This is perplexing. And annoying. And infuriating.

I woke up this morning to an email from Facebook with the subject “Facebook Warning”:

“Hello,

Content that you shared on Facebook has been removed because it violated Facebook’s Statement of Rights and Responsibilities. Shares that contain nudity, or any kind of graphic or sexually suggestive content, are not permitted on Facebook.

This message serves as a warning. Additional violations may result in the termination of your account. Please read the Statement of Rights and Responsibilities carefully and refrain from posting abusive material in the future. Thanks in advance for your understanding and cooperation.

The Facebook Team”

Ah…yeah… it seems that the sight of two fully-clothed men kissing was too much for Facebook, or too much for some closet-case asshole (Hi Jerry! Remind me why you and I are “friends” again? I sure didn’t ask to be yours, pal…) who complained about it. The photo appeared here on Dangerous Minds in the context of Niall’s post about the “kiss in” demonstration that was cooked up, ironically ON FACEBOOK ITSELF, in London to protest against the rude treatment two gay patrons experienced at a pub called The John Snow. The two men, Jonathan Williams, 26, and Jamie Bull, 23 were sitting in a corner kissing when the owner asked them to leave. Over 750 people signed up for the protest.

Oh, WAIT A MINUTE, I went to check on the Facebook page that organized The John Snow pub protest... and it’s gone, too.

WTF, FB?

I’ve written to Facebook asking them why this content was removed, but have at this point received no reply. I’ll update this post when I do. In the meantime, why not share this photo on FB as much as you can? I’m hoping they’ll restore the post as it was so everyone can pile on the jerk who wrote all the homophobic stuff on my FB wall. I think that’s the best outcome here, Jerry getting a taste of his own medicine…

In any case, the protest went off last night against The John Snow pub, with protesters chanting “We’re here, we’re queer and we won’t buy your beer.” You can see the BBC News report here.

Thank you and have a great weekend. Join Dangerous Minds on Facebook.

UPDATE:

(Thanks for this, Robyn Webb!)
 
UPDATE: 4/18/2011 This was sent in to the comments below:

Paul Shetler says:

Hey I just saw this. Before it goes too far, I just want people to know that FB have NOT removed the kiss-in event page; it’s still there, but _I made the event private after the event_ was over and only visible to those who had been invited as there were starting to be trolls posting abusive nonsense on it.

That’s pathetic, but predictable. However, it still doesn’t explain why Facebook removed the Dangerous Minds post from my profile, of course, with the warning that I had posted “abusive” material. Still waiting for that. I’ve heard nothing thus far from them. Will update again when I have heard from them.

UPDATE: 4/18/2011 Please read our follow up post on this story, which deals with some misreported facts on other news outlets.

UPDATE: 4/19/2001 Read Richard Metzger: How I, a married, middle-aged man, became an accidental spokesperson for gay rights overnight on Boing Boing

I saw this on my wall from the “They Might be Giants” page on FB.They said:
“Dang—now Facebook. Does internet homophobia come in two’s? “

I honestly think that you’re perceiving this to be about a larger issue when it’s really just a matter of one person being a jerk and Facebook having an automatic takedown policy.  A few months back, a photo of my grandchildren in the bathtub was removed from their mother’s page after a similar complaint.  Nothing inappropriate was visible—it was a photo of a two-year old and an infant playing in the tub.  I truly don’t believe that anyone at Facebook ever looked at the photo; I think with 500 million users, they’ve decided the most expedient thing to do is simply auto-remove anything that offends anyone.  That’s an issue in itself, but it has nothing to do with sexual orientation or bathing infants or any specific content type.

Yeah that disturbs me….especially when I know of people with pictures of their fully naked children on their profiles. And I’m not talking baby photos here, the kids are over one, under ten, and its disgusting, I dont see those ones get taken off.

I think Tiffany’s right about this one. At least, I hope she is.

@ Tiffany

That doesn’t explain the entire page for the Kiss In not being there. Not merely one post, the entire profile is gone now.

When a Facebook page, or several, can be removed because it offends 1 person than it is indeed an issue.

The only way to get a Facebook page re-instated is to make as big a stink as possible and shame them into paying attention to what their bots are doing.
In this case, no Facebook rule was even broken.

Facebook is sending the wrong message, whether they know it or not. It is important to make them aware of it.

Posted.
We will not be silenced!!!!
Not even by Fb.
V.

I think Facebook did the right thing.  There are plenty of places on the internet where you can go to see sexual perversions.  If Facebook doesn’t want to be one of them, it only makes me like Facebook more.

Time for a stink on Facebook I think…

Katie,

you are the perversion.

Nursing mothers have had the same complaint for years now with pictures of them feeding their babies are removed.
Neither this or those pictures should be deemed offensive but closeminded bigots are everywhere. Considering that nursing moms have yet to win this fight, I say good luck fighting yet another ridiculous censorship.

First it was breastfeeding. Now this. Breastfeeding photos are still considered obscene on FB, by the way. No one cared then, and I suspect they may do the “it’s our playground” thing they did with the nursing photos. But eventually everyone forgot about that, and will forget about this too. But people will stay. They always do.

Katie:

If you consider two men kissing a “perversion” then this is the kind of perversion that needs to be seen more frequently everywhere, including on facebook.  The internet is inherently anti-human and you should applaud any opportunity where content providers attempt to humanize the experience.

The *real* problem (and this is something that I’ve been investigating about Facebook for a while now) is that anyone can complain about something (a pic or a supposed intellectual rights violation) and Facebook will remove it first… and ask questions later!

I’ve also found out in cases of disputes, they will simply “hold things” that they’ve taken down until the accuser (no matter how WRONG they were) agrees to allow the content back onto Facebook.  It’s sort of a *crazy* system. 

Perhaps it helps them avoid lawsuits, but it really seems disrespectful of the user base as a whole… Facebook doesn’t care about *your* rights to post stuff… they only want to avoid complaints about it… from whom ever.

You spelled “buy” wrong in your chant. Otherwise, great post.

I hate Facebook for so many reasons. Here is another.

The real answer, if we want to fix it is to all stop using Facebook. You’ll notice the pic isn’t going to be removed from the actual web by anyone. On your own site you have the freedom to post what you want.

Shared. I’ve seen some of the things that facebook deems acceptable but this is blocked? That is just wrong. I bet if it were two women, you would have been fine.

Well, Katie, I’ve reposted this onto facebook, picture and all, and I’m sure I’m not the only one. The problem with trying to suppress something in this day and age is that all you end up doing is drawing even more attention to it. So I’m afraid you will have to avert your eyes.

Oh, and I concur with Marc above: the problem is not the picture, it’s you.

I think the weakness in any protest people have made thus far is that it’s single-issue related, and that makes the group challenging the practice much smaller. Rather than having one group talking about “discrimination against nursing mothers” and another about “homophobia” and another about “perverts who read something sexual into photos of children”, why not attack the real issue, which is the takedown policy/process.

Facebook may or may not care what we think.  It’s a private company and well within its rights to take down all photos of people wearing blue if that’s something Mark Zuckerberg personally doesn’t care for.  But users are the product Facebook offers to its customers—the more we hang out and do there, the more they can “sell” us and become even more successful.  If we don’t (in large enough numbers), they lose money.  The large enough numbers come from recognizing this as a problem that impacts many groups and individuals, not just one.

I think one of the real issues here is how Facebook enforces “sexually suggestive content”.

Are they consistant, or does a pattern exist where they are targeting certain groups?

It seems that this image “could be” construed as sexually suggestive? Which would explain why it was removed? I assume that Facebook would argue that the even the “Kiss” event was also sexually explicit? Thus the removal.

It’s fair (abet idiotic) IF they are consistant. But show me ONE pic of a hetro couple kissing on Facebook? Then all bets are off.

I don’t use Facebook, I’ve always been of the opinion that it’s a pile of shit.

I guess the true test would be to complain when you see a photo of a hetero couple or two girls kissing and see what happens.

ifthenwhy

Well put!

@Katie

How did you find this blog, anyway?

This is an interesting find:

http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=55880635532

If the kiss-in was created as an event, then it automatically disappeared when the event passed. It happens to all events. But I wholeheartedly agree with you about your friend Jerry. What a shitheel.

I was also just reminded that a woman who posted empowering post mastectomy photos got in trouble with FB, too.  They eventually apologized, though. But yeah, breastfeeding moms are still offensive. http://www.switched.com/2009/06/04/facebook-sorry-calling-mastectomy-pictures-sexual-and-abusive/

I think we should go around checking all photo’s of people kissing and other random photo’s and mark them for the asshat reviewers to see. That will keep them busy.

Further censorship is not the answer. Saying, “Well, if this isn’t alright, I’m going to flag everything” is just going to start limiting even more content and not change policies much.

The one poster is correct. The splinters of groups doesn’t help but I can tell you that with the breastfeeding photos, we sure didn’t have a lot of male support (some, not much) but now, “They’ve come for you” so to speak. So the question is to all FB users, is censorship of legal activities alright? Whether you agree with the specific content or not, like Katie for example who finds this perverse and sounds like a lot of people who said the same about the natural act of feeding a child, that you either oppose discrimination or you don’t. What if, say for Katie, FB started limiting religious photos and content? THEN would you cry “foul”? It’s not the topic, it’s the freedom.

Well, I wish Tiffany was right but instead she’s dead wrong. I’ve seen pictures of heteros getting way riskier than that! check out this video a friend of mine posted recently: http://youtu.be/DIy8sdjh8X4. BTW I posted your article/w pic to my fb wall & its gone. I’m going to now post a hetero couple kissing and I guarantee you- it’ll stay. I’m pretty new to fb and don’t have many friends but you should ask all yours to keep posting & re-posting the photo. I’d be happy to participate.

Not true about past events. I have a whole list of them that I can browse.

To wit: http://www.facebook.com/#!/event.php?eid=106549759428049

Mark de Montreal: That’s just obnoxious. As my friend Kevin put it, these double-standards are “the ‘I support gay marriage as long as both girls are hot’ bumper sticker writ large.”

The thing that everyone seems to be missing who refers to having seen comparable or worse “hetero” pictures is that the trigger is flagging.  Facebook isn’t going out and looking for content it thinks crosses some line—it’s taking down pictures users TELL it crossed a line. And those pictures cover a broad spectrum and many don’t see to be offensive at all…except to the person who clicked “report”.  I saw a reference above to keeping the “reviewers” busy, but I haven’t seen any evidence that there ARE reviewers—at least, not at the initial stage.  Someone clicks a button and the photo disappears; no discretion involved.

If Facebook enforced its policy against “sexually suggestive content,” it would not allow the Victoria’s Secret or Sports Illustrated Swimwear fan pages.  Think those would ever be taken down?  Not gonna happen.

Shared on the wall of the Wipe Out Homophobia on Facebook page (WHOF). Hope they will organize something.

I reposted it

Reporting it does not guarantee removal and all reported material is reviewed, per Facebook.

“How do I report pornographic content on Facebook?
You can report any photo that violates our Statement of Rights and Responsiblities by using the “Report this Photo” link provided in the bottom right corner underneath the photo. Facebook will monitor these complaints and remove photos as necessary. All reports will be kept confidential.”

http://www.facebook.com/help/?page=798

So while reporting a photo triggers a review, it does not guarantee removal. They say that several times.

Shared. I have a lot of gay male friends on FB, and I bet at least some of them are going to love the photo (and some of the other straight women too).

@Michelle and Tiffany:

I have to disagree, I’m fully in favour of flagging large numbers of hetero-kissing photos.  Not because I’m in favour of censorship, but simply because the options for bringing this problem into public light are limited.  If we want to change something, we need to make a scene and draw attention to it.  A sudden flood of flagged photos will do just that and put the Facebook staff on the spot, leaving them with three options:

1) Admit their automatic flagging process is flawed and work to fix it (ideal).
2) Admit they have a blatant double-standard as far as ‘offensive content’ is concerned (less ideal, but at least the elephant’s out in the open now).
3) Ban everyone either of an alternate sexuality, or who supports such people, in an attempt to cover the whole thing up (annoying, but who’d want to be a part of a site that does that anyway?)

Kat: I’m hoping you realize I posted that link as an example of the double standard. That was obvious wasn’t it?

@MdM: Yeah, quite.

But that’s the thing—when the whole breastfeeding thing went down, they admitted that it was their way or the highway. I mean you can try it, and maybe they will realize that two men kissing isn’t offensive, but maybe they will think it IS too much of a pain to deal with and lump it in with the other stuff that they personally have a problem with. (I have seen, by the way, BDSM stuff in facebook photos and groups, too, and they were fine with that.)

I think what I’m going to do as well is to try to find a picture of that famous statue of the kiss where it’s two nudes kissing passionately. It’s legitimate art, I just wish I was better in my art trivia to be able to search for the exact piece I’m referring to.

If there are any art enthusiasts who know what piece I’m talking about let me know. Thanks

Sharing the kiss in solidarity of anti-censorship,

Myri

But that’s the beauty of it.  I tend not to think the highest of people as a whole, but I do believe that the number of people closed-minded enough to throw a fit over two guys kissing is a smaller minority than the number of gay people or gay supporters on Facebook.  In the end, Facebook’s a business, and it will act in a manner that attracts the most business.  What needs to happen, then, is for people to make noise and show that they stand to lose more business by enforcing homophobic standards than by not catering to the whims of homophobes.

Okay, found the piece. It’s called Auguste Rodin’s “The Kiss” (Careful, Googling the picture, one link to get a better closeup just ended up sendig me to a port site *rolls eyes*. The only thing though now is I need to get copyright permission from a photographer to post on my own wall and use it a temporary profile picture. They may not have grounds for its content but copyright infringement is.

Myri

Why not just report *any* kissing on fb, including hetero?

I used to advertise on Facebook and ran into similar issues with ads. For instance, I was advertising a weight loss service that had a story about someone who had lost 50 pounds.

I guess someone didn’t like that some people needed to lose weight and submitted a complaint. I got a warning about the ad, and when I replied their reviewer didn’t take to kindly to my asking for clarification of their vague policies, and he rejected the entire account. I had to rebuild the entire thing.

Their review policies are very suspect and subjective. As far as their compliance reviewers, I would even go so far as to say that they are also potentially vindictive.

I changed my profile pic to a same sex kiss.  Granted, I’m a girl, so I probably get a pass.  I think everyone should do the same, and post a link to this page in the caption.  While that whole, “post a cartoon character to rasie awareness for child abuse” thing was really just silly, this is reagarding an issue with facebook itself, so it might actually have an impact.

I also plan to tag any straight kisses I come across.  If it’s good for one, it has to be good for the other.  We all have a right to express ourselves, as long as it doesn’t hurt anyone else.  And kissing hurts no one, even those who find it disgusting for whatever reason.  You know, like 3rd graders.

A friend posted this on my wall and we have all decided to change our profile picture to one of two men kissing. Facebook will have their hands full deleting all of them. We stand in solidarity with you.

I just wanted to throw in my two cents regarding the breastfeeding pics.  At the end of it, facebook said they would remove anything showing nipple, not breastfeeding pics in general.  And I think that’s fair.  Almost everyone has digital cameras these days, if you want to post a breastfeeding pic, you can manage to get one that doesn’t show nipple.  The reason the woman with the mastectomy pic got to put hers back up was because she had her nipple covered.  These two aren’t exposing any nipples, so it should be okay.

This doesn’t get into the fact that male nips are okay while female nips are not.  But, that’s really another issue that goes waaaaay outside of facebook and for much longer.

What is wrong with that picture? It was a sweet expression of affection between two people. Who cares what sex they are. There was no nudity or offensiveness, just two people showing affection to each other.

I also disagree with the ridiculous reactions to public breastfeeding. I breastfed 3 sons for a total of 7 1/2 years collectively. When they were hungry they were fed, end of story. For personal reasons of modesty on my part, I was very discreet, and I doubt anybody even knew was transpiring, but so what if they did, that is why women have breasts, contrary to what the media makes us want to believe.

@Myridean - You’re thinking of Rodin’s “The Kiss”.

Personally, since Facebook’s demographic is society in general, I think that it’s unlikely that there will be a time when every user is tolerant of homosexuality, breastfeeding etc. So this kind of content will continue to be reported. It’s up to Facebook to decide what falls into the “violation” category, but it’s easier for them to remove or censor anything before checking whether it’s genuinely offensive - because they obviously wouldn’t want pornography lingering on the site for more than a split-second.
Does the problem lie with the users who reported the image, or with Facebook’s policy?
We cannot have truly free speech unless we have no taboos. But Facebook was never intended to be a forum for free discussion, and it will continue to be an extension of everyone using it - including the same common or garden prejudices one finds everywhere.

I actually feel public displays of affection are in appropriate no matter what your sexual orientation. I find it just as distasteful to see a guy/girl couple making out in a bar or eating establishment, etc. As far as what’s on a person’s Facebook page, if I find it offensive, I just hide them from my feed. I have young sibilings I am ‘friends’ with on FB and so am constanly monitoring what is posted to my page. If I find it not suitable, there’s a handy dandy x in the corner I can click on.

do they remove photos of straight people kissing?

I don’t think it’s true that you need one complaint to have something removed from FB- a friend linked (disgustedly) to a FB group titled “we raped Lara Logan and we liked it”, which we all duly reported. I’m pretty sure that page was up for at least a few days after.

@Tiffany, your comment is disturbing. Larger issue than it is? so millions of straight couples can post pictures of themselves kissing but a gay couple can’t? and you agree with this? and because it might offend a bigot you think that’s ok? you really need to check yourself

I shared your story and also posted it at wipeout homophobia on facebook.

I really do not understand how this violates the FB TOS, which says:  “You will not post content that: is hateful, threatening, or pornographic; incites violence; or contains nudity or graphic or gratuitous violence.”

The only way they could name this a violation is to classify it as pornographic.  I think there’s a clear case for getting them to back off.

ugh. i love this. i love how so many people are just PRIMED to be offended. i love how people can take what appears to be nothing more than a minor inconvenience and turn it into a CAUSE against the MAN.

i just think that there are better ways to fight homophobia than appearing like an overly sensitive, self-important twat. i mean, if you really feel that facebook is oppressively homophobic, stop using it.

also, i’ve had pictures of myself making out with dudes on my facebook page, and they’ve not been removed.

There seems to be a lot gays offended by people being offended by gays here. 

Surely EVERYONE is entitled to their opinion, not just gays.  If straight people (who are in the majority) don’t want to see pictures of gays kissing, then that is OUR choice.  Unless you lot think your opinion is more important than the rest of us?

Wow! So I get in from a day away from the computer to find out that all this has been blowing up while I was away?!

This is a very interesting thread, and here are some points worth noting:

The “offensive” pic is from the British soap opera Eastenders, which goes out on TV before the watershed. I originally considered using this pic, but thought it too sexually suggestive: http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_gCxhu3uy3qQ/TIl9FNfEh3I/AAAAAAAAChI/KFbyuUyXNgQ/s1600/gay+kiss+public.jpg

Facebook events DO NOT disappear once they have finished. They do not appear in the top search box, but they do not disappear. I know this because I sometimes find myself posting quotes from Heathers to the FB event post for the Heathers party we threw last year. http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=152586514757087

There was a Facebook group I stumbled upon which claimed to be by the people who assaulted Lara Logan in Cairo, and also claimed that they enjoyed it. I posted it to my wall and I and lots of people on my friend’s list complained (officially, using the FB procedure). It took the site four days to take that group down, yet our post was gone within 24 hours.

@Mark, let’s extend that logic a bit and see how comfortable you’d be with it.

“If white people (who are in the majority) don’t want to see pictures of blacks kissing, then that is OUR choice.  Unless you lot think your opinion is more important than the rest of us?”

or…

“If Christian people (who are in the majority) don’t want to see pictures of Muslims praying, then that is OUR choice.  Unless you lot think your opinion is more important than the rest of us?”

Quote: “I really do not understand how this violates the FB TOS, which says:  “You will not post content that: is hateful, threatening, or pornographic; incites violence; or contains nudity or graphic or gratuitous violence.””

Yeah, but most people still find it offensive.  Would you like to see pictures of an 18 year old guy kissing an 80 year old woman?  It doesn’t tick any of the above boxes either, but it still isn’t pleasant. 

Just accept, whether it is right or wrong, that most people don’t want to see gay kissing.  There are plenty of other people out there who have to put up with persecution/unfairness for whatever reason, not just gays.  This is trivial matter, but as usual some people want to blow it up to show how victimized they are.

@Thy - your (intentional?) misinterpretation of my comment is exactly the perception I’m talking about that I think undermines the effectiveness of any complaint like this.  You believe that same-sex photos are being treated differently than hetero pictures.  I don’t. I stated that clearly.  I said in my comment that I didn’t believe the action of taking down that picture was ABOUT THE LARGER ISSUE of treating same-sex/hetero pictures differently, but simply about a faulty process. When you’re so poised to find something to pounce on and so poised to take offense based on a particular issue that you can’t consider the big picture long enough to determine whether or not the “discrimination” has really taken place, you hurt not only your cause but everyone who is making a reasoned response to real discrimination everywhere.

Do I know that this picture wasn’t taken down for discriminatory reasons?  No, I don’t.  But I also don’t know that it was.  I suggested stepping back and considering that many other pictures falling into other non-offensive categories had also been taken down, and that the difference might simply be which were complained about and which were not.  You read into that that I was making light of an issue that I would be the first to agree was serious IF in fact it is what’s happening.  But your choice to respond to something different from what I said in order to have a springboard for a strong reaction makes you easy to dismiss and, unfortunately, makes it that much easier for those inclined to do so to dismiss the whole issue you’re speaking about.

“Just accept, whether it is right or wrong, that most people don’t want to see gay kissing.”

Let’s try that one with other topics:

“Just accept, whether it is right or wrong, that most people don’t want to see black people use the front door.”

“Just accept, whether it is right or wrong, that most people don’t want to see women working as doctors.”

Does this need to be further belabored?

Not long ago, an FTM posted pictures of his post-op chest. It was removed. He fought it, and eventually they relented and allowed him to post the picture again. It was flagged and removed again. They at least had the good graces to apologize, but obviously the complaints aren’t actually screened as well as they ought to be.

And yeah, it may be trivial, but it’s an example of something that is not trivial. If you don’t think it’s a cause worth being upset about, then don’t be upset. What the hell is the point of coming to this thread and telling people they’re being oversensitive?

I dunno—I was a teen in the 80s, and gays were killed. I may be more sensitive than younger gays who may never have known that threat.

@Scix.

I guess I could have worded it a little bit nicer. I’m just a poor, crass American animal.

It’s just that I’ve noticed amongst my gay friends a nasty habit of crying “homophobia! KILL!” over things that I feel are a bit trivial. A number of those times I felt like it was a overkill and it really alienated some of my straight pals. Hell, I’ve been called a self-hating, homophobic bigot because I don’t care much for Glee.

It just doesn’t seem rational to charge all of Facebook for homophobia over something as a picture being taken down.

Also, I’ve been openly gay since I was 14 and received my share of assaults an death threats. In my freshman year of high school, my friend was beaten nearly to death and eventually killed himself over his disfigured state. Don’t assume that because someone is “young” that they don’t understand.

Shared.

@ gaytality, I’m sorry to hear about your friend, that really sucks.

With regards to the picture, however, what about it would be cause for it to be taken down if not the homosexual aspect? Nothing. And that, by definition, is homophobic.

Not liking Glee strikes me as being rational.

Aw hell no, fuck these bitches. From now on every FB profile pic of mine will be of two men kissing. If they suspend my account big fucking whoop.

@Scix, I’m going to assume you’re talking to me based on placement of your comment, but if so your response is as dismaying as Thy’s.  Please, please, please…read what I (and anyone else in this thread or anywhere else) has actually said before going off into an impassioned response. 

One thing you will NOT find is anywhere that I said it “wasn’t a cause worth being upset about”. What I said was, “make sure that cause is even at issue here.” Because I believe, whatever their stated policy, that Facebook deletes photos automatically when someone reports them, and know many others who have had similar experiences with a wide range of photos reported for very different reasons.

Since you raised the issue of age, I’m 45.  In the 80s, my closest friend was in California working for AIDS awareness and treatment and watching his friends die without family or lifelong friends around them because of non-acceptance or fear of the disease.  It would be lovely to think that things had changed much since then, but my 18 year old son recently came out in rural Indiana and I can promise you it’s no safer or more comfortable than it was 30 years ago.

And my teenage daughter wanted me to ask you “What about the boy who was doused in lighter fluid and set on fire for being gay?  The very talented musician who committed suicide after his roommate outed him on the Internet?”  Your generation did not corner the market on difficulties.

All I’m saying—and all I’ve said in every response in this thread—is that I think Facebook acted blindly according to a policy that basically deletes first and waits to see whether anyone objects when they receive a complaint, and that that policy is the real problem here and applies equally to gays, straights, breastfeeding mothers, bathing babies and who knows what else.

@katie,  Really bitch?

@Tiffany: No, I really wasn’t talking to you. I understand your original post was entirely about a hypothesis about how it happened that doesn’t require malice.

In fact, I am fond of saying, “Never attribute to malice what can be explained by simple incompetence.”

@Gaytality”: I don’t make that assumption. I was just trying to hazard a guess as to the pattern—I was simply wrong.

Though I recently revisited my highschool, and saw they had a GSA and many teachers had pink triangle stickers on their doors, announcing them as people it was okay to talk to.

I was horribly, horribly jealous. Still: I am pleased at the progress. Now that we’ve started to whittle away the especially vitriolic hate, we can start looking at what’s going on underneath—including cultural cues like this one, that help reinforce the message that gay=wrong.

Man, when I was growing up, the ONLY thing I knew about being gay was what I heard from dirty jokes.

People today at least have the Internet (well, a lot of them do, anyway), and can at least see that they are not alone.

And yeah, you have to grow a thick skin to be on the Internet. And never read YouTube comments.

I don’t take the FB issue personally, I just think it’s an unfortunate thing, and should be rectified.

Did I miss something?

If you see a picture of something you don’t like on Facebook, you can…

1. Hit the x button and get rid of the picture
2. Hide the person that posted it so that you never see that person’s posts
3. Defriend the person.

It’ not like this was a photo pasted in a truly public place. So if someone complained that they saw something that isn’t pornographic or racist, then they truly want to live in an echo chamber. They even want the people they are FB ‘friends’ with to never say anything they don’t like. Moreover, in this case it was DANGEROUS MINDS…what, exactly, did they expect?

It’s come to this.

@Niall.

It seems more likely that some homophobe(s) flagged it and somehow it just got pulled down. Maybe the person who was alerted to the flag found it offensive. It’s just not possible to consistently police 500 million people and these things will happen.

The majority of my Facebook friends are a rowdy flock of burly, beer drinking, rugby playing faggots. They routinely post things that are far racier than the picture above and occasionally pictures will get flagged, but not always. When they do get flagged, it’s usually traced to some distant redneck cousin someone absentmindedly added as a friend.

It’s frustrating, but I think a charge of homophobia is a pretty serious thing to heap on to an entire company.

@ gaytality - I get where you are coming from completely. I hate to see the gay card being played in issues where it is really not relevant and only used as a crutch.

However, my question still stands - what is it about this picture that can be deemed “offensive” outwith the fact that it is two men kissing? Seriously?

It really is very simple. As ifthenwhy stated above, if Facebook’s policy is to ban pictures of heterosexual couples (or even two women) kissing in as mild a fashion as the two men in this pic, then we are crying wolf here.

And whether it be one person finding offense or one hundred thousand, it doesn’t change the REASON for finding it offensive.

Fuck you facebook…I’ll post pics of me and my husband kissing all day and if you don’t like it then i’ll take your jewish loving asses to court with the winklevosses and we’ll kick your ass ! gg dumb asses stop being racists…if you discriminate against gays then i’ll discriminate against jews… if you’re kobe and black and discriminate against gays, you’re nothing more than a cotton pickin’ nigger to me… you see the pattern?  Eye for an eye…
peace out bitches

would it be too complicated to have a opt in rating system?
if you want to be shielded from deviants and perverts:G rated
all the way to the XXX no holds barred rating?

just a suggestion.

If Facebook is doing something like this, it’s truly shocking and horrendous.  Holy shit!  It just seems inconceivable that they would behave this way.

I’ll share this on my Facebook right away.

Best regards.