[governance] Facebook profiles blocked and content removed in Brazil

[Marilia Maciel]

On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 10:17 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro <
salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote:

>
>>
> Article 3 (7) on Facebook's Terms "You will not post content that: is
> hateful, threatening, or pornographic; incites violence; or contains nudity
> or graphic or gratuitous violence."
> This is in line with the exceptions under Article 19 of the ICCPR as
> explained by La Rue .Facebook Terms are found here:
> http://www.facebook.com/legal/terms and most countries laws prohibit hate
> speech, nudity etc.
>

Let's consider this for a minute. Little problem, though. What is "nudity"
and which nudity should be forbidden by FB? Is a pornographic picture the
same as a picture from the Slut Walk? The same as an old picture taken by
an artist from a nude person (that was removed from FB as well)? The same
as an expressionist painting with nude people? The same as a cartoon with
nude characters? The same as a  picture from a 3 year old girl whose
picture was posted in FB by their parents (and removed from FB as well,
according to the news) because she was not wearing shirt? A company should
not be entitled to make this decision and enforce to all its users, across
borders.

What FB considered impropriate nudity would not be considered as such in
many countries. So, without discussion, FB is abiding by the last common
denominator. Of course, this is based of a market decision. It is better to
take the content down than to face litigation. And this is exactly my
point: companies make decisions based on profit, regardless of the public
interest. What FB is doing will potentially impact the way that younger
generations will perceive liberty (including body expression and sexual
liberty) and morality. And, in my country, FB is actually being more
conservative than traditional media, endangering the progress we made on
recent decades when it comes to body expression women's rights and sexual
rights.

I do not feel comfortable to place this sort of decision on FB's hands,
with no chance of democratic debate, with no chance to scrutinize these
policies they impinge on users.

Best,
Marília




>  >
>> > Some basic conclusions: a) rights, such as freedom of expression,
>>
>> Why would one who uses FB think they can express themselves outside of
>> the FB ToS/AUP?
>>
>>
>>  are being
>> > restricted by the same platforms that are praised and known for enabling
>> > their exercise; b) there is a privatization of Internet regulation,
>> subtle,
>> > based on contracts (terms of use)
>>
>> Would you argue that Internet companies have NO ToS?
>>
>>
>> , but yet, dangerous; c) I see no adequate
>> > forum where we should take this issue to be analized in a participatory
>> and
>> > balanced way in the global arena.
>>
>>
>> Nor should there be IMHO.
>>
>>
>> --
>> Cheers,
>>
>> McTim
>> "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A
>> route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala
>
> Tweeter: @SalanietaT
> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro
> Cell: +679 998 2851
>
>
>
>


-- 
Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade
FGV Direito Rio

Center for Technology and Society
Getulio Vargas Foundation
Rio de Janeiro - Brazil
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20120530/469836c1/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t