Here I am a confused again. Not only the re-release of a album of a dead artist where people will no doubt make tones of money but today the point is the controversy about a babies anatomy in the year 2011.
Facebook is for once following their own rules though with a classic picture that you have to really look to find the problem; the babies anatomy. (I never noticed before it was pointed out but maybe that was just me). The picture of a swimming baby chasing a dollar bill underwater has become iconic, but the artwork was removed from the group's official fan page shortly after music bosses posted the image online to commemorate the record's 20th anniversary.
Executives at the social networking site claim the photo violates its terms of use clause. The notice reads, "Facebook does not allow photos that attack an individual or group, or that contain nudity, drug use, violence or other violations of the Terms of Use."
Here is the issue for me. I go into facebook everyday. I have seen more anatomy, more offensive stuff than the Nirvana cover. I have reported these photos and comments to facebook, but guess what they always stay. Some days I wonder why do I even have facebook, I delete people and these perves comes back in secret and bam I see things and read things I do not want to see. Instead of facebook doing something all I can do is delete them and what I have scene is burned into my head.
The Nirvana Cover has since been restored, but Facebook executives insist they weren't responsible for the temporary ban because naked babies are not included under the terms of use nudity clause. A Facebook representative says, "The photo on the cover of 'Nevermind' album does not actually violate Facebook’s terms. Facebook does allow photos of naked children 'that are clearly unable to stand on their own' in a non sexual situation – so in other words, babies. Why? Put it this way - if a parent wanted to share some photos of a newborn with their grandparents, we wouldn’t want them to not be able to share them on Facebook." Suprised I'm not!
The Nirvana Cover has since been restored, but Facebook executives insist they weren't responsible for the temporary ban because naked babies are not included under the terms of use nudity clause. A Facebook representative says, "The photo on the cover of 'Nevermind' album does not actually violate Facebook’s terms. Facebook does allow photos of naked children 'that are clearly unable to stand on their own' in a non sexual situation – so in other words, babies. Why? Put it this way - if a parent wanted to share some photos of a newborn with their grandparents, we wouldn’t want them to not be able to share them on Facebook." Suprised I'm not!
Facebook are the same people who allow bigger problems and they must have system that needs work since the picture was never to be banned as they say. Reality is you have porn stars (ok so-called models lols), pedophiles, stalkers, threats and photos at times which are in some cases even illegal on facebook, yet they made a public stink about a Nirvana album cover. I understand they are following their own rules but in the wrong public sense; They only took it back what they said cause people were mad.
Facebook wake up and see the real problems and do something about them. If the album cover is the worst I have seen on facebook my eyes would thank you but instead you let the real problems go on. I guess is the $$$ signs are in the way and you feel you do not have to deal with the real world problems and be selective on what is a problem. Facebook has the power to do good but its not very common that it does step up. As for the cover wow, never thought in 2011 that would be a problem especially with reality TV and stars showing everything off. At least the baby makes a real point unlike facebook and most stars these days. Sadly it gives more press to a re-release that is in all essence a way to make money like all re-releases.
Facebook wake up and see the real problems and do something about them. If the album cover is the worst I have seen on facebook my eyes would thank you but instead you let the real problems go on. I guess is the $$$ signs are in the way and you feel you do not have to deal with the real world problems and be selective on what is a problem. Facebook has the power to do good but its not very common that it does step up. As for the cover wow, never thought in 2011 that would be a problem especially with reality TV and stars showing everything off. At least the baby makes a real point unlike facebook and most stars these days. Sadly it gives more press to a re-release that is in all essence a way to make money like all re-releases.
- MCL -
Love Me or Hate Me
Questions & Comments To:
