Print Print

Facebook needs lessons in community management. Now.

by Karoli on May 11, 2009

Oh, the irony. Just as I’m ready to say that gender bias is dead on social networks like Twitter and Friendfeed, Facebook proves me wrong. Sadly, it is still alive and well there.

Here’s the backstory, since many readers here probably aren’t familiar with what has gone on before. In a nutshell, Facebook banned breastfeeding photos, claiming they are obscene. Facebook’s official position is this:

“We agree that breastfeeding is natural and beautiful and we’re very glad to know that it is so important to some mothers to share this experience with others on Facebook,” writes Facebook spokesman Barry Schnitt in response to queries about the site’s policy on breastfeeding photos. “We take no action on the vast majority of breastfeeding photos because they follow the site’s Terms of Use. Photos containing a fully exposed breast (as defined by showing the nipple or areola) do violate those Terms and may be removed. These policies are designed to ensure Facebook remains a safe, secure and trusted environment for all users, including the many children (over the age of 13) who use the site. The photos we act upon are almost exclusively brought to our attention by other users who complain.”

The absurdity of their position speaks for itself. But until recently, it was merely absurd. Now it’s hypocritical.

There has been a brewing controversy about a Holocaust denial Facebook group. (No, I won’t link to it. If you must see it with your own eyes, search Facebook.) Despite many, many complaints, Facebook will not ban it.

My original thinking around the Holocaust denial group followed what we wrestled with at CNN Interactive back in the day when we had our share of these loonies, too. The problem with the deniers is that their speech does not fall into the strict definition of hate speech, and so we had to allow it, as repugnant as it is.

However, Facebook’s Terms of Service are far more fluid. From Techcrunch, with a title worth repeating: Jew Haters Welcome at Facebook, As Long As They Aren’t Lactating:

If Facebook doesn’t want to take a moral or ethical stand on the issue, they can easily make a case that the groups violate their terms of service. These groups violate multiple sections of the TOS, particularly Section 3. There’s an easy way out of this for Facebook, and it also happens to be the right thing to do. Why in the world must they draw a line in the sand and then stand on the same side as Holocaust deniers is beyond me.

Section 3 is a catch-all laundry list of reasons why groups may be banned. It’s the same section, by the way, that Facebook used to ban the breastfeeding moms, and Mike Arrington is right: It’s hypocritical and cowardly to ban breastfeeding moms but allow Holocaust deniers to use the Facebook platform to spread lies and foment hate against Jews.

As Mike points out, making a statement that the group is not going to promote hate, while the very fact of its existence is for that single purpose is a lie. Similarly, the position that breastfeeding photos are obscene is also a lie. It’s ridiculous.

But there’s another thread worth looking at: gender bias. Erin (QueenofSpain) is pretty angry about the fact that there wasn’t really much support for the mommybloggers when they were banned. Reading through the comments on this post left me feeling cold and slimed. They’re truly offensive. To a woman — to THIS woman — they slide beyond the limits of commentary that’s productive and straight into childish, Digg-boy titsandass commentary. While some men step up and defend the right of these women to put their breastfeeding pictures up, no one steps up to take on the incredibly rude, demeaning, and sexist commentary. Not one person.

It’s just there, sitting on the Techcrunch site like the ugliest of all trolls, drooling and lathering over the nerve of some women to dare to be…women. I am not saying this is something that Mike Arrington should have deleted, or responded to. But it blows out my hypothesis that gender bias is less of an issue in the era of Twitter than it has been in the past.

Clearly it is still alive, well, and marching on in the form of sexist comments. It’s downright mind-blowing to me that the first series of comments on his current post have NOTHING to do with Holocaust denial and EVERYTHING to do with breast-baring.

Just amazing. It seems that on the Internet, there are still many males (I won’t call them men) who don’t have any respect for women, and have no problem demonstrating it on a daily basis.

This is bully behavior. When women are demeaned for breastfeeding or wanting to promote breastfeeding (which was the original purpose of the group) by men who fail to see the hypocrisy in Facebook’s decision matrix around these two groups, they are being marginalized and bullied. It’s wrong, but I’m not exactly sure what could be done to prevent and/or stop it.

Here’s one idea: Let’s see some of the mature, responsible members of this large universe called the Internet stand up not only against Holocaust deniers, but also for breastfeeding mothers.

My first candidate suggestion: Mark Zuckerberg, founder of Facebook. Mr. Zuckerberg, try this exercise:

  1. Look at this image.
  2. Then look at this one.

After you have viewed them both, tell me which of them gives you the most visceral reaction. Which one do you think runs the risk of causing Facebook NOT to be a ’safe, secure and trusted environment for ALL users’?

If you say it’s the breast, you are indeed not only a hypocrite, but an intellectually dishonest male chauvinist pig hypocrite.

If it’s the other, then it’s time for you to enforce your terms of service fairly, or not at all. But banning breast images while allowing far more offensive, bullying, harmful, unsafe behavior is just a slap in the face to every woman who spends even one minute on your site.

Here’s what I’m going to do. I’m going to share this on Facebook. And that will be the last time I go there until they have resolved this matter in a way that treats EVERYONE fairly.

Freedom of expression is not uniquely male. It’s time for Mr. Zuckerberg, et al to learn that.

Update: I’m embedding the hot Friendfeed conversation into this post.

Sphere: Related Content

  • Share/Bookmark
  • J
    I'm risking putting out this comment, but by fully accepting freedom of speech and freedom of expression we also understand that groups producing hate and ignorance are a part of that. Frankly, I don't want to see hateful speech and therefore try not be on any sites that have it, I also do not understand the drive to show yourself breast feeding on a site such as Facebook.
    If a woman is in public needing to breast feed her child because one, it is hungry and two, she is not in the privacy of her own home that I can understand, I am not offended, nor bothered in any way, that is natural. If a woman needs instruction on how to breastfeed and needs to go to a site or class for understanding, that is also valid and important.
    However, I think our society has gotten to the point where they think everyone wants to know and see everything about them and to me that is the fatal flaw in thinking. Sure, we are all free to say and do what we want, but do we need to advertise it to the masses?
    You wouldn't need to address this issue and Facebook wouldn't feel the need to address it either if people were not so hell bent on sharing every detail of their life with potentially millions of other people. I unfortunately find myself somewhere between freedom/rights, cultural shifts and policies, a tough place to be. Maybe we are just getting to a time in history when we are over-burdening our systems because we are overexposing ourselves?
  • J, the reason for the Facebook group was to support other mothers and to
    promote the cause. It's a health issue, after all, and an important one.
    It's also natural. It's interesting to me that a man's bared chest is not
    considered nudity but a woman's is.

    I don't want to see hateful speech either, but I do respect the principles
    of free speech as they apply to speech I don't like as well as speech I do
    like. Facebook, evidently, isn't quite as willing to adopt consistent
    standards.

    As to the sharing point, I'll go back to point 1 - it was intended to be
    supportive of others and promote bfeeding as the best choice for new babies'
    health.
  • AnnieLoyd
    Thank you!
    Thank you!
    Thank you!
  • Karoli: I want to preface this with the fact that I may have missed something coming out of Facebook that contradicts my understanding of the situation, and if so, I'm more than willing to revise that understanding. Having said that...

    This isn't a Facebook thing. It's a cultural thing. As a society, we pride ourselves on defending the rights of people to express any dumbass thing they like... UNLESS what they're trying to publish is a photo of someone's genitals or secondary sex characteristics. Outside of the occasional Piss Christ, our notions of "obscenity" are almost exclusively focused on Things That Get People Off.

    So FB is in a bind here. By allowing Holodenial groups, they can take a principled stand on freedom of expression. (And I applaud them for it.) They'll get pushback, but there's pretty broad, across-the-political-spectrum support for staying that course. Nips, on the other hand? Sheesh.

    By disallowing nipples, Zuckerberg & Co. risk pissing off the relatively small number of moms who want to display their mammarian wares, while simultaneously pleasing the (let's face it) massive majority of moms who are convinced little Junior will be scarred for life if he so much as gets a peek. Let's ignore for the moment that the average Junior has already seen bukkake by the time he's old enough for Facebook... reality is not these folks' strong suit.

    The bottom line is that FB would rather have a rep as a protector of free, idiotic speech than be declared a cesspool of sexual iniquity. I'd hate myself in the process, but I'm not sure I'd handle it any differently.
  • The issue for me is fairness. I've dealt with the same kinds of issues over and over again. You're right about what the usual bias is. The problem is that it's hypocritical, and when you have a community the size of Facebook, hypocritical community management isn't going to fly.

    One solution would be to force both groups to private status, rather than allowing the hatemongerers to enjoy a free public platform for their recruiting. Another would be to simply allow both of them to exist.

    What isn't acceptable is to treat them differently. At the core, it's the same issue.

    I'd also note that the mommyblogging community is *not* a small one. It's one of the most vocal groups out there, and most advertisers know it. Last year's BlogHer conference proved that -- sponsors were falling over themselves to get their products in front of these women and have them start buzzing about it.

    The ironic part of this is that mommybloggers and tech blogger/geeks are natural allies. Yet, when it comes to this, where are the voices standing up for fairness online? Mike is one, despite the fact that his outrage comes from the affront of the deniers. Where are the rest?
  • Bèr
    If you say it’s the breast, you are indeed not only a hypocrite, but an intellectually dishonest male chauvinist pig hypocrite.
    .

    Now who is being unfair and hypocrite here?

    Why does it have to be one /or/ the other? I have nothing against tits, nipples or nudity in any form: men or women. and being a liberal Dutch leftie, I can only shake my had and feel sorry for the poor misinformed angry people trying to deny something that clearly is the biggest stain on our (European) recent history.

    But I /do/ have a problem with people brestfeeding in public. For me that comes dangerously close to men running around shirtless on a summerday, to name something. Nothing to do with christian morale, or religious/cultural issues. But all to do with the fact that it /can/ be tasteless.

    Wobbly haired sweaty beerbellies on men: disgusting. Drunk folks with their p# ouut of the pants p#ssing in the streets: yuk. And women enforcing images of flobby breasts on me in public: not very nice.

    If it were my choice to ignore: fine. Do whatever you want. But on facebook, or worse, in the train back from work, or the tram to dinner, is hard to ignore.
  • You misread my challenge. I asked for the most visceral reaction. You're telling me that you have a more visceral reaction to a breast than the other image? Seriously?

    If you don't want to look at breastfeeding women on Facebook, don't join the group. Seems simple enough to me. Note clearly that I am not advocating for banning, just fairness.
blog comments powered by Disqus

Previous post:

Next post: