This is an archive of the mabination.com forums which were active from 2010 to 2018. You can not register, post or otherwise interact with the site other than browsing the content for historical purposes. The content is provided as-is, from the moment of the last backup taken of the database in 2019. Image and video embeds are disabled on purpose and represented textually since most of those links are dead.
To view other archive projects go to
https://archives.mabination.com
-
Taycat wrote on 2012-05-18 21:46
[Image: http://wmctv.images.worldnow.com/images/18555730_BG2.jpg]
MEMPHIS, TN -(WMC-TV) - More than 1,000 Action News 5 Facebook fans are rallying around a mother who feels Facebook is discriminating against photos she posted on the social media network of her son.
Grayson James Walker was born on February 15, 2012. He was born with Anencephaly, a rare neural tube birth defect in which a baby is born without parts of the brain and skull. Action News 5 shared the Walker's story about their sons eight hours of life shortly after he died.
Heather Walker recently posted pictures of Grayson without his hat on.
"Not long after, Facebook deleted them because of the content" she said. "They allow people to post almost nude pictures of themselves, profanity, and so many other things but I'm not allowed to share a picture of God's beautiful creation."
According to Facebook's community standards page, there are nine types of content that may be deemed offensive and removed:
- Violence and Threats
- Self-Harm
- Bullying and Harassment
- Hate Speech
- Graphic Violence
- Nudity and Pornography
- Identity and Privacy
- Intellectual Property
- Phishing and Spam
Walker is unsure which category her photo fits in to, but after the photo was removed, she launched a protest. Posting the picture of Grayson several times a day, Walker and her supporters are challenging Facebook to revise their content standards.
As of noon on Thursday, Walker had been banned from Facebook.
WMC-TV's Jerica Phillips will speak further with Walker. Hear more about this story on Action News 5 at 5 p.m.
Source:
http://www.wmctv.com/story/18555730/mother-launches-facebook-protest?c=N
Within the article, you can see pictures if you click a link as well as see the earlier story.
I've been reading mixed comments on Facebook, though. Some are saying that Facebook wasn't an appropriate tribute to her son or that it was kind of funny she was banned after reposting the picture multiple times, to which they called childish.
What do you guys think?
-
Kingofrunes wrote on 2012-05-18 21:54
I don't know what to think. Facebook is only going to get worse now that it's officially a public company. I'm not a huge fan of facebook so either way my thoughts on facebook is highly negative.
I only use it to keep in touch with my family and that's it.
-
Kaeporo wrote on 2012-05-18 21:54
I'm not sold on the whole "God's beautiful creation" thing.
Still, what's a mother to do given the circumstances?
-
Taycat wrote on 2012-05-18 22:04
Quote from Kaeporo;866895:
I'm not sold on the whole "God's beautiful creation" thing.
Still, what's a mother to do given the circumstances?
Considering that, even if the child has a birth defect, the child is still yours and you created it so naturally you're supposed to love the child no matter what.
-
Cynic wrote on 2012-05-18 22:09
Seeing as there's nothing wrong with posting photos of your kid on Facebook, I fail to see what grounds they have for removing 'um.
I've seen tons of other annoying Mother's spam their pages with photos of their babies, so what makes this Mother any different?
-
Cucurbita wrote on 2012-05-18 22:31
Quote from Kaeporo;866895:
I'm not sold on the whole "God's beautiful creation" thing.
Still, what's a mother to do given the circumstances?
Religion aside.
Objectively speaking facebook shouldn't be removing those pictures. Their standards are awful if they're nitpicking stuff like this and not the billions of other crap out there.
-
Taycat wrote on 2012-05-18 22:32
Quote from Cynic;866901:
Seeing as there's nothing wrong with posting photos of your kid on Facebook, I fail to see what grounds they have for removing 'um.
I've seen tons of other annoying Mother's spam their pages with photos of their babies, so what makes this Mother any different?
I'm going to imagine that, due to the childs birth defect, they decided it was graphic??
-
Cynic wrote on 2012-05-18 22:42
Well unless the kid had blood and/or guts leaking out I don't see how it's graphic.
And to imply that there's something "graphic" about the kid is discrimination either way.
-
Milk wrote on 2012-05-18 23:01
Hmmm I don't understand why the picture was removed :/ Anyways I don't do social networking. I don't have the time to use things like that or its just not very interesting to me.
-
Xxazurekitex wrote on 2012-05-18 23:44
Hmmm.
What a dick move for facebook. I mean I could go right now and find literally 500+ pictures/posts that violates their policy.
Plus I didn't notice at first glance it had the defect until I was like 'oh'.
Anyway...this will generate bad publicity for FB, again, live for 2 months and then we'll forget about it.
-
Kaeporo wrote on 2012-05-18 23:45
Quote from Cynic;866922:
Well unless the kid had blood and/or guts leaking out I don't see how it's graphic.
And to imply that there's something "graphic" about the kid is discrimination either way.
I consider the photos to be pretty fucking graphic. That doesn't mean I agree with their decision.
[SPOILER="Spoiler"]
[Image: http://wmctv.images.worldnow.com/images/1612385_G.jpg]
[/SPOILER]
-
Xxazurekitex wrote on 2012-05-18 23:50
Quote from Kaeporo;866978:
I consider the photos to be pretty fucking graphic. That doesn't mean I agree with their decision.
[SPOILER="Spoiler"][Image: http://wmctv.images.worldnow.com/images/1612385_G.jpg]
[/SPOILER]
Okay now I see it.
Perhaps..they should of just removed a couple?
I can see where FB is coming from on that picture(And the others I haven't seen I didnt bother looking) but the one of her holding the child in the OPs post should of DEFIANTLY stayed.
-
Cynic wrote on 2012-05-19 00:55
Quote from Kaeporo;866978:
I consider the photos to be pretty fucking graphic. That doesn't mean I agree with their decision.
[SPOILER="Spoiler"][Image: http://wmctv.images.worldnow.com/images/1612385_G.jpg]
[/SPOILER]
Eh. It's hard for me to decide whether or not it's graphic because those kinds of pictures never phased me, but I guess it's still kind of subjective.
But it still doesn't really fit into any of their categories, unless they have one for 'graphic' pictures in general.
I still think they had no right to remove them all, though.
-
Yoorah wrote on 2012-05-19 01:11
Eek, that was quite unsettling to see. x_x Facebook did the right thing by removing them, imo. Probably not kid-safe or work-safe either. Not that people should be browsing Facebook at work, but I digress...
FB probably deleted them because a bunch of people got grossed out by the picture, and reported it.
The mother has the right to love her child no matter what and stuff, but she does not have the right to post pictures of what looks like a baby with its skull torn open on Facebook.
-
Claudia wrote on 2012-05-19 02:07
Yeah, I would've refrained from posting the "hats-off" pictures...so I guess it was justified for them to be taken down.