very likely that the photo was in the first place reported by one of the people who didn't like the success of that woman's blog (which is a money-earning website). Competitors? But even within those rules, the question is what does one define as "nudity". A woman without burqa - does it fall in that category? Igor -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
