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
-
Xxazurekitex wrote on 2012-05-19 03:52
Defiantly Justified.
-
Chillax wrote on 2012-05-19 04:09
Quote from Xxazurekitex;867148:
Defiantly Justified.
[Image: http://fc04.deviantart.net/fs70/f/2011/234/b/a/i_defiantly_agree_by_johnsu-d47jds9.png]
-
Episkey wrote on 2012-05-19 04:29
Quote from Chillax;867158:
[Image: http://fc04.deviantart.net/fs70/f/2011/234/b/a/i_defiantly_agree_by_johnsu-d47jds9.png]
LOL.
Perfect. That was perfect. I give it an "A" plus!
As for the child ... I think the pictures without the hat might be a bit much. To say that other photos allow such content is a red herring.
Although, if Facebook ignored said other photos - then I can see the issue.
-
Xxazurekitex wrote on 2012-05-19 04:32
Quote from Chillax;867158:
[Image: http://fc04.deviantart.net/fs70/f/2011/234/b/a/i_defiantly_agree_by_johnsu-d47jds9.png]
Woah there duke nukem calm down. No need to yell.
-
Rin wrote on 2012-05-19 06:45
I can at least see why people would report that picture and be thoroughly uncomfortable with it.
It's something that would probably haunt them during their sleep.
-
Elena wrote on 2012-05-22 17:31
Ahh...I feel bad but I can see where people are coming from. I looked at the picture in the spoiler and my gut did a backflip, figuratively speaking. I don't see anything with the "hats on" pictures though. Did they remove those, too?...
-
Sumpfkraut wrote on 2012-05-22 20:48
The only thing I feel when seeing that pic is sympathy. It would have never crossed my mind to find it disgusting. Disturbing of course, but rather because of the baby's fate.
I think it takes a certain lack of empathy to wound the mother's heart by removing the pictures because some selfish sissies only concerned about their blissfulness can't simply look away. I would've waved the requests off.
-
Juno wrote on 2012-05-22 20:55
Graphic, perhaps, but not graphic violence.
Not a pleasant sight but I think she should be allowed to post them. I'm not too familiar with facebook though, does the post mean that everyone is going to see it or is there a way to have a warning first?
-
Claudia wrote on 2012-05-22 23:40
Quote from Juno;870163:
Graphic, perhaps, but not graphic violence.
Not a pleasant sight but I think she should be allowed to post them. I'm not too familiar with facebook though, does the post mean that everyone is going to see it or is there a way to have a warning first?
Basically (don't have FB either), anyone who's friends with her would be able to see it. And it'd probably be the first thing that pops up when they log in as well.
-
Claudia wrote on 2012-05-22 23:41
Quote from Juno;870163:
Graphic, perhaps, but not graphic violence.
Not a pleasant sight but I think she should be allowed to post them. I'm not too familiar with facebook though, does the post mean that everyone is going to see it or is there a way to have a warning first?
Basically (don't have FB either), anyone who's friends with her would be able to see it. And it'd probably be the first thing that pops up when they log in as well.
-
Kyouria wrote on 2012-05-23 05:33
I've seen much worse pictures (especially from those users asking for "likes") that don't earn bans. That photo isn't even graphic, the baby is cute. x.x
-
Racky wrote on 2012-05-23 05:50
I'm not moved by the pictures. :| And I feel bad for the mother, since it is her child :(, and if you don't like it you can always report it and block it. (like I did that one picture of someone's twig that showed up on my wall, grosss)
-
User495 wrote on 2012-05-23 16:55
after seeing the spoilers, I can sort of see the reasoning behind it
but what worries me more is that, this kinda tells you that, someone in the Facebook company is able to see your pictures
(unless it was removed cause one of her friends reported it or something)
Quote from Racky;870797:
I'm not moved by the pictures. :| And I feel bad for the mother, since it is her child :(, and if you don't like it you can always report it and block it. (like I did that one picture of someone's twig that showed up on my wall, grosss)
but see, there's a reason for the saying
what is seen, cannot be unseen
-
whocares8128 wrote on 2012-05-23 18:21
I'm sure that the pictures were reported by other people on Facebook who had access to the photos (most likely friends and family). If they were upset by the images, then Facebook has every right to remove them, just as a restaurant has the right to remove a customer disrupting business.
Not that this is equivalent in anyway but...
With only the nine types of offensive content, I don't see a category that would prevent someone from uploading pictures of their own feces. This is simply another example of something that, while technically permissible, would likely be taken down due to reporting.
Still, Facebook really ought to revise their standards when they see a need to remove content that doesn't fall into one of the "not allowed" categories.
-
BobYoMeowMeow wrote on 2012-05-24 00:30
Quote from Juno;870163:
Graphic, perhaps, but not graphic violence.
Not a pleasant sight but I think she should be allowed to post them. I'm not too familiar with facebook though, does the post mean that everyone is going to see it or is there a way to have a warning first?
the picture would be on her friend's news feed
so they would see it when checking updates