Bravo! This appeal to common sense is well crafted and long overdue.
For years, I have made a point of reminding my friends and family on Facebook that I'm a nudist. After all, isn't the purpose of social media to exchange thoughts and beliefs, and to let our contacts know what we've been up to? I've often posted photos of myself, alone or among friends, just living my life nude. I've always being careful not to reveal my genitals or pubic hair. I've avoided images that place emphasis on my bare butt. All nudity on my profile has complied with Meta's stated "community standards," and for years I had no problem. Very occasionally an image would be deleted, but the appeals process was simple and effective and the photos were restored.
Within the past year or so, almost every nude picture I've posted on FB has been deleted and restrictions have been imposed on my account. Even photos posted years ago have suddenly been removed. The very limited menu of options available through the bot-driven appeals process does not allow for any explanation or discussion.
The most logical solution would be for more social media sites to offer content filters in settings, allowing users to select the degree of nudity, if any, they would be comfortable seeing. Flickr, for example, allows users to choose from "safe" (basically nothing more revealing than implied nudity, and absolutely nothing inherently sexual), "moderate" (which I interpret as no genital exposure, and probably no close-ups of buttocks or female nipples), and "restricted" (which, unfortunately lumps simple full nudity together with outright porn). This system is flawed, but it treats us as individuals capable of making our own decisions. What a concept!
I'm not very optimistic that this letter will result in significant change at Meta. Mark Zuckerberg seems less interested in equity or fairness than in how to boost the bottom line by pandering to the least common denominator. That said, it's important that the international naturist/nudist community has unified in an effort to create progress and change minds.
Even if meta ignores it, the fact that it represents such a large scale collaborative effort among nudist orgs is amazing! If we get a little press, it’s a win, even if Meta does nothing.
Facebook is a hopeless mess. That's because its primary purpose is to ensure that its managers and shareholders make as much money as possible. Allowing more "free speech" full of lies and calumny means more subscribers who want that stuff and will boost ad revenues. On the other hand, allowing free expression regarding naturism and other marginalized lifestyles is opposed by the same segments of the population that want more freedom for their dodgy opinions.
The "service" known as "X" (née "Twitter") has done the same thing for the same reasons. Bluesky is a far better service, and in particular, as already suggested, provides categories for posting content that allows people to access what they want and avoid what they don't want. It's far from perfect, but it helps a little in a world where most people have difficulty dealing with inherently controversial viewpoints (like politics and religion, not just niche categories like naturism).
Aside from the impossibility of having policies that all users can accept, Bluesky and most other systems - lacking the benefit of incumbency - can't offer the full spectrum of "services" (such as discussion groups, marketplaces, etc.) provided by Facebook and other things under the Meta umbrella.
This may have started occurring with the switch from human moderators to "AI." It's what happens when you indiscriminately pick a bunch nude pictures as training samples and label them all as "bad." What should have been used is a set of photos showing genitals and "public hair" (Yes, you wrote that.) labelled bad and a set of tasteful, acceptable nudes labelled as "good."
When you see AI being blamed for discrimination of certain classes (like this), it's because someone did a bad job of selecting/labelling the training samples.
Yes this is making rounds this morning. Fascinating timing. I’m not optimistic though! Spain and British federations have already had their posts sharing the open letter removed by Facebook today!
This morning, Meta announced they were removing or revamping its censorship policies to allow uninhibited speech. What does this mean to the nudist movement?
I would not trust what Facebook says. They are desperate because they are a dying platform and alternative social media platforms are popping up and competing against Facebook. They know their days are numbered and they are trying to stay relevant because they know they are very close to becoming the next Myspace 2.0
Yeah, "Free speech" is nothing but a code word for "speech that pleases fascists". You get the freedom to call trans people mentally ill, compare immigrants to vermin, and designate women as property, nothing more. Oh, and the T&S team will be moved to Texas, on the pretext that workers from a red state will be "less biased". In reality, it's because labor is cheaper, the relocation can help Meta lay off their entire California-based team at once, and oh, there's a law in Texas that restricts platforms' ability to moderate extremism. That might backfire against them, though, as such laws often do.
Beyond the lofty free-speech language, there's nothing more going on than Zuckerberg kissing Trump's ass some more.
If you have a Facebook or Instagram account, you should start shuttering it as soon as you can. They are worthless garbage, and useless for any real-world purpose.
WhatsApp is admittedly harder to get rid of, but I'm limiting my exposure to and reliance on that app anyway, with some success in the last 24 hours.
While I applaud the effort, and can easily see why people feel they are treated unfairly, I wouldn't expect change. In corporate social media, it's important to remember that you are the product. So complaining we're being treated unfairly is a little like the Kraft Dinner complaining that it should be on the same shelf as the premium macaroni and cheese. The store will make the decision based on what they think will net them the highest profit*. This is why it's important to take control of social media into the social space. Look into Mastodon and the Fediverse if you want to know more.
*Yes I'm aware that Kraft can pay to get their product placed on a better shelf.
Bravo! This appeal to common sense is well crafted and long overdue.
For years, I have made a point of reminding my friends and family on Facebook that I'm a nudist. After all, isn't the purpose of social media to exchange thoughts and beliefs, and to let our contacts know what we've been up to? I've often posted photos of myself, alone or among friends, just living my life nude. I've always being careful not to reveal my genitals or pubic hair. I've avoided images that place emphasis on my bare butt. All nudity on my profile has complied with Meta's stated "community standards," and for years I had no problem. Very occasionally an image would be deleted, but the appeals process was simple and effective and the photos were restored.
Within the past year or so, almost every nude picture I've posted on FB has been deleted and restrictions have been imposed on my account. Even photos posted years ago have suddenly been removed. The very limited menu of options available through the bot-driven appeals process does not allow for any explanation or discussion.
The most logical solution would be for more social media sites to offer content filters in settings, allowing users to select the degree of nudity, if any, they would be comfortable seeing. Flickr, for example, allows users to choose from "safe" (basically nothing more revealing than implied nudity, and absolutely nothing inherently sexual), "moderate" (which I interpret as no genital exposure, and probably no close-ups of buttocks or female nipples), and "restricted" (which, unfortunately lumps simple full nudity together with outright porn). This system is flawed, but it treats us as individuals capable of making our own decisions. What a concept!
I'm not very optimistic that this letter will result in significant change at Meta. Mark Zuckerberg seems less interested in equity or fairness than in how to boost the bottom line by pandering to the least common denominator. That said, it's important that the international naturist/nudist community has unified in an effort to create progress and change minds.
Even if meta ignores it, the fact that it represents such a large scale collaborative effort among nudist orgs is amazing! If we get a little press, it’s a win, even if Meta does nothing.
Here's hoping that nudity will be covered by the "free speech" umbrella that Meta proposes in this article which was published today: https://about.fb.com/news/2025/01/meta-more-speech-fewer-mistakes/
Facebook is a hopeless mess. That's because its primary purpose is to ensure that its managers and shareholders make as much money as possible. Allowing more "free speech" full of lies and calumny means more subscribers who want that stuff and will boost ad revenues. On the other hand, allowing free expression regarding naturism and other marginalized lifestyles is opposed by the same segments of the population that want more freedom for their dodgy opinions.
The "service" known as "X" (née "Twitter") has done the same thing for the same reasons. Bluesky is a far better service, and in particular, as already suggested, provides categories for posting content that allows people to access what they want and avoid what they don't want. It's far from perfect, but it helps a little in a world where most people have difficulty dealing with inherently controversial viewpoints (like politics and religion, not just niche categories like naturism).
Aside from the impossibility of having policies that all users can accept, Bluesky and most other systems - lacking the benefit of incumbency - can't offer the full spectrum of "services" (such as discussion groups, marketplaces, etc.) provided by Facebook and other things under the Meta umbrella.
I left X the day Musk bought it. I’ll be active on Bluesky when it’s possible to make posts visible only to friends.
This may have started occurring with the switch from human moderators to "AI." It's what happens when you indiscriminately pick a bunch nude pictures as training samples and label them all as "bad." What should have been used is a set of photos showing genitals and "public hair" (Yes, you wrote that.) labelled bad and a set of tasteful, acceptable nudes labelled as "good."
When you see AI being blamed for discrimination of certain classes (like this), it's because someone did a bad job of selecting/labelling the training samples.
Speaking of AI doing a lousy job, "public hair" is thanks to ducking autocorrect. It's been corrected . Thanks for catching it.
Since writing my previous comment, I have seen this related article. It will be interesting to see how those changes at Meta play out!
https://about.fb.com/news/2025/01/meta-more-speech-fewer-mistakes/
Yes this is making rounds this morning. Fascinating timing. I’m not optimistic though! Spain and British federations have already had their posts sharing the open letter removed by Facebook today!
Well, screw that! At least conspiracy theories and disinformation will be allowed to go unchecked.
This morning, Meta announced they were removing or revamping its censorship policies to allow uninhibited speech. What does this mean to the nudist movement?
I would not trust what Facebook says. They are desperate because they are a dying platform and alternative social media platforms are popping up and competing against Facebook. They know their days are numbered and they are trying to stay relevant because they know they are very close to becoming the next Myspace 2.0
WIRED had a long article on behind-the-scenes operation of the Facebook/Meta moderation oversight board. It's quite enlightening. https://www.wired.com/story/inside-metas-oversight-board-two-years-of-pushing-limits/
Good for INF. It's high time we took proactive advocacy to legalize body freedom on-line and in public places.
For anyone thinking Facebook's new 'free speech' policies are in ANY way a positive thing for nudism... Think again:
https://glaad.org/releases/meta-removes-anti-lgbtq-hate-speech-policies-ends-fact-checking/
Yeah, "Free speech" is nothing but a code word for "speech that pleases fascists". You get the freedom to call trans people mentally ill, compare immigrants to vermin, and designate women as property, nothing more. Oh, and the T&S team will be moved to Texas, on the pretext that workers from a red state will be "less biased". In reality, it's because labor is cheaper, the relocation can help Meta lay off their entire California-based team at once, and oh, there's a law in Texas that restricts platforms' ability to moderate extremism. That might backfire against them, though, as such laws often do.
Beyond the lofty free-speech language, there's nothing more going on than Zuckerberg kissing Trump's ass some more.
If you have a Facebook or Instagram account, you should start shuttering it as soon as you can. They are worthless garbage, and useless for any real-world purpose.
WhatsApp is admittedly harder to get rid of, but I'm limiting my exposure to and reliance on that app anyway, with some success in the last 24 hours.
While I applaud the effort, and can easily see why people feel they are treated unfairly, I wouldn't expect change. In corporate social media, it's important to remember that you are the product. So complaining we're being treated unfairly is a little like the Kraft Dinner complaining that it should be on the same shelf as the premium macaroni and cheese. The store will make the decision based on what they think will net them the highest profit*. This is why it's important to take control of social media into the social space. Look into Mastodon and the Fediverse if you want to know more.
*Yes I'm aware that Kraft can pay to get their product placed on a better shelf.