Please note: Some links are NSFW.
I know, I know, but I'm with Violet Blue when she says
Some readers might find it at odds for me to be posting positive about FEMEN because they do state that they are anti-porn and anti-sex work — but, this is one time I think reading the subtleties and looking at the cultural issues are important.
I'm a computer geek. I fix computers and network them for a living. I do have a Facebook account that I created at Netroots Nation, but I haven't gone into it since. So, I'm not actually qualified to criticize a service I don't use, but, again back to Violet.
While no one is surprised to hear news that anyone or anything remotely human sexuality related has been banned from Facebook, it still sucks to find out that it’s still happening. A while back I posted a salute to Womens’ Rights Ukranian civil disobedience group FEMEN, which was well-received by many readers, and despite their no-porn stance, many of us became admirers. The salute post includes an interview and video, and they discuss their activist work to raise awareness around human rights issues, sex work, and sex trafficking in the Ukraine.
What is FEMEN?
FEMEN are notorious for their topless protests, even in the middle of winter, against what they see as a culture of sexism in Ukraine — and the world.
Originally focussing their anger on sex tourism in the Ukraine — either through prostitution or "mail-order-bride" scams — they have branched out to attack such issues as living conditions in Kiev, the safety of women on the subway, throwing panties at the Italian embassy on Valentine's Day as a protest against Burlusconi's sex scandals.
Now, they're protesting their groups ban from Facebook on grounds of nudity. FEMEN founder Anna Hutsol replied, referring to both the Facebook ban and an earlier ban from YouTube:
I want to be clear here; this diary is not about FEMEN. I agree with some of their positions, disagree with others. But I'm addressing Facebook's banning of FEMEN. And the increasing "vanilla-zation" of the Internet. Even copyranter noticed the banning of FEMEN;
With a new version of the three monkeys pose, members of the Ukrainian feminist group give Mark Zuckerberg a little what-for. In a post titled Zuckerberg vs. Boobs, FEMEN leader Anna Gutsol said this about the banning (translated):
"The Internet is less than coping with the role of a refuge for freethinkers and more implants bans and censorship, where they are not relevant."
Already banned from YouTube, the group promises to take "appropriate action." So, more creative nude poses tk.
What kind of Internet will there be in 10 years if the big players start acting like the corporate media? Again, from Violet;
I think it’s like any corporate structure, really. They’re not ever going to give a shit about real people and meeting the actual needs of humans. Does CNN care about being accurate? Does Flickr care that I’m a paying customer when they delete my content without showing me what they’ve deleted and cripple my account without even telling me (and have done so repeatedly for the many years I’ve paid them for the pleasure)? Does Facebook care about extending equal services to… anyone? Why should they follow any rules, when they can make a quick dollar or extra pageviews?
Very fast, the internet’s services have become the things we went to the internet to get away from – self-censoring interests that only care about making a buck off of us. I think the mistake we’re making is thinking that because these big companies are online where everyone is equal, and they have done well to fool us into thinking it’s safe to put things we care about in their custodianship, that they are not going to behave in discriminatory ways toward us. Right now, there is no accountability for these companies to keep their word, and so naturally they’re going be on their worst behavior. They don’t need to bother with actually making a whole and complete business model that can be adjusted for all levels – sustainable models for long-term success – because it’s easier to just keep screwing people who don’t – yet – have a better place to go.
Fact: you will not be treated fairly or equally by Facebook, Flickr (Yahoo), Google, Apple, CNN, etc. Ever.
It's not just sex-positive banning that bothers me about this, it's that Facebook really, really wants to be the bland mashed-potato go-to site. They don't even want pictures of boobs doing what boobs are supposed to do!
FACEBOOK, the popular social-networking website, has banned its members from posting photos of mothers breast-feeding their children. [snip]
A 34-year-old woman said that she had set her profile picture to a small photo of herself breast-feeding her baby. Facebook deemed the image obscene and removed the photo without prior notice.
Oh, come on, Facebook! (redacted) or (seriously redacted) to breasts is possibly obscene, but breastfeeding is why a little more than half of us have breasts!
As the social networks of the Internet evolve, it is incumbent upon us to make sure that the new Boss isn't the same as the old Boss. That means making sure that there are still major websites that don't (overly) self-censor. That means letting youtube and Facebook know that we're watching them. (Not watching them like page hits, but watching them like...oh, you know...) Because the good guys like FEMEN need access, and the bad guys will never get a lot of page hits from a topless Newt.
IMHO, with six corporations controlling 80+% of our "news", the Internet has been the best thing that's happened in two generations. It's brought even a bigger change to the 14 year old lesbian/gay kid in Podunk, Iowa . But if our biggest attractions start acting like our biggest corporations, what have we gained? The latest numbers, and I'm looking for the cite, show that 80% of hookers have a Facebook page. What happens when the master Overlords at Facebook decide they don't want that; that hookers are as bad as Ukrainian women working for better lives?
I'm just askin'.