The SHOCKING Photos That Violated Facebook's Policies!

from the avert yer eyes! dept

Update: The account is now unblocked, with this message from Facebook:

I’m so sorry for the inconvenience caused, there was a temporary misconfiguration in our photo review systems which caused a very small subset of users to be incorrectly enrolled in one of our checkpoints. There was no issue with your original photo, we have a combination of automated and human-review systems dedicated to keeping people safe, and a bug caused one of these systems to incorrectly enroll a small number of users into checkpoints.

We have since remedied the issue, and remediated all affected accounts. Please let me know if you or others are still experiencing any difficulties.


Yesterday I posted this adorable photo on Facebook:




Being a cute picture of a cute cat, it got a lot of “likes” and comments. A few hours later I followed up with this photo (accompanying text in the caption):

Another photo of Nut and me. Here you can see in more detail how Nut presses her face as hard as she can into mine. She does this all night, by the way. If I move my face away, she rearranges herself to grip the back of my head as tightly as possible. If I’m face-down on the pillow, she slides her paws under into my eye sockets and mashes her head into my ear. It’s very cute but I don’t think I could stand it every night.


Shortly thereafter, FB wouldn’t let me view my feed, instead giving me this message:

“We noticed you may be posting photos that violate our Community Standards. Help make Facebook better by cleaning up your photos and removing friends that post nudity or other things that violate our standards.”

Then it took me directly to all my photos and said,

“To keep your account active, please remove any photos that contain nudity or sexually inappropriate content. Check the box next to each photo you need to remove.”

I didn’t have a single dirty photo to check, so I checked none and then clicked the box that said, “I have checked all my photos that violate Facebook’s policies.” For that, I was rewarded with this:

“Because you uploaded photos that violate our policies, you won’t be able to upload photos for 3 days.

“If you have other photos on the site that violate our policies, be sure to remove them immediately or you could be blocked for longer. After this block is lifted, please make sure any photos you upload follow Facebook’s Policies.”

Followed by another checkbox that says,

“I understand Facebook’s policies and I won’t upload any photos that violate these policies.”

But I haven’t checked that box yet, because I really don’t understand Facebook’s policies. At all. Maybe Franz Kafka could explain them to me. Can you?

UPDATE: several hours later, I still can’t see my FB home page/news feed. This is what I continue to get instead:



Filed Under: , , , ,

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “The SHOCKING Photos That Violated Facebook's Policies!”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
110 Comments
fogbugzdsays:

I am guessing that FB will have a PR team rushing to fix your problem within minutes of this post going public. But what about the thousands of people who get hit with this bot-driven nonsense every day and don’t have a public forum available? The same type of problem occurs with innocent victims of Content-ID and DCMA notice mills.

For now our only real hope is that cases like this one cause the companies involved to do some internal review and revise policies when executives finally realize how much damage they are doing to their brands. Executives are never reluctant to spend big bucks on advertising and public image, but they are not quick to recognize that this type of overzealous policy enforcement can undo in seconds all of that expensive brand promotion.

Pinstarsays:

Just be happy someone doesn’t try to copyright “Photo containing picture of cat” and issues takedowns for every cat picture on the internet.

In all seriousness, this was probably triggered by the description. Without the picture and context, one with a dirty mind could read that as ‘sexual’.

Here’s a thought, inappropriate trolling. Take completely innocent photos and give them extremely suggestive sounding, but actually innocent descriptions, then call out FB when they get flagged.

(Picture of a smiling dog in a pool treading water with girl in a normal swimsuit)
“This is dick, Dick loves to be in the pool, but gets extra happy when his favorite girl is swimming with him. He loves swimming doggie style, though it makes him tired if he does it too long”

Mr. Smarta**says:

Big surprise....

Let’s here it for the great authoritative government group of a******, jerk-off, low-life scumbag dumbes at facebook for being too restrictive. How blatently incompetent do they have to be that they can’t even do their job properly. There are thousands out of work who could do a better job than these morons, and they have to stand in the unemployment line while idiots like those leading FB screw up their own system.

What the hell is this? Unnecessary censorship? Why not??? They’ve already censored everything else. Might as well censor that does not need censoring. Make a post on FB: “Oh look! There’s a *bleep walking her bleep down the bleep!” Then along comes Facebook: “Sorry! We’ve detected that you attempted to use verbs and nouns in your post. That violates our Terms of Service along with pronouns, adjectives, adverbs, and infinitives. Please remove the offending language or we’ll suspend your account!”

But in all fairness, I can see where FB might censor this picture. After all, that’s a cat. And a cat comes from ‘pussy cat’, and we all know what word is offensive in that. “Sorry, you can’t use ‘cat’, or even have a picture of a cat anywhere on FB. You also can’t say ‘puywillow’ as even though it’s a plant and grows in nature, we’ve censored it.”

Now, take this post I just wrote and post it to FB, and chances are you’ll see this: “***** ******** **** ***** ****** ****** and ***** **** * ***** ******. (Note from FB: We are currently deciding if the word ‘and’ is offensive to some individual in the Arctic Circle who eats fish and berries to survive. If so, ‘and’ will be added to our ban list.”

Anonymoussays:

typical FB from what i understand from other users. for no apparent reasons, someone or something goes totally off the rails and just blocks people. i dont know why those that have this happen are:-

a) not able to sort out WIT A PERSON at FB what exactly is wrong

b) dont just go to another means of contacting their ‘friends’ making sure they all know what is going on!

i appreciate that there has to be care taken it what is/not allowed, but to have a piece of rogue software doing it, when it keeps going ga-ga is ridiculous!

Mesonoxian Evesays:

I’m getting the suspicion, Nina, the picture wasn’t blocked by your friends, but those who can’t stand your policy on copyright.

I’ve seen these types of attacks before, which is why I find it ludicrous FB’s policy can’t take time out of its own position to realize some reports are bogus.

Welcome to the next generation of the DMCA.

Now I hope people will understand why I don’t like those comments being flagged by the community.

This is no different.

Looks like you’re going to be in for a world of FB’s customer service hell for a while.

Bring water. Gets pretty hot over there, I hear.

Anonymoussays:

The Facebook cycle:

1) Facebook does something “evil”;
2) You complain loudly about how evil Facebook is, polluting the the Internet with yet another “Facebook sucks” article;
3) Later, despite all the harm Facebook caused you, like a Heroin addict, you return to using Facebook;
4) Return to 1)…what, you don’t actually expect Facebook to get any better do you?

Sorry for being sort of a dick, but you have to admit that it isn’t “normal” for people to flock to something that causes such misery routinely. And we’re not even getting into the fact that Facebook is trading your personal information for cash.

akpsays:

Re: Re:

You’re absolutely right. I deleted my Facebook account several months ago, and I haven’t missed it.

In fact, now that I don’t have it, it’s much easier to see how insidiously it’s infected most of the internet.

It’s great, I can instantly figure out which organizations I don’t want to deal with whenever I see “you need to log in to Facebook.”

Lokisays:

Re: Re:

Unfortunately, like MySpace before it, and AOL before that, Facebook is pretty much the 800 pound gorilla of social networking at the moment. Unfortunately, I have a lot of friends spread across 11 states now, and when most of them moved to Facebook, I followed because it’s a convenient “one stop shopping” to keep track and communicate with them all. When enough of the move on to the “Next Big Thing” (when it eventually arrives, I will gladly abandon Facebook like I abandoned MySpace.

Ben Ssays:

Re: Re:

The big thing that draws people to Facebook is often its games, sad as that is. Those games usually operate like a Skinner Box. Small rewards constantly (xp and currency), random larger rewards (new pony or something), and of course, electric shocks if you don’t continue (crops withering). The idea is to keep you hooked. You want to play because of the rewards, and you feel compelled to play because of your friends playing, and the game’s systematic punishments inflicted upon your “farm” if you don’t continue to maintain it. This is why there’s that 4th step.

Beechsays:

Here is the problem

“… Nut and me. Here you can see …Nut presses…as hard as she can into mine. She does this all night, by the way.., she … grip the back of my head as tightly as possible. If I’m face-down on the pillow, she slides (CENSORED) into my eye sockets and mashes her (CENSORED) into my ear. … I don’t think I could stand it every night.”

Nastybutler77says:

FB is doing everything it can to drive users away, but like the proverbial kicked puppy, users just keep coming back for more punishment. It seems everyone agrees FB is aweful, but “all my friends are on it” so most people stay.

Full disclosure: I do have a FB account. I signed up a year or two ago just because there are certain things you can’t do online unless you have a FB account. I have, I think, ten friends. And every one of them is an actual close friend or family member. I don’t even log into FB most days.

PaulTsays:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

“I thought”

I doubt it.

The story is that something that no reasonable person would think was violating anything was blocked, and then she was being asked to agree not to violate again, despite having no idea what the violation was in the first place. It’s really not hard to grasp why this is a problem, unless you’re the AC that has a pathological hatred of her because you watched her movie for free and didn’t like it.

Maybe someone knew you would write an article about this??

Like how Amazon showed they could delete Kindle content by deleting “1984” ? that had to be some insider trying to get the message to the world about the injustice.

Maybe somebody knew that if they screwed with YOUR account, then you’d bother telling the world and bring attention to this problem?

Anyway, ridiculous stuff. I wish we had an open-framework for social networking like we have with e-mail. There should be a way to network via whatever system you want and not have to agree to any particular provider’s policies in order to interact with other people in this way.

PRMansays:

Re: Re: Maybe someone knew you would write an article about this??

1984 is out of copyright in Australia, but not in the USA. Many people in the US and England bought the now cheap version of 1984, which Amazon was only authorized to sell in Australia. They went back and deleted it from all the devices and refunded the money paid.

Robsays:

Too many cat pictures!

Although I disagree with FB’s reason for removing the pictures, I believe there are entirely too many cat pictures on the internet. The cat was obviously wearing fur, so a better reason for removing the pictures should have read more along the lines of:

“We noticed you may be posting photos that violate our Community Standards. Help make Facebook better by cleaning up your photos and removing friends that post cat pictures or other things that violate our standards.”

Using Facebook is asking for it.

Facebook and Google both have only one purpose. That is to collect as much personal information as they can. , ,Then they sell this information to anyone that asks or give it away to any government organization that hints they wouldn’t mind having it.

When the “service” is free, the product is you. Using these kind of sites is begging to be used and abused. How intelligent is that?

Fred Wolenssays:

Facebook Response

Nina — I tried to find an email address to contact you directly without luck. I work at Facebook and focus on policy.

I’m so sorry for the inconvenience caused, there was a temporary misconfiguration in our photo review systems which caused a very small subset of users to be incorrectly enrolled in one of our checkpoints. There was no issue with your original photo, we have a combination of automated and human-review systems dedicated to keeping people safe, and a bug caused one of these systems to incorrectly enroll a small number of users into checkpoints.

We have since remedied the issue, and remediated all affected accounts. Please let me know if you or others are still experiencing any difficulties.

dennis deemssays:

Re: Re: Facebook Response

Fred,
Thanks for posting your response here. Glad to see that Nina’s immediate problem is resolved. But you are missing the bigger issue. FB blocked her access to her page, telling her there “may be” a problem with photos she had posted. FB didn’t tell her which photos were at issue. FB didn’t even explicitly say that nudity &/or sexual content was the problem, this was just hinted: “nudity or other things”.

This is intolerably passive-aggressive.

McCreasays:

Community

While I appreciate how hard a fuzzy nut may press against your face when you’re trying to sleep, do we know that it’s simply not the fact that it was reported as inappropriate? That’s all that will matter until it’s reviewed by humans, and Facebook isn’t obliged to take further action, unless persons are harrassing her by repeatedly targetting her pictures to report.

Just how I thought it worked. It’s an automated reporting system, I watched where it took days for them to remove child porn… since about that time, assuming the problem was a back long of report to be humanly reviewed, it propassumes guilt by default.

All speculation and observation. shrug

Nina Paleysays:

Update

As of a few minutes ago, the problem has been fixed (total time of blocked access: just over 24 hours). A FB communications person just emailed me:

I’m so sorry for the inconvenience caused, there was a temporary misconfiguration in our photo review systems which caused a very small subset of users to be incorrectly enrolled in one of our checkpoints. There was no issue with your original photo, we have a combination of automated and human-review systems dedicated to keeping people safe, and a bug caused one of these systems to incorrectly enroll a small number of users into checkpoints.

We have since remedied the issue, and remediated all affected accounts. Please let me know if you or others are still experiencing any difficulties.

Shocking?

I agree with many of the sentiments above.

The moment you decided to use Facebook, you gave up every single right you have, put yourself in chains, threw away the key and handed them the leash.

They are a private company and can do whatever the heck they want. And right now, they are DESPERATELY trying to show a profit since their stock has never recovered from going public.

Facebook is cutting its own throat and I say… let them.

Once a company gets big enough that they forget that it was US who made them big, they need to go the way of the Dodo.

Wallysays:

Nina Paley, you’re giving my wife very bad ideas here lol. I was still shocked at the automated system when they banned a user for exposure of her elbows. My guess is that this might only occur because of privacy policies being reset because of updates, or simply people forget to set them. Of course in your case, it is because you’re somewhat of a public figure, so one would expect you to leave your profile open to the FaceBook public.

Well now it looks like I’m going to pay my parents a visit, my mom’s cat nuzzles you right beneath the chin while kneading your neck…he’s tried to kill me several times that way ๐Ÿ˜›

Coyotesays:

Have you considered not using Facebook? There is something inherently poisonous about it that makes me not want to use it. I brave it if I have to, but I don’t think it’s a good tool.

In the paraphrased words of Groucho Marks, I’m distrusting of any club that would allow me as a member.

If you post something innocuous to your friends, and FB tries to block you – let them. It’s evidence that FB doesn’t have your, or your friends, best interests at heart.

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop ยป

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Techdirt Deals
Report this ad??|??Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...
Loading...
Older Stuff
12:25 Australian Privacy Commissioner Says 7-Eleven Broke Privacy Laws By Scanning Customers' Faces At Survey Kiosks (6)
10:50 Missouri Governor Doubles Down On 'View Source' Hacking Claim; PAC Now Fundraising Over This Bizarrely Stupid Claim (45)
10:45 Daily Deal: The All-in-One Microsoft, Cybersecurity, And Python Exam Prep Training Bundle (0)
09:43 Want To Understand Why U.S. Broadband Sucks? Look At Frontier Communications In Wisconsin, West Virginia (8)
05:36 Massachusetts College Decides Criticizing The Chinese Government Is Hate Speech, Suspends Conservative Student Group (71)
19:57 Le Tigre Sues Barry Mann To Stop Copyright Threats Over Song, Lights Barry Mann On Fire As Well (21)
16:07 Court Says City Of Baltimore's 'Heckler's Veto' Of An Anti-Catholic Rally Violates The First Amendment (15)
13:37 Two Years Later, Judge Finally Realizes That A CDN Provider Is Not Liable For Copyright Infringement On Websites (21)
12:19 Chicago Court Gets Its Prior Restraint On, Tells Police Union Head To STFU About City's Vaccine Mandate (158)
10:55 Verizon 'Visible' Wireless Accounts Hacked, Exploited To Buy New iPhones (8)
10:50 Daily Deal: The MacOS 11 Course (0)
07:55 Suing Social Media Sites Over Acts Of Terrorism Continues To Be A Losing Bet, As 11th Circuit Dumps Another Flawed Lawsuit (11)
02:51 Trump Announces His Own Social Network, 'Truth Social,' Which Says It Can Kick Off Users For Any Reason (And Already Is) (100)
19:51 Facebook AI Moderation Continues To Suck Because Moderation At Scale Is Impossible (26)
16:12 Content Moderation Case Studies: Snapchat Disables GIPHY Integration After Racist 'Sticker' Is Discovered (2018) (11)
13:54 Arlo Makes Live Customer Service A Luxury Option (8)
12:05 Delta Proudly Announces Its Participation In The DHS's Expanded Biometric Collection Program (5)
11:03 LinkedIn (Mostly) Exits China, Citing Escalating Demands For Censorship (14)
10:57 Daily Deal: The Python, Git, And YAML Bundle (0)
09:37 British Telecom Wants Netflix To Pay A Tax Simply Because Squid Game Is Popular (32)
06:41 Report: Client-Side Scanning Is An Insecure Nightmare Just Waiting To Be Exploited By Governments (35)
20:38 MLB In Talks To Offer Streaming For All Teams' Home Games In-Market Even Without A Cable Subscription (10)
15:55 Appeals Court Says Couple's Lawsuit Over Bogus Vehicle Forfeiture Can Continue (15)
13:30 Techdirt Podcast Episode 301: Scarcity, Abundance & NFTs (0)
12:03 Hollywood Is Betting On Filtering Mandates, But Working Copyright Algorithms Simply Don't Exist (66)
10:45 Introducing The Techdirt Insider Discord (4)
10:40 Daily Deal: The Dynamic 2021 DevOps Training Bundle (0)
09:29 Criminalizing Teens' Google Searches Is Just How The UK's Anti-Cybercrime Programs Roll (19)
06:29 Canon Sued For Disabling Printer Scanners When Devices Run Out Of Ink (41)
20:51 Copyright Law Discriminating Against The Blind Finally Struck Down By Court In South Africa (7)
More arrow