Facebook is evil

June 2, 2014

*** Warning – pornographic images from Facebook are used in this post.

I know – we all know – that Facebook is evil, but I feel a line has been crossed with their ‘Community Standards’ practices and I’ve just about had a gut-full.

Before one starts typing the tired, clichéd counter argument of, ‘If you don’t like it, don’t use it’, let me just say that:

1) I think Facebook is a fantastic tool for staying connected with loved ones (esp overseas), friends we’d love to see but can’t and equally fantastic for things like blogs, businesses etc.

2) if I were to stop using it, myself and many other amazing warriors out there, would not be there to stand against the tsunami before us; because ignorance, naivety or turning one’s back (something this culture excels at), has never changed a single thing for the better.

I am livid with Facebook.
Last week I (along with so many others) continually sent complaints about the Elliot Rodger is an American hero page, petitioning it be taken down every time it popped up….over and over. Every single time I was told it was dandy for general viewing – as the screenshot below shows. Eventually, with so much pressure, Facebook took down all the pages glorifying Elliot Rodgers – and finally informed me that it was taken down.

But this begs the question: So why were all the other protests rejected to start with?

Screen Shot 2014-06-02 at 6.06.47 pm   One of Facebook’s suggestions is that one can complain about a particular photo or post, rather than the whole page. OK, I thought, I’ll try that. As you can see above, I reported posts, such as the following, for hate speech:

Screen Shot 2014-05-27 at 11.18.26 pm

Facebook thought it wasn’t hate speech against females. It’s dandy for general viewing.

Last night I stumbled across an ad for…well, let’s see if you can guess. What do you think this is for?

10371435_663401747063305_5689284230109861383_n

Coffee. It’s for coffee.

I complained about the above image and the following one (for nudity or pornography); one which degrades a woman to the floor of a toilet cubicle, to give a male ‘head’ and couples it with a disgusting tag line:

10369740_662898160446997_6526144847138344255_n

You guessed it. Dandy.

There are more images like these on the page – sexualising and objectifying females on different levels.

Funnily enough, the only photo using a male with a sexually implied text, is this:

1238841_661841920552621_278428941675825346_n

An ordinary man – who is showing his face; an honour the sexualised females aren’t afforded as they’re merely objects – doing something stupid. And is that a coy arm covering himself up a bit?

And what, exactly, is being SHARED, when applying the sexual double-meaning in the ad; Women? Girls? That is shite. And all to make some money; like pimps

The thing is: males don’t live in fear of being raped by females for being represented as stupid; but females fear males raping them for being represented as hyper-sexualised.

Question #207: Can people not see the danger in this sort of ‘advertising’ about women?

Yes, it’s just one ad. But there a millions – billions – of images like the females above; shaping our psyche.

So why does the world then reel in shock when atrocities happen? I mean, REALLY? We are smack bang in the middle of an insidious culture which now confidently drives forward this misogyny and females are ultimately paying the price.

WHAT CAN YOU DO?

Complain.

Write on this corrupt Perth coffee brand’s Facebook page here (or any other Facebook page promoting misogyny)

Write to the Advertising Standards Board here as the above images are ads for coffee.

Now, what about Facebook?

Facebook is dictating what pornography is and according to them, the above isn’t. I decided to look at the wording of their ‘standards’ and we’re ultimately screwed:

Screen Shot 2014-06-02 at 6.39.22 pm

Facebook has a strict policy against the sharing of pornographic content.

So a woman with her had on her clitoris, between her spread legs, in heels, on a bed, with bare breasts (except for little boxes with the brand name covering the nipples) with a head seductively thrown back with the word ‘Ecstasy’, is not pornographic?

Well what the fuck is?
It wouldn’t matter if you answered that – it still wouldn’t cross Facebook’s Community Standards.

The worst part is that Facebook has taken away the chance, one used to have, to write a response to their ruling. Now they just say no and that’s that.

I feel that that is so very wrong.

Question #208: Can anything legal be done about this?

I’m shouting out to any ‘legal eagles’ because with every fibre in my being, I feel this needs action and we have to start somewhere.

Otherwise how?

If you have complained about a page or a post/photo on Facebook and have been knocked back – keep a screenshot of the page or copy the photo. I think we need to start collecting evidence.

Deep Breath.

1395132_510088852421455_945553260_n

13 Responses to “Facebook is evil”

  1. Shell said

    Thank you for writing this! I not to long ago reported a picture of a couple having sex in an alleyway, taking from a widow of the apparent above. The man was standing behind the woman, his jeans were around his ankles and her underwear was around hers. If that’s not pornographic, wtf is? Facebook said they would of acted, but the page was now closed down. Except it wasn’t. It’s still there and so is the page
    ???

    • Thank you, Michelle.
      I think it’s time we start organising ourselves. I’m starting to collect evidence. If you would like to help, you could take screen shots or copy the image/s you reported PLUS – most importantly – screenshot the message from Facebook saying it was fine to keep up. You can send it to me on petralunga@hotmail.com
      That’s if you want. We may be able to do something with it.
      Thanks so much for writing.
      x

  2. Some excellent observations and advice!

    • Thanks Sarah!
      I’ve just added an extra piece of action to the post – to start collecting evidence. We may be able to do something with it.
      I’m so bloody livid about this. I’ve put this post up on Twitter too – quite a few times. I am only now starting to get more of a reaction there, as my last tweet included the worst image. Hope we can do something.
      Lovely to hear from you! x

  3. Thanks so much for this. I have opted out of Face book (and stopped my 3 children from using it) because of its senseless repugnant misogyny. This is despite knowing that Face book would be so useful for my business. I’m angry: If I join I feel I’m condoning their obvious hatred of women, if I don’t join I feel they’ve won, and I’ve lost out as a business woman. They haven’t even the courtesy/courage to have a proper customer complaints department or phone number to ring.
    I’m convinced there’s more than one ‘Eliot Rodgers’ working at the top of their organisation. It wasn’t until I read about the ‘women hate sites’ that fed into E Rodgers ‘s thinking, that I twigged how far violent misogyny had really embedded itself, particularly in US social media, and the connection with this cult and Face Book’s attitudes is obvious. They really do hate women – it’s not just our imagination. Face Book appears to be run by men who have watched so much abusive porn that they have lost their ‘moral compass’. Children are on Face book for God’s sake. They have not sense of responsibility.
    Last year it took a huge international campaign to get them to take down sites glorifying violence against women and now the pro Rodgers killing sites. It’s evil beyond words. This isn’t funny or just a bit irritating it’s terribly serious. When sites call for violence and murder of women or any category of person there is something deeply wrong not only with a company but with our western culture. In 1930s Germany they daubed ‘kill Jewish Pigs’ on shop windows. What is the difference between this and Face Book Sites? It’s equally as dangerous. Our laws are obviously ineffective and they need changing.. Hate crime in the UK protects every category of person but not women/gender. Why is this? Why is there a law against racial hatred but not for gender? The laws in themselves reflect a misogynistic acceptance and/or denial of the hatred of women . Personally I think we need to campaign for government intervention. Why should social media not have standards set for it? They like the press are incapable of regulating themselves and should no longer be allowed to. The internet has grown up in a lawless free for all. TV, cinema, advertising etc etc all have boundaries imposed on them but why not internet based companies? Im sick of the ‘no censorship’ argument being used to condone abuse of women. Censorship which stops political debate is wrong but censorship of material urging violent oppression of certain people is right.
    I would really like to help your campaign.

    • Thank you Isla! I’m so sorry for the late reply (it’s been a chaotic few weeks) but I just want to say a hearty ‘Hear! Hear!’ to what you wrote.
      I think government and regulation authorities, such as the Advertising Standards Board (here in Australia) are absolutely useless. Many complaints are made and most are just passed on (including a billboard for a strip club in front of a boys’ school – only massive amounts of pressure got that one down, not the ASB).
      I completely hear your frustration – especially with Facebook – but it’s everywhere and everything now. There are no real limits.
      I feel the only way forward for change is through radical measures – something NOONE is willing to do as practices are so deeply entrenched and most of the populace is desensitised.
      I’m writing an important post at the moment. Well, it’s important for me to say what I’m going to say and hopefully it will resonate with others – but as far as change is concerned the only way is with lots of dismantling – something few are willing to do.
      Thank you SO much for your comment. It’s lovely to hear from like-minded people who haven’t been completely brainwashed. 🙂 x

  4. Facebook has a long history of this woman-hatred. I was banned from Facebook years ago and never wanted to go back. I think it’s just a waste of time mostly.

  5. Sarah said

    I agree with you+++ I have found it outrageous that simple photos of a woman breastfeeding a baby have been removed by facebook due to being inappropriate yet the highly sexualised and pornagraphic images you have discussed are allowed! A mother feeding her child is a healthy nurturing and positive image but they choose to eliminate these positive images only to keep the degrading and disgusting images of women performing sexual acts…what is wrong with the world???

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: