It took public outrage to get Facebook to back off its decision to allow video of a beheading to appear on its pages; and users still fight to get images of animal torture and pages promoting similar depravities off the site. But according to this article from Queerty.com, over 100 users were barred from access for posting a photo of two men kissing. Not two naked men having sex. Just two men kissing. The author of the article, Matthew Tharrett suggests that it’s all too easy for Facebook users who find homosexuality offensive to label such depictions of garden-variety romance between GLTB partners as “violating community standards.”
While Facebook may not be directly condoning the mistreatment of homosexuals, it certainly seems the company is going to need a better system if it is to remain relevant in, y’know, this century. One minute, these companies want the Internet to be a free-for-all of vitriol, misogyny, and plagiarism on the grounds that it’s all free speech. The next minute, this kind of thing happens, and one has to wonder. And to what lengths are these users going to suss out these images they find so offensive? I know there’s plenty on Facebook that would offend me, but I don’t see it because I’m not friends with people who would post it. Duh.
Of course, if the story isn’t true, I apologize in advance. After all, I got it from the Internet.
I used to link my blog site to facebook so that if a posted a new page there was an automatic update to my status. The updates only ever went to my status, and never more than a couple of week. Then I got people saying that the links were disabled as malware/spam. I suspect it was the result of a couple of anti-vax nutters I’d had a tussle with.
No way to get it corrected on FB,
Know your customer?
The internet tells us many interesting things about where we stand as a society and the sex v. violence thing is just the tip of the iceberg. How we got to the point where it’s more socially acceptable to portray hate than it is love – which, at the end of the day, is what it boils down to – might make for an interesting anthropological and cultural study.
Of course, while nobody would suggest beheading videos are family-friendly, the suggestion that gay men might even exist most certainly is not. Which is why certain groups dedicated to protecting family values will most certainly protest. At the same time, the most stalwart defenders of free speech on the internet (who typically happen to be males of a certain age – and likely to be posting and/or sharing beheading videos) are just as anti-gay as the traditionalists, so we’re not likely to hear a peep from that corner any time soon.
I am at this point reminded of a Canadian TV series that has come to my attention with the last year or so – Lost Girl – which, whilst the matter is totally irrelevent to the main paranormal plot, acknowledges the issue of homosexual relationships as something so normal that it barely deserves mention – just like standard male-female relationships. When mainstream TV has come to lead the spearhead of cultural progress, it may be time to die.
Faza, it’s rare that you’ll find me doubting the value of your cynicism, but on that last point about TV, I would argue that culture always leads. Policy and public debate doesn’t do nearly so much for social goals like inclusion as TV shows doing exactly what you describe — depicting a homosexual relationship as mundane as a mailbox. I think about race relations in my own country. Martin Luther King was essential, but what really changed the relationship between black and white (not that it’s perfect) manifest in the early 1980s when Eddie Murphy owned Saturday Night Live and Michael Jackson topped the charts.
I may not have made myself clear (veiled snipes do that, I’m afraid). What I meant that mainstream TV does not strike me as a particularly progressive medium. I sometimes feel that TV needs to be dragged kicking and screaming to move with the times.
I agree with your point though – I grew up watching U.S. 80s television, very much of the family variety (this was in Kuwait, mind) and this got me in the mindset that race wasn’t actually an issue at all. Thinking about it now, I notice how little overlap there was: you didn’t see white and black families interact much within the same show and I see how far we’d gone since then. At the same time, it was the Eighties – which I hope illustrates my point.
Aside: talking about the time and issues has reminded me of a piece of movie trivia that I’d learned only recently (pays to watch DVD commentaries, sometimes). Apparently, in Ghostbusters Winston Zeddemore’s interview scene was originally planned to be longer, highlighting how horribly overqualified he is for the job (degree, military service and what have you). I’m guessing it got dropped for pacing reasons and to reinforce this idea of Winston being the “regular” guy, but I think it is a pity, ‘coz it does rather beg the question why would someone like that be prepared to apply for a crappy gig with a company that shouts “scam” at the top of its voice (especially, since he tells us in the bit that was left in).
Historically, I would agree with you about TV as a medium, but I wouldn’t be the first to say that we’re witnessing a golden age of the small screen right now. Most of the best writing and experimental work is being done for television, and it has been very interesting to see this renaissance after many of us predicted the death of the medium with the proliferation of reality shows. It’s actually a subject I’d like to delve into a bit more — to look at the various forces that combined to bring about these results. Digital technology and competition from web video do play roles.
Interesting trivia about Ghostbusters. Without being told, it’s hard to know exactly why the decision was made, but since Winston is the Zeppo Marx in that cast anyway, they likely realized that time spent on that character’s motivation would be a distraction from the forward motion of the story and the next joke.
Happy New Year, Faza.
Happy New Year, everyone
Thanks, James. Same to you!