The Flemish tourism board is poking fun of Facebook’s anti-nudity policy after classic works of art that appeared on a tourism ad were reportedly censored by the social network.
Facebook removed several ads with images of Peter Paul Rubens paintings featuring nude parts of women, cherubs and Christ wearing a loincloth in his The Descent from the Cross, reportedArtsy on Monday. The social media ad campaign reportedly aimed to showcase works by Flemish artists for the Belgian region of Flanders.
We all know it. We all love it, and as proper clothesfreelifers we all hate it too.
Facebook, founded by Mark Zuckerberg and originally named ‘The Facebook’, has been around since February 4th, 2004. (See Business Insider info.) The place is popular. Billions of users, lots of traffic.
The big gripe that naturists, nudists and other clothes-free people have against that site is: their confusing, changing, inconsistent and close to moronic attitude towards nudity.
Lately I hear and see more and more people complain about the Facebook attitude towards nudity. Understandable, because they shove us out, leaving us no opening to show the world inside that place that nudity is not the same as sex, that nudity is actually a healthier way of life than being bundled up, suffocating your skin.
The little mermaid
Did you know that Facebook once banned a photo of the Danish ‘Mermaid’ statue that resides in the Copenhagen (Denmark) harbour since 1913?
Their reasoning for banning the picture was ‘The Little Mermaid is simply too undressed for Facebook‘. Right. Artists should consider putting clothes on their works of art. (See Artnet for reference.)
This is just one occurrence where Facebook has gone mad. I need to add here that Facebook later turned back their decision, but the fact that this actually happened says something about the social media giant.
In the same way clothesfreelifers are forced to either cover up, mutilate their pictures by blurring them or stamping Facebook-logos over the ‘dangerous’ parts as not to shock the tender souls who reside there as well.
Product, not customer
Something that most people don’t seem to get about that site is that they are not customers. They are products. Facebook runs on advertising, selling stuff. They are there to make money of their visitors which makes their visitors their product line.
Before signing up with Facebook you can read their terms and conditions. No one does, but they state that Facebook rules are the law on Facebook, and no matter what you want to do against them, once you signed up you have to abide by those rules.
Clothesfreelifers who complain about Facebook’s inability to come to grips with the real world should understand this. There’s the link. Go read it. See what you signed up with. And then decide if you still want to be a part of that place or not. Facebook is a multimillion, maybe even multibillion giant. A few thousand people who like to be naked aren’t going to make such an entity falter by screaming at it. Find places where you can express yourself the way you want, like at ClothesFreeLife. On Twitter. On Tumblr. Get a free blog at WordPress or Blogger. Just don’t yap at something that’s not going to hear you.
Be creative in what you want to convey. There’s no need to constantly throw pictures of nude people all over the place – and certainly not on Facebook. Talk about what you do.
P.Z. Walker on vacation.
Showing pictures can be nice. Showing pictures of pretty, young, fit, naked people can be nice. That however doesn’t cover the truth. Take off your clothes if you still wear them and look in a big mirror. Are you one of those pretty, young, fit, naked people? I am certain that at least 50% here will have to say no (or lie). I know I don’t count as one of them.
The blogs etc. that I mentioned are a great way to spout your feelings, express yourself, tell the world about your naked life. Write up posts. Put your pictures there (yes, your pictures!) and then dump a link to that post on Facebook. Experiment a bit with FB-posts, making them private, to see which images of your blog post will show in the preview. (The first image? The smallest image? The featured image?) You can use that knowledge, put a ‘safe’ image in the blog post, and then put the post out there for real.
Don’t scream that Facebook is limiting you. Facebook doesn’t care about that because you accepted their terms and conditions by signing up. Learn about their rules and find a way around them. Be creative. It can be done.
If you want to use social media to express yourself, there are other options besides blogs. There’s for instance ello.co which is for creative types. They have no problems with nudity (so far).
I just learnt about a new social medium called MeWe.
They might be worth investigating so I created an account there (it’s free). You can find me there as Paul Walker. I have created a group called ‘Naturists and nudists’ there too. Let’s see!
Facebook backtracked on Friday (Sep 9) on a decision to censor an iconic Vietnam War photo of a naked girl escaping a napalm bombing, after its block on the historic image sparked outrage.
The online giant stopped short of apologising, saying the image had been flagged for violating standards regarding inappropriate posts at the world’s leading social network.
“An image of a naked child would normally be presumed to violate our Community Standards, and in some countries might even qualify as child pornography,” Facebook said in a statement.
“In this case, we recognise the history and global importance of this image in documenting a particular moment in time.”
Taken by photographer Nick Ut Cong Huynh for the Associated Press, the 1972 picture of a naked Vietnamese girl running from a napalm attack is considered one of the war’s defining images. It was honoured with the Pulitzer Prize.
An active social media user, Norwegian Prime Minister Erna Solberg defied Facebook early Friday by posting the photograph, helping to bring the weeks-long controversy to a head. Her post was taken down several hours later, deleted by Facebook, she said.
After Facebook reversed position on the image, Solberg told the BBC she was a “happy prime minister.” “It shows that using social media can make (a) political change even in social media.”
Facebook on Friday reversed its decision to censor an iconic Vietnam War photo of a naked girl escaping a napalm bombing, after the move set off a wave of outrage, including from Norway’s prime minister.
Facebook has been accused of censorship after it deleted posts from the page of a world leader.
Norwegian Prime Minister Erna Solberg on Friday denounced Facebook for limiting freedom of speech after the social giant deleted a post on her personal Facebook page that showed an iconic Vietnam War photo of a naked girl running screaming from a napalm attack.
An Open Letter to Facebook: I am deeply concerned with your policies on nude photography and imagery. According to your current standards, photos of topless women or semi-naked men are prohibited, as are any photos of lovemaking, yet your corporation approves of images of mutilated and scarred breasts/genitals. This is shocking. Anyone who has experienced […]
Getting banned from Facebook can have unexpected and professionally devastating consequences
Upon logging into Facebook to post articles to two pages that I administer for work, I was greeted with a message that read: “We removed content that you posted.” The offending photo was a clever German breast cancer awareness campaign that involved partial nudity. Facebook informed me that I would be blocked from posting for the next 24 hours. “People who repeatedly post things that aren’t allowed on Facebook may have their accounts permanently disabled,” they warned
“Nudism will not be Facebooked” – Guest writer @nudistnerd /r/nudism redditor
We’re given 24 golden hours everyday but mere nanoseconds to catch the attention of friends and family on Facebook and likewise for them. Posts ranging from political rhetoric to your parents just learning about the Harlem Shake all share the same space. Often what you see at the front of the page was a carefully calculated algorithm working with a commercialized slant. That’s why FB always tend to switch itself to “Top stories” instead of “most recent” – it’s dictating what it thinks you should see. It’s because of this system we see “clickbait” today. What happened the good stuff? Enter nudism.reddit.com.
For those who don’t know: Reddit is a a social media platform (e.g Twitter and yes Facebook) where every niche has a community. From fountain pens to pictures of cats giving high fives, there are communities for everything. What makes reddit different and all the more useful and enjoyable is unlike Facebook, Reddit doesn’t decide what you see! Other users judge the best content by upvoting or downvoting. The more upvotes, the closer to the front page the post goes and the inverse for downvoted content. Oh if Facebook only allowed you to downvote that photo your friend took of their meal. I don’t care you got the chicken franks!!
Nudists are hard pressed to find sites that are informative, intelligent, and conducive to nudism. The good sites are difficult to find because they unfortunately get drowned out by the lousy stuff.
Nudists are hard pressed to find sites that are informative, intelligent, and conducive to nudism. Sites like clothesfreelife.com! The good sites are difficult to find because they unfortunately get drowned out by the lousy stuff. Found a nudist site? Chances are it’s porn, or outdated, or unutilized…or all three.I set out to change that by starting /r/Nudism.
Not only do the latest internet sensations see their start on reddit, it’s largest demographic is the under 40 young professional. A demographic sorely missing in nudism today. I chose reddit because it is a democratic social network. What you see wasn’t decided for you based some robots logic. You see it because a like-minded redditor voted to bring it to the foreground. As a community, our goal is to advance the conversation of nudism. Too often, poorly made nudists sites are just a vehicle for delivering photos of naked people. It’s not any better at Facebook where a photo of a nursing mother gets banned for being “too sexual.” So a nudist sharing their trip photo is certainly out of the question.
/r/Nudism advances the conversation by ensuring all photos have context. Posts containing nothing more than a naked person aren’t permitted. This yields quality content. No more “nudist buzzkills” like Mr Crotch-selfie and pornobot spammers.
/r/Nudism advances the conversation by ensuring all photos have context.
We believe nudism is more than pics! Trip reports, club events, insightful discussion are all found at /r/nudism. Best of all, we take out the hassle of finding a good site because only the best gets upvoted. Subscribers of this site will be happy to know the first moderator I brought on to help was EarlD editor of clothes free life!
In addition to quality content, /r/Nudism passes the usage test. Just last month, we had 36,000+ visitors and nearly 97,000 page views – averaging about 1,500 people a day! If you share something meaningful – it will be seen! It’s an underground success and we’re only just getting started.
So here’s a call to action for the entire naturist/nudist community: let’s stop wasting precious time trying to change Facebook’s mind. We are simply persona-non-grata there and y’know what? We don’t need them either! Come to nudism.reddit.com so we can cut to the chase of getting more young and new naturists/nudists to the clubs, beaches, and parks. So we can show everyone that dancing in just your skin ain’t no sin. We’re reaching out to various club leaders and organizations to continue to make the site informative, active and useful. Already you will find links to resort calendars, tips for newbies and much more. Once you create a reddit account, please visit nudism.reddit.com and click the subscribe button.
For a while (about a year ago or so) I was fixated on “nipple shadow”. I had been suspended for the most minor evidence of a female nipple. I began going through my photos and removing the shadow on Photoshop (which is pretty easy) before posting on Facebook. This always made me feel uncomfortable because I felt like I was participating in something ugly. Somehow women without nipples was okay. It wasn’t just that I was hiding the nipples, but I was removing them, as if they didn’t exist. Ironically, nobody ever commented on any of these photos, saying that it was creepy. (Since then I have decided that the mosaic feature on Photoshop is best because it keeps the censors at bay without creating this creepy illusion).
I also don’t like the idea of discussing Facebook or any oppressive force in my art or my postings because I feel what I’m saying is far more important than the idea of whether or not it should be allowed. It’s bad enough that these barriers exist. I don’t want to use the free speech that I do have to discuss them (yes, I am aware that I am doing this right now).
Last week we came across a post about an Australia web magazine whose Facebook page had been suspended after posting an article about the way that aboriginal Australian women are shamed for their nudity while the European female is celebrated. The account suspension and removal of the article suggests a real double standard when it comes to how the clothes free bodies of native/indigenous people and the bodies of people of color are viewed, versus the clothes free bodies of people of European heritage. Something we have written about recently in the black history series.
The New Matilda article was based on a speech given by aboriginal feminist writer Celeste Liddle at the Queen victoria Women’s Centre on International Women’s Day. Liddle’s Facebook page was subsequently banned for posting links to media coverage in the UK of the original page ban. In her speech Liddle observed the double standard in the way European nude bodies and non European clothes free bodies are viewed.
“I say this, by the way, not to demonize young, pretty, blonde women but to point out that the offence actually comes from the male gaze, and what that gaze deems acceptable,” wrote Liddle.
“Aboriginal women are not acceptable. Older women aren’t acceptable, particularly if their breasts are pendulous rather than perky. Women being semi-naked for the purpose of taking part in women’s culture are not acceptable
This is an important issue for the people in the clothes free community to engage. Liddle points out raising the double stand is not equal to demonizing or “slut-shaming”. In this writer’s view, neither is questioning whether the monetization the nude body is a good thing for the normalization of clothes free life. Exposure to diverse cultural values, norms and morays call into question the European stand as the standard for how the clothes free body should be viewed. The naturism/nudist/clothes free community should be as equally concerned and outraged by this as it is about the “slut shaming” of Kim Kardashian and Facebook bans of nude images of people of European descent.
Photo of topLess aboriginal women preparing for native ceremony blocked from Facebook
It would seem that Facbook’s community standards are more inclined away from the cultural values and lifestyle of non-white/indigenous people. Liddle suggests as much in her response to the UK’s Daily Mail when they covered the issue.
I want Facebook to investigate their own community standards, particularly when it refers to cultural standards.’
Liddle suggests that Facebook’s enforcement of its standards is selective and uneven and asks how two topless tribal elders preparing for a tribal ceremony can be considered pornographic.
Facebook responded to New Matilda suspension by defending its community standards.
We are aware that people sometimes share content containing nudity for reasons like awareness campaigns, artistic projects or cultural investigations. The reason we restrict the display of nudity is because some audiences within our global community may be sensitive to this type of content – particularly because of cultural background or age.
If natural indigenous nudity is considered abnormal, but a monetized western nude body is not, then it is unlikely that clothes free living will be seen as normal.
The response called for here from the clothes free community is and intersectional view of the issue. Those of us who want to see clothes free living normalized should try to grasp this concept. If natural indigenous nudity is considered abnormal, but a monetized western nude body is not, then it is unlikely that clothes free living will be seen as normal. If the only images that serve to legitimize the normalization of nudity or clothes free life are those of celebrities who tend to profit from those images, the cause will not reach its goal. If ordinary native people performing a tribal ceremony top free is considered pornographic but the nude celebrity body, already engaged in a cultural dynamic that worships them, ensues them with characteristics they may not actually have, monetizes and sexualized them is not, then the normalization of clothes free living may never be within reach.
Facebook’s suggestion to New Matilda that they simply remove the “offending” image when posting the speech illustrates the deeply embedded “abnormal” view of indigenous non-white bodies.
In order to treat people fairly and respond to reports quickly, it is essential that we have policies in place that our global teams can apply uniformly and easily when reviewing content. As a result, our policies can sometimes be more blunt than we would like, and restrict content shared for legitimate purposes. We encourage people to share Celeste Liddle’s speech on Facebook by simply removing the image before posting it.”
New Matilda committed to the cause of indigenous people and the presentation of the speech, censored the image and reposted.
Liddle’s Facebook account however has been suspended a second time. She has started a petition at change.org to address the inconsistent Facebook policy. Be forewarned it includes the “offending” image so if you post it to Facebook your account may be suspended. According to reports, this not the first time Facebook has removed images of indigenous people for being “offensive.” A video featuring aboriginal women in tribal ceremony was banned last year. The quote by an individual interviewed by ABC Australia about the issue sums up the double standard and culturally misguided approach of Facebook:
“Facebook, who are just absolutely notorious for refusing to take down really horrific racist pages towards Aboriginal people, to ban Celeste for this photo is beyond ludicrous.” – Luke Pearson, IndigenousX founder
I call on the clothes free community to say with one voice that this is a cause celebre as much as any nude selfie image from Kim Kardashian, Miley Cyrus, or Amber Rose. I, for one, believe that until native nudity is normal, clothes free life will never be normal. What say you? Tell us what you think.
A speech published in New Matilda which argues that Aboriginal women are shamed for their nudity, while the nudity of non-Aboriginal women is celebrated, has been banned by Facebook because it included an image of two topless women from Central Australia ‘painted up’ and performing an ancient Aboriginal ceremony. In addition, the accounts of multiple […]