吃瓜直播

We at the 吃瓜直播 were reassured of one thing this past weekend: Facebook鈥檚 chest-recognition detectors are fully operational. A recent post of ours, highlighting my blog post about an attempt to censor controversial public art in Kansas, was itself deemed morally unfit for Facebook. The whole episode is a reminder that corporate censorship is bad policy and bad business.

The blog is about a kerfuffle over a statue in a public park outside Kansas City: a nude woman taking a selfie of her own exposed bronze breasts. A group of citizens organized by the American Family Association believes the statue to be criminally obscene (it isn鈥檛), and has begun a petition process to haul the sculpture to court (really, they are). Our Facebook post included a link to the blog post and a photo of the statue in question.

Our intrepid Digital Media Associate, Rekha Arulanantham, got word on Sunday that the Facebook post had been deleted, and was no longer viewable by our Facebook followers or anyone else. I duly informed my Kansas colleague that the photograph she鈥檇 taken had prompted a social media blackout. Then, astoundingly, on Tuesday morning Rekha discovered the 吃瓜直播 had been blocked from posting for 24 hours, with a message from Facebook warning us these were the consequences for repeat violations of its policy.

We were flabbergasted; we hadn鈥檛 tried to republish the offending post or the associated rack. So, just to get this straight: the 吃瓜直播鈥檚 post on censorship was shut down鈥攏ot once, but twice鈥攆or including a picture of, and a political discussion about, a statue standing in a Kansas park.

Why Was Our Post about Censorship Censored?
Facebook鈥檚 notice told us that the post was removed because it 鈥渧iolates [Facebook鈥檚] Community Standards.鈥� While my blog did include a comprehensive slate of synonyms for 鈥渂oobs,鈥� it was the visual subject of the blog鈥攖he image of the statue itself鈥攖hat triggered Facebook鈥檚 mammary patrol.

Look, we鈥檙e the 吃瓜直播. Of course our Facebook posts are going to touch on controversial subjects鈥攊f they didn鈥檛, we just wouldn鈥檛 be doing our jobs. We won鈥檛 ever (apologies in advance) post gratuitous nudity鈥攆lesh or metal鈥攐nline. Anything we post illustrates a broader point about our civil liberties. And sure enough, this particular naked statue did just that by serving as a touchstone for a conversation about community standards and censorship. Thousands of people read the blog and hundreds commented on Facebook, weighing in on the censorship controversy. That is, before Facebook removed the post. The irony here is pretty thick.

As we read Facebook鈥檚 , our busty statue pic was A-OK. Facebook is generally strict about human nudity, but the 鈥淣udity and Pornography鈥� standards also have a caveat:

Facebook has a strict policy against the sharing of pornographic content and any explicitly sexual content where a minor is involved. We also impose limitations on the display of nudity. We aspire to respect people鈥檚 right to share content of personal importance, whether those are photos of a sculpture like Michelangelo's David or family photos of a child breastfeeding.

The sculpture Holly snapped isn鈥檛 just of personal importance to her and other Kansans, it鈥檚 now of political importance too. And while art critics may or may not deem this particular bronze 鈥渁 sculpture like Michelangelo鈥檚 David,鈥� that鈥檚 precisely the analogy I used in my original blog post. The statue is at the swirling center of a community fight that implicates the First Amendment, obscenity, and even the proper use of the criminal justice system. The statue鈥檚 image belongs on Facebook, not only because it is of personal and political importance, isn鈥檛 obscene, and doesn鈥檛 violate community standards鈥攂ut also because the statue is newsworthy. And Facebook should work hard to keep newsworthy content out of the censor鈥檚 crosshairs.

The Facebook Censors are Fallible
We decided to appeal Facebook鈥檚 determination that our blog post didn鈥檛 fit within community standards, just like any user might. And鈥� we immediately hit a brick wall. The takedown notice informed us an 吃瓜直播 post had been removed, but didn鈥檛 exactly invite a conversation about it:

There was no 鈥渁ppeal鈥� button, and we were unable to find a page where we could report or challenge the post鈥檚 deletion. The best option appeared to be a generic Facebook content form, designed to receive any input at all about a 鈥淧age.鈥� We got a response: a canned email informing us that Facebook 鈥渃an鈥檛 respond to individual feedback emails.鈥� Not exactly promising.

But we have an advantage most Facebook users don鈥檛: We鈥檙e a national non-profit with media access and a public profile. So we tracked down Facebook鈥檚 public policy manager, and emailed him about our dilemma. His team was immediately responsive, looked into it promptly, and told us that the post was 鈥渕istakenly removed鈥� (and then 鈥渁ccidentally removed again鈥�). Here鈥檚 what Facebook wrote to us:

We apologize for this error. Unfortunately, with more than a billion users and the hundreds of thousands of reports we process each week, we occasionally make a mistake. We hope that we've rectified the mistake to your satisfaction.

Facebook then restored the original post.

It鈥檚 certainly reassuring that Facebook agrees our original post shouldn鈥檛 have come under fire and was not a violation of the Community Standards. Unfortunately, the post was unavailable all weekend as we scrambled to figure out how to bring the mistaken deletion to Facebook鈥檚 attention. That鈥檚 a big hit in the fast-paced social media world.

More unfortunately, our ultimate success is cold comfort for anyone who has a harder time getting their emails returned than does the 吃瓜直播. It鈥檚 unlikely that our experience is representative of the average aggrieved Facebook user. For most, that generic form and the canned response are as good as it鈥檚 currently going to get.

My colleague Jay Stanley has highlighted the dangers of corporate censorship before here on the pages of Free Future. He argues that as the digital world steadily eclipses the soap box as our most frequent forum for speech, companies like Facebook are gaining government-like power to enforce societal norms on massive swaths of people and content. A from our colleagues in illustrates how heavy-handed censorship is as bad a choice in business as it is in government. Fortunately, Facebook is generally receptive to these arguments. With Facebook鈥檚 mission to 鈥渕ake the world more open and connected,鈥� the company is clearly mindful of the importance of safeguarding free speech.

But like all censors, its decisions can seem arbitrary, and it also just . If Facebook is going to play censor, it鈥檚 absolutely vital that the company figure out a way to provide a transparent mechanism for handling appeals. That鈥檚 particularly true when censorship occurs, as it so frequently does, in response to objections submitted by a third-party. A complaint-driven review procedure creates a very real risk that perfectly acceptable content (like鈥�you know, images of public art) will be triggered for removal based on the vocal objections of a disgruntled minority. A meaningful appeals process is, therefore, beyond due.

More fundamentally, this incident underscores why Facebook鈥檚 initial response to content should always err on the side of leaving it up, even when it might offend. After all, one person鈥檚 offensive bronze breast is also one of Kansas鈥� biggest current media stories.

That a bronze sculpture in a public park in Kansas ran afoul of the nudity police shows that Facebook鈥檚 censors could use some calibration. And when they misfire, as they did here, there must be a process in place to remove the muzzle.