La moralidad de las redes sociales: de cómo Facebook censura a Trump y la sexualidad femenina por igual
Facebook luce así de “limpio” por la siguiente razón: cualquier contenido que no se ajuste a sus términos y condiciones de uso es removido.
In this week's roundup: LGBTQ groups take issue with Facebook policies and
Of course we should be able to use social networks to protest against puritanical views about women’s bodies. And we need to defy the idea that the only acceptable images of women are those selected to suit the male gaze, or that men (or tech firms!) can be the ones to decide whether our nipples are sexual or not.
La idea de Onlinecensorship.org nació en 2011, cuando Facebook eliminó un enlace publicado por la popular banda Coldplay.
“Having not received a report we aren't sure which Facebook community standard we violated, though I presume the fact we are swearing, wearing latex gloves and suggestively fondling fruit may have something to do with it. I'm not here to say we didn't break any rules; indeed, I don't know if we did because I didn't get an explanation. The thing is, the rules are unreasonable, and inconsistently policed.”
...before this when content was removed from Facebook users got a notice saying it had been flagged as inappropriate or that it somehow violated terms of service, indicating that the takedown came from another user’s report. Location-based blocking of videos and content for political reasons has usually come from the government via DNS-based blocking or similar practices, never from social media companies themselves.
Marianne Diaz Hernandez
Introducing Offline/Online: A Series of Infographics Demonstrating How Offline Inequities Are Replicated Online
People in marginalized communities who are targets of persecution and violence—from the Rohingya in Burma to Native Americans in North Dakota—are using social m...