Showing posts with label Reblog. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Reblog. Show all posts

Friday, February 24, 2012

Facebook Nudity Ban Laid Bare [Topfreedom]

lactivists_2133845b

The rules Facebook uses to decide whether to censor users’ postings have been published for the first time, detailing its more liberal attitude to gore than to nudity.

A disgruntled former moderator has also told of how Facebook uses outsourced staff in developing countries to moderate the huge volume of material its users upload every day.

A document given to the staff of one third party content moderation firm tells them to delete “any OBVIOUS sexual activity, even if naked parts are hidden from view”. Meanwhile “deep flesh wounds are ok to show; excessive blood is ok to show” and “crushed heads, limbs, etc are ok as long as no insides are showing”.

“Slurs or racial comments of any kind” should be deleted, it says, but “humour overrules hate speech UNLESS slurs are used or humour is not evident”, meaning that comments reported to Facebook as hate speech should remain online if they are judged to be in jest and do not include racial slurs.

The rules are used by the third party firm to screen photographs, text and videos that have been “flagged” by one of Facebook’s 850 million users.

Until now, users have been forced to rely on Facebook’s relatively vague community standards to judge what it deems acceptable. On graphic content, the public page says "while we are a platform for sharing events that take place in your life and around the world, any inappropriately graphic content will be removed when found on the site."

The leaked rules for moderators are much more specific. For example, images of “urine, faeces, vomit, semen and ear wax” are banned, but images of "snot" are allowed, as are “cartoon faeces, urine and spit”.

Meanwhile depictions of illegal drug use should be deleted, moderators are told, except marijuana, “unless context is clear that the poster is selling/buying/growing”.

The rules were passed to the US gossip website Gawker.com by a disgruntled former employee of the third party firm, oDesk, who said the $1 per hour he received for screening Facebook photographs was “humiliating”.

The leak is likely to be seized on by critics of Facebook’s hitherto secret censorship policies. Last year it was forced to apologise for deleting a picture of a gay kiss, and it has long faced controversy over its ban on images of breastfeeding that include any part of a mother's nipple; last week a group of “lactivists” protested outside Facebook’s offices.

In response to the leak of its censorship rules, Facebook sought to reassure users their details were not being passed to third parties.

“In an effort to quickly and efficiently process the millions of reports we receive every day, we have found it helpful to contract third parties to provide precursory classification of a small proportion of reported content,” a spokesman said.

“These contractors are subject to rigorous quality controls and we have implemented several layers of safeguards to protect the data of those using our service.

“Additionally, no user information beyond the content in question and the source of the report is shared. We have, and will continue, to escalate the most serious reports internally, and all decisions made by contractors are subject to extensive audits.

"We are constantly improving our processes and review our contractors on an ongoing basis. This document provides a snapshot in time of our standards with regards to one of those contractors."

SOURCE: Telegraph

Monday, February 20, 2012

The Colour Of Nude [Naturism & Race]

This article is from outlookindia.com, written by Arpita Basu:



“Kam se kam chaddhi to pehen lo (at least put on your underpants).” It is a reprimand Pradip Chanda* gets to hear often, and one that raises his hackles each time. Because Pradip is no impish schoolboy scooting off with bare essentials missing from his uniform. A thirtysomething father of two, he is a doctor in north Bengal. He is also a practising naturist.

In the naturist way of life, clothing is an impediment to being in harmony with nature; to feeling air, rain and sunlight on the naked skin; to realising that underneath designer labels, everyone is the same. It’s a growing tribe in India—all regular folks like doctors, insurance professionals, bankers, teachers, abiding by the radical impulse to go nude. At this tentative stage of their fraternising, though, they can’t escape the irony of having to live this al-fresco philosophy mostly behind closed doors.

To be sure, Pradip’s lifestyle choice of going without clothes whenever possible has taken him beyond the privacy of his home into forests and remote beaches, often alone, sometimes with fellow naturists. “Once, a few of us were on a little-known beach in Karnataka taking photographs. Suddenly, a group materialised out of nowhere and demanded to know if we were shooting a blue film!” says Pradip. Explanations don’t work, as he has found out first-hand, and his wisest option in these situations is to yank on his pants and make himself scarce. “I tried a couple of times to make them understand we were doing nothing kinky or erotic, but they wouldn’t listen. The problem is, in India, nudity is considered obscene.” In fact, anyone who goes au naturel in public could find a case slapped against him under Section 294 of the Indian Penal Code, for committing an “obscene act in any public place”. Deepak, a 68-year-old businessman from Mumbai, who warmed up to living in the buff 15 years ago, while in California, adds, “Public or social nudity is equated with lunacy or perversion here.”



It is no wonder that India’s experiment with being at one with nature is mostly conducted indoors. The lab, though, is expanding fast—from Delhi to Pondicherry, from Mumbai and Pune to Calcutta. Mamman Shaktimangalam was surprised to discover this when he formed the Indian Naturist Meetup Group a year-and-a-half ago. In the process, the Delhi-based insurance professional assigned to himself an unofficial headcount of fellow naturists. “I wanted to see how many of us were there in India,” he says. “People are hesitant to move out of the shadows because of fear of social stigma, but an online platform would draw them out without revealing identities.” He can never be sure if the authentic-sounding names and tell-tale photos are genuine, but he’s not complaining—the number of members stands at 246 and counting. “Some promptly signed out when they realised naturism isn’t about sex and orgies,” he says, adding he screens each new application to keep the fakes out.

The Bengalee Nudist Group, started by Pradip, has attracted 60-odd members in seven months. Inhibitions, though, are harder to shed than clothes—few members actually turn up for nudist meetings, despite their garrulous exchanges in the virtual world. Fewer still are game for a nude getaway. Mamman recalls how plans for a naturist weekend at a resort in Haryana this summer fizzled out as all but two backed out. “The thought of being seen without a stitch on can be intimidating,” concedes marketing professional Rajan*, who as a teenager, would shy away from being seen even in a vest. Stumbling upon an article on naturism in the West got him thinking. “We are born this way, why should we feel embarrassed? Look at the Digambar Jains and Naga sadhus,” he says, a confident convert at 29. “Naturism has liberated me.”



At naturist meets, that seems to be the rallying cry. “No one is conscious of their nakedness,” says Vinu*, a 30-year-old graphics designer from Mumbai, who, having attended four closed-door naturist meets in his own city and Pune, is something of a veteran. He says, naturism—sagging tummy, love handles and all—challenges the blitz of unreal, sculpted bodies in the media, and helps people accept each other, and others, as they are. “Together, we eat, talk, sing, swim—do everything one would do at a regular social meet. The only difference is we do it without clothes,” says Mamman.

There is just one non-negotiable rule: no sexual relations between members. One would think this would reassure women to do more than nod approval from the sidelines. It hasn’t, really. The moderator of the group Indian Naturist, a 40-plus engineer from Bangalore, lets us know that there are only 30 female members out of a total of 441. Many women members, reveals one nudist, are married, but hide their interest in naturism from their husbands for fear of being branded perverts or unsuitable as wives and mothers. It is this negligible participation from women, says Pradip, that had kept his wife, Mala*, away from naturist meets. “It is only recently that she agreed to be a part of a naturist get-together.” It was at a meeting held clandestinely at a friend’s empty flat in Calcutta last September, and Mala was the only woman. “I had stripped down only to my inners. Maybe over time I can overcome my hesitation, but until I see more women actively participating, I can’t get comfortable in my skin alone,” she says. Deepak’s wife too joins him on naturist meets—he admits he is “extraordinarily lucky”—but only abroad. “No Indian lady who has grown up with the inhibited lifestyle of her generation would’ve found it possible to go nude in public. It couldn’t have been easy for her, but she’s done it, at least for my sake.” He has never brought up the subject with his children, but he believes they do know.

Families are naturally the first to know, unless it’s consciously kept under wraps. Pradip, for one, discussing his naturist experiences on the phone, hangs up abruptly when his teenage son walks in. His daughter is 12. “They’re too young to understand, and might take it the wrong way,” he explains. “Had I been with them from the time they were born, I would have moulded them into naturists (the children are from his wife’s previous marriage).” For Mamman, a friendly daughter-in-law insistent on making him a Facebook friend, had to be brought into the loop. “My Facebook profile reveals I am a naturist and I didn’t want her to be shocked. So I told her myself. After all, it’s my choice, and I’m not compelling anyone to do it,” he says, sitting in his office cabin in a three-piece suit, hardly a naturist’s coat of arms. For Rajan too, this “corporate attire” that he must don for official meetings is “stifling”, though there’s nothing he can do about it. “There’s no telling how a client or boss might react if they come to know about our private lives,” says Pradip. With the challenges that come their way, it is not surprising Rajan has plans to set up a naturist colony of sorts someday. For one, that would take care of unwitting spectators, like a jeweller who got a chance eyeful of a bare-bodied Deepak as he waited in his drawing room. For another, putting on that chaddhi—or not—would be nobody else’s business but their own.

(*Some names have been changed.)

SOUCRE: outlookindia.com

Apple Censors: Kinky Sex And G-Spots Fine For 12 Year Olds, But Penis Bad [Technology]

b1e8b291936bcb93ca7d2fe7978a27c1

This article is from GIZMODO written by Jesus Diaz, posted online 3 February 2012:

Compare these two covers. On the left, Spanish science magazine Muy Interesante has an article titled "Myths and Truths About the Penis". On the right, your typical Cosmopolitan smut, from "50 Kinky Sex Moves" to "Your Other G-Spot."

Both magazines are rated "12+" (12 years old or older) in Apple's Newsstand. Yet only the one with the scientific article about penises has been censored by Apple this month. Why?
Because, according to Apple, it's against the company's content guidelines.

When Muy Interestante (Very Interesting) submitted the issue, Apple sent back an email turning it down, alleging that the magazine content was inappropriate for its age rating. The same age rating it shares with Cosmopolitan.

We have completed the revision of your attachments but we can't publish them in the App Store because its category ["12 years old or up"] doesn't correspond with its content. It doesn't comply with the App Store's guidelines:3.8. Developers are responsible to assign a category for their apps. Apple can change inappropriate categories.Since your application contains suggestive adult themes, this should be reflected in your category.

Why a science magazine should be rated 16+ or 18+ while 50 Kinky Sex Moves—voted by men!—is perfectly fine for 12+ is a mystery. It just looks like Apple's censorship corps doesn't have any problem with 12 year olds learning about kinky sex and g-spots but do have problems with 12 year olds reading science facts about dicks.

The magazine has already submitted a new cover, in which they have switched "Truths and Myths About the Penis" to "Truths and Myths About That Outstanding Member," which would be hilarious if Apple's actions weren't so stupid and pathetic to begin with. There has been no answer from Apple yet.

Apple Doesn't Like Penises


fbbbc25cffc81460ae3008a2f343f8a9

This is not the first time Apple has had a problem with male genitalia or masculine nudity. In June 2010, following the elimination of an erotic graphic novel based on James Joyce's Ulysses from the App Store, Apple censored Oscar Wilde's The Importance of Being Earnest because it showed two naked men kissing. Likewise, they censored apps showing men in tight swimsuits while allowing apps showing women in tiny bikinis.

And sure, it's not only about penises. They have a problem with bare breasts too. Or at least, Madonna's nipples.

But I digress. This is not about specific cases. This is about the same stupid and arbitrary Apple censorship that happens every day at the App Store, including plenty of cases we never even hear about.

Censorship Is Bad, Period


The whole censorship machinery still doesn't make sense. Not in its current state, because Apple's arbitrary policies—set in the anti-"porn" Jobs era—clearly don't work when these instances still happen.

The fact is that you can't create a nebulous set of rules and then expect your minions to enforce whatever the hell they want to enforce, based on their arbitrary judgement or phobias.

This new episode shows, once again, that Bild Digital's CEO Donata Hopfen was right back in 2010: "Today they censor nipples, tomorrow editorial content."

And I'm afraid that this is what we get when we have one company dominating a new computing platform and using arbitrary judgement decide want content gets to go in its "newsstand". This is the reason why I want Android tablets, Amazon's Fire, and Microsoft tablets to thrive, so we—the market—can stop this nonsense. Apple apparently doesn't want a clear set of rules and categories that would allow any content to exist in their platform.

Perhaps Apple's Tim Cook will read about this, pick up the phone and personally smack the idiot who did it. I like to think that, but not as much as I like thinking about him changing his company's policies. Not because some of their censors may be perceived as prudish (don't touch your penis!) while others don't give a damn about obvious sexual content reaching minors (here are 50 kinky moves to make that penis hard!) but because content should flow free in any medium.

SOUCRE: GIZMODO