Images that will get your Facebook account restricted

[NoiseWiki]

Viewed 935 times

[RUBBISH]

I've been posting images that I know Facebook will fuvk you up over but the ones you are posting are fine AFAIK

Well shit.
That's good though.
My prior Pryor comment still stands.
Its hard to figure what some robot programmed by some autistic IT goof is going to do.

Now being reported by some unhappy unfunny real person...

[NoiseWiki]

Viewed 935 times

[NoiseWiki]

Somebody claimed they got restricted for this one although I've seen posted so I dunno.. apparently there was a big stink about it when the albumw as released

Viewed 935 times

[RUBBISH]

I've been posting images that I know Facebook will fuvk you up over but the ones you are posting are fine AFAIK

But how would one know they are ok?
I know context matters and if I used a Richard Pryor album cover to insult somebody or instigate a negative reaction that it probably should have punitive results but is that clearly stated in the rules and are the rules applied evenly and fairly?

There are lots of people that didn't grow up with Pryors comedy\art and could take a well intentioned post of his material as instigatory or insulting...how is that delt with properly and fairly?
Basicly what is actually racist and hateful and what is genuine art(Not designed to be a racial attack) that is protected expression?


The nudity thing is archaic and Victorian in its stupidity and is so fucking stupid it almost covers up the underlying creepiness of its thought process and application against people and art.
Its seems odd to complain against Incel culture while applying incel like rules against people.
But...
The nudity rules I think are more about workplace usage of the platform(tough shit get back to work) and ad revenue than actually concern for propriety and peoples fragile psyches.

[NoiseWiki]

I've been posting images that I know Facebook will fuvk you up over but the ones you are posting are fine AFAIK

But how would one know they are ok?

You can't prove a negative.. again this are images that I know Facebook objects to because they have been posted and either removed or had a warning put on them. I've heard of instances of people disagreeing and the image was reinstated. There was an album cover thst claimed had sexual activity but it was a picture of Einstein with his tongue sticking out.

Also just because fb didn't react right away doesn't mean years from now they won't retroactively restrict you're account based on what you posted years ago

AFAIK the reason fb pulled the GG Allin cover is because if the word f**gots.. I tried to argue that it was self deprecation and not hate speech but that didn't fly

Covers with the nword have been posted before so they aren't censoring that word in all contexts but I'm sure if somebody posted a comment like "you're a n**ger" would get restricted

[NoiseWiki]

Viewed 910 times

[NoiseWiki]

The nudity thing is archaic and Victorian in its stupidity and is so fucking stupid it almost covers up the underlying creepiness of its thought process and application against people and art.
Its seems odd to complain against Incel culture while applying incel like rules against people.
But...
The nudity rules I think are more about workplace usage of the platform(tough shit get back to work) and ad revenue than actually concern for propriety and peoples fragile psyches.

Their policy makes exceptions for nudity for art and a few other contexts but since they use AI mostly to catch them it often can't tell the difference between a painting and a photograph and if the art is a photograph...

It's all so stupid

[NoiseWiki]

Viewed 904 times

[NoiseWiki]

Unconfirmed

Viewed 902 times