Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Gentleman_Jellyfish wrote:
Interesting. Maybe in my head offended implies a more passionate reaction

You use an altered definition of the term because you're trying to demonize and belittle a political and civil rights movement so that you can feel better about yourself, like almost everyone else in this thread.

 Melissia wrote:

 Gentleman_Jellyfish wrote:
Interesting. Maybe in my head offended implies a more passionate reaction

That's because you're trying to demonize and belittle a political and civil rights movement so that you can feel better about yourself, like almost everyone else in this thread.

You seem offended at my lack of offense

 Gentleman_Jellyfish wrote:
You seem offended at my lack of offense

Yes, and smoke offends my nose. Doesn't mean that I want to slit your throat over it.

Though I might ask you to go outside if you want to start smoking.

 Melissia wrote:

 MetalOxide wrote:

 Gentleman_Jellyfish wrote:
I just want to try and feel the kind of offense these people do, as I have never really been offended at anything

I have not really been offended by anything either.

Both of you are lying to yourselves to try to make yourselves feel better.

Nah, I may disagree with somebody, but I'm not like "OHMG NAO IM SO OFFENDED... NAO I MUST START A E-CAMPAIGN!"because I bet that 99.99% of 'offensive' things on the internet were created by people who's lives are so pathetic that they resort to trolling to get their kick in life. I have better things to do with my life than feel offended stuff on the internet.

 Melissia wrote:

 Gentleman_Jellyfish wrote:
You seem offended at my lack of offense

Yes, and smoke offends my nose. Doesn't mean that I want to slit your throat over it.

... Who mentioned throat slitting? For our first interaction together you're coming across as very scary.

Except, apparently, you're taking offense to people taking offense.

That's what you've been ranting about in this thread after all. "ERMAGERD, THEM FEMINISTS ARE TAKING OFFENSE AT PEOPLE ADVOCATING GANG-RAPE AND OTHER VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN, AND THAT OFFENDS ME!"

 Gentleman_Jellyfish wrote:

 Melissia wrote:

 Gentleman_Jellyfish wrote:
You seem offended at my lack of offense

Yes, and smoke offends my nose. Doesn't mean that I want to slit your throat over it.

... Who mentioned throat slitting? For our first interaction together you're coming across as very scary.

You cannot really be this dense.

 Melissia wrote:
Except, apparently, you're taking offense to people taking offense.

That's what you've been ranting about in this thread after all. "ERMAGERD, THEM FEMINISTS ARE TAKING OFFENSE AT PEOPLE ADVOCATING GANG-RAPE AND OTHER VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN, AND THAT OFFENDS ME!"

That is precisely what I said! Almost word for word! Except that I didn't use all caps, I didn't say that I was offended by their cause (Just disagreed with it), and I wouldn't necessarily say my first post in this thread was a rant.

But I guess technically you're right that I have felt some sort of offense in my life because I've smelled gak (And didn't like it!).

 Some_Call_Me_Tim? wrote:

 notprop wrote:
I'm not sure why this requires a campaign?

It seems like a massive failure by Facebook to monitor its content. Granted there will be a lag between posting, moderation and removal but to allow it to get to levels were group albeit small (5000 in a global context) is piss poor.

Is there not some sort of US department that regulates (probably the wrong word) media corporations?

Not like there is in England. Buncha' Socialists, can't leave your media alone...

~Tim?

What about the Federal Communications Commission?

I don't think the FCC currently has the power to regulate the internet's content all that much (and such a ting may well be a pipe dream).

Child porn is illegal across the western world, but there are hundreds of thousands of backwater sites dedicated to it. Whenever a law enforcement agency takes one down a new one just pops up. Same with pirating sites. Without a fundamental alteration to the structure of the web, expecting heavy regulation of it isn't really gonna happen.

Facebook though I have a really hard time buying is okay with images of rape. There's probably a mountain of immature 'college humor' style stuff on there though making jokes about it. I'm not sure though I'd support facebook playing big brother on that subject. There's a lot of offensive stuff in the world and people don't necessarily lose their right to be a dick just because we don't approve of it. But Facebook is a private company. They can do what they want with their site. Personally I expect little to be done.

 LordofHats wrote:


Facebook though I have a really hard time buying is okay with images of rape..

Hint: they aren't =)

Report offensive content, it gets deleted. Pretty simple logic. Or...deal with it. I feel offended by sexists on dakka either. Do I suddenly start a campaign on dakka? Nope. I just...nod and smile.

 Super Ready wrote:
Talk about idiocy in reporting. Sure, there's an issue here, and one that is well worth Facebook looking closer at. But it has *NOTHING* to do with advertisements.

Attacking advertisers is the most efficient way to get the issue, as they see it, addressed.

1.) People perceive that Facebook is not properly moderating content
2.) People do not pay to use facebook. Therefore, Facebook has no real motivation to be customer-oriented, certainly not on a one-on-one basis. Addressing the issue with Facebook itself is unlikely to result in a meaningful result.
3.) However, if Coca-Cola contacts Facebook and says, hey, why aren't you guys taking care of __________, they are much more likely to take it seriously. i.e, the roundabout way is actually the fastest way to resolve the situation.

Does this work? Ask Glenn Beck.

 Ouze wrote:

 Super Ready wrote:
Talk about idiocy in reporting. Sure, there's an issue here, and one that is well worth Facebook looking closer at. But it has *NOTHING* to do with advertisements.

Attacking advertisers is the most efficient way to get the issue, as they see it, addressed.

1.) People perceive that Facebook is not properly moderating content
2.) People do not pay to use facebook. Therefore, Facebook has no real motivation to be customer-oriented, certainly not on a one-on-one basis. Addressing the issue with Facebook itself is unlikely to result in a meaningful result.
3.) However, if Coca-Cola contacts Facebook and says, hey, why aren't you guys taking care of __________, they are much more likely to take it seriously. i.e, the roundabout way is actually the fastest way to resolve the situation.

Does this work? Ask Glenn Beck.

The Ironic thing about this is that he's richer now than ever before due to is "Blaze" show/blog...

Reminds me of a "Strike me down, and I shall become more powerful..."

But, your point does stand as it's an orgranization making revenue via Ads... hit 'em where it hurts.

 Gentleman_Jellyfish wrote:
I didn't say that I was offended by their cause

No, but you were offended. What other than the offense you took motivates you to attack the feminist movement in this thread?

So apparently, it's not okay for people to take offense at someone advocating sexualized violence against them... but it IS okay for you to take offense at someone attempting to say "that's not cool and you should take that down".

Or rather, you're using the term "offense" without really knowing (or just not caring) what it means, so that you can insult the feminist movement and make yourself feel better about your own life. Same goes with so many other people in this thread.

But seriously, of all the things to be offended about, you're offended that feminism opposes people who advocate rape? You're being entirely irrational here.

Posted in anger. Sorry.

 Melissia wrote:

 Gentleman_Jellyfish wrote:
You seem offended at my lack of offense

Yes, and smoke offends my nose. Doesn't mean that I want to slit your throat over it.

Though I might ask you to go outside if you want to start smoking.

lol where is throat slitting coming from?

but melissa is right,

just like smokers can go outside to smoke, these douche nozzles making this kind of sexist douchebaggery "meme" art can go do it somewhere other then face book.

 Steve steveson wrote:
"These pages and images are approved by your moderators"... They think FB moderates and pre-approves images and groups. They are confusing group mods with facebook employees.

What you quoted there says "approved", not "pre-approved."

I bumped into this campaign for the first time at this link from twitter and it has a photographic example that you may find relevant.

In that case I withdraw all previous comments. I don't think "approved" is the right word, but clearly. They have every right to attack FB.

Sorry.

http://www.dailylife.com.au/news-and-views/dl-opinion/hey-facebook-rape-is-not-a-punchline-20130527-2n6tx.html

There's an absurd irony in the fact that Facebook seems to take a zero tolerance policy to the uploading of breastfeeding photos (many users have been reported and even temporarily banned for sharing images of them feeding their babies), yet it took weeks and a Change.org petition with more than 100,000 signatures to get Facebook to remove a "humour" page called "What's 10 inches and gets girls to have sex with me? My knife" and that they continue to respond to images urging the rape of women with tepid excuses like this (after the jump).
[image with offensive joke omitted]

I always thought of facebook as sort of the arsehole of the internet. I see I wasn't far off. What the FETH is wrong with Facebook.

Facebook has an odd criteria for removing content.

 purplefood wrote:
Facebook has an odd criteria for removing content.

Well lets be honest. Most companies don't take a stand against anything until someone complains about it at which point they say "We never support this behavior" while the rest of us sit there and nod knowing that whatever it is they're not supporting has been there for years

 LordofHats wrote:

 purplefood wrote:
Facebook has an odd criteria for removing content.

Well lets be honest. Most companies don't take a stand against anything until someone complains about it at which point they say "We never support this behavior" while the rest of us sit there and nod knowing that whatever it is they're not supporting has been there for years

There was a point where the British government asked them to take down a rather offensive and infamous page on Facebook. They declined to despite the fact it was breaking several of the terms and conditions.

Facebook has always been rather hypocritical in that regard-- even if it is not, in writing, misogynist, it certainly has been in action.

Yes, the pages in question were in poor taste, and yes, they should most likely be removed. However, the level of outrage is slightly irrational, in my opinion. As is thinking people must be lying to themselves because they disagree with you.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Melissia wrote:
even if it is not, in writing, misogynist, it certainly has been in action.

What with their female CEO and all. Shameless misogyny.

 rubiksnoob wrote:
the level of outrage is slightly irrational

It is not irrational to get offended by people advocating violence against you.

And that they have a female CEO doesn't make their enforcement policy suddenly not misogynistic.

 rubiksnoob wrote:

 Melissia wrote:
even if it is not, in writing, misogynist, it certainly has been in action.

What with their female CEO and all. Shameless misogyny.

Doesn't change a thing. That's a bit like the 'I cant be racist 'cos I have a black friend' defence. There are many examples of women leading things that are derogatory towards other women. The Sun newspaper is a sexist rag that continued the proud tradition of a page three girl throughout the time it had a female editor.

just like smokers can go outside to smoke, these douche nozzles making this kind of sexist douchebaggery "meme" art can go do it somewhere other then face book.

Sounds like a slippery slope argument. Would have us end up like China I bet.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 Some_Call_Me_Tim? wrote:

 notprop wrote:
I'm not sure why this requires a campaign?

It seems like a massive failure by Facebook to monitor its content. Granted there will be a lag between posting, moderation and removal but to allow it to get to levels were group albeit small (5000 in a global context) is piss poor.

Is there not some sort of US department that regulates (probably the wrong word) media corporations?

Not like there is in England. Buncha' Socialists, can't leave your media alone...

~Tim?

What about the Federal Communications Commission?

Why is it that every time I try to use humor on the internet someone takes me seriously...?

I was playing on the sadly common misapprehension among some in the US that the BBC is pretty much the British government's media wing, and that the British media is heavily regulated. See? A joke.

Just a bad one.

~Tim?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Melissia wrote:
http://www.dailylife.com.au/news-and-views/dl-opinion/hey-facebook-rape-is-not-a-punchline-20130527-2n6tx.html

There's an absurd irony in the fact that Facebook seems to take a zero tolerance policy to the uploading of breastfeeding photos (many users have been reported and even temporarily banned for sharing images of them feeding their babies), yet it took weeks and a Change.org petition with more than 100,000 signatures to get Facebook to remove a "humour" page called "What's 10 inches and gets girls to have sex with me? My knife" and that they continue to respond to images urging the rape of women with tepid excuses like this (after the jump).
[image with offensive joke omitted]

I always thought of facebook as sort of the arsehole of the internet. I see I wasn't far off. What the FETH is wrong with Facebook.

I thought the arsehole of the internet was 4Chan? Facebook can sometimes be the smelly armpit of the internet, but I think 4Chan takes the cake for being the worst place on the 'web.

~Tim?

 Mr Hyena wrote:

just like smokers can go outside to smoke, these douche nozzles making this kind of sexist douchebaggery "meme" art can go do it somewhere other then face book.

Sounds like a slippery slope argument. Would have us end up like China I bet.

well to be free speech friendly, one can ignore user so their pictures cant show and unfriend or what ever anyone who puts them up.

but it is a private company, it can allow or disallow whatever it wants, according to public whim or not.

heck dakka would likely censor those kind of pic's

it is a bit of a storm in a tea cup though, shouldnt people only be seeing this stuff if they are friends with people who think its funny? I know I havnt seen any, but IM not big into the facebook

 Some_Call_Me_Tim? wrote:
I thought the arsehole of the internet was 4Chan?

And proud of it.

 Howard A Treesong wrote:

 rubiksnoob wrote:

 Melissia wrote:
even if it is not, in writing, misogynist, it certainly has been in action.

What with their female CEO and all. Shameless misogyny.

Doesn't change a thing. That's a bit like the 'I cant be racist 'cos I have a black friend' defence. There are many examples of women leading things that are derogatory towards other women. The Sun newspaper is a sexist rag that continued the proud tradition of a page three girl throughout the time it had a female editor.

Special pleading! I knew it would be along sooner or later.

I don't suppose it's possible that some people not agree with what you determine to be derogatory. Referring, of course, to Page 3, not the facebook trolling bit. That is ugly, but it seems like Facebook has the machinery in place to remove objectionable content. I've seen it in action. It would seem that, surprise, a lot of people are shooting off at the mouth without even a rudimentary understanding of the subject matter.