Facebook is defying the common decency test

egg says:

04:57pm | 08/08/12

The thought police? Are they the ones who point out blatant racism? I would’ve just called them “correct”.

Way to justify racism, dude.

Joe Hallenbeck says:

05:27pm | 08/08/12

Water’s wet, the sky is blue, some people are racist, who gives a f*ck…

Fiddler says:

06:06pm | 08/08/12

and comments like that are exactly what I am saying. Don’t want to see it, don’t look. I am not interested in a lot of things on the internet. Rather than get the shits about their existence, I just don’t look. Pretty f*(king simple

Joey Jo Jo Jr Shabadoo says:

02:25pm | 08/08/12

Exactly. No one’s fault if there are alot of negative ones that a particular group have around them except themselves.

andye says:

02:37pm | 08/08/12

Yeah, you are right. All white males ARE racist. If there was no truth in stereotypes, they wouldn’t exist!

Steve says:

03:00pm | 08/08/12

Correct Andye, just as all hairy legged, loud mouthed, man-hating feminists are really just in need of a good hard shag to set them straight back into the kitchen

Tim says:

03:27pm | 08/08/12

Andye,
Your comment is racist and offensive. It should be banned

Nilbog says:

03:56pm | 08/08/12

@ Steve

That’s pretty spot on. It’s because they are, to use your words, “all hairy legged, loud mouthed, man-hating feminists ” that they find it difficult to attract even the most desperate of men to ride the bone rollercoaster.

fml says:

09:13am | 09/08/12

Steve,

That’s the problem, the percentage of truth in stereotypes is miniscule, that’s why its called a stereotype.

Now put down the beer and try not to punch someone
#seewhatididthere

mike j says:

12:47pm | 09/08/12

“the percentage of truth in stereotypes is miniscule, that’s why its called a stereotype”

You have absolutely no idea what stereotypes are, do you.

WTF you smug morons don’t just google a word before incorrectly lecturing the internet on its definition, I will never understand.

FYI, ‘truth’ is irrelevant to the process of stereotyping, but:

“There is empirical social science research which shows that stereotypes are often accurate.” - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stereotype

fml says:

01:54pm | 09/08/12

Mike j,

Stereotype: A widely held but fixed and oversimplified image or idea of a particular type of person or thing: “sexual and racial stereotypes”.

Oversimplified: Simplify (something) so much that a distorted impression of it is given.

So a stereotype is a generalisation that is a distortion of the truth.

Even though you are quoting wikipedia, how about quoting the rest “In fact, Daniel Katz and Kenneth Braly, together in 1933 and 1935 have already noted that stereotypes are not based on facts”
They term it an illusionary correlation. Stereotypes are not accurate by definition because they take an oversimplified view of a minority of people and extrapolate it to an entire population, more than often, erroneously.

What you were referring to is a study concerning certain stereotypes, the one being discussed here. Talk about being smug you should take a good look in the mirror.

Dave the chimp says:

02:55pm | 08/08/12

FU Facebook

scott says:

11:58am | 09/08/12

The author of the article is a hypocrite, just ignore him and move on.

He likes Insanity Wolf which promotes violence and abusing women, but someone makes a racist remark and he wants Facebook to censor it?!?!

Get the sand out of your vagina, Kris!

Fiddler says:

02:10pm | 08/08/12

yes, how dare people be allowed to express opinions that you don’t agree with

Phil says:

02:15pm | 08/08/12

Completely agree, no one should be able to do or say anything anywhere that either you or the author don’t first agree with.
Wouldn’t that be a wonderfully boring world.

pa_kelvin says:

02:37pm | 08/08/12

Tell that to the families of kids that died, and had tribute pages ruined by the kind of people posting so called humour. I’m not saying ban it,just better control on content….

ronny jonny says:

02:53pm | 08/08/12

Here’s an idea, pa_kelvin, don’t put up facebook tribute pages to dead loved ones. It’s pathetic and tacky. What do they expect? have a bit of dignity for gawds sake.

Jeremy says:

05:15pm | 08/08/12

Ah, FB tribute pages. So people can wallow in pity and congratulate themselves on how sorry they all are.

pa_kelvin says:

05:53pm | 08/08/12

Change the word Aborigine to ,disabled,jewish or muslim….Is it still OK???

pa_kelvin says:

06:50pm | 08/08/12

@ronny….So put up a tribute page and expect to be targeted???  Don’t see the logic there.  The whole idea of FB was to put people in touch with others, not for these type of sites to encourage racismn, violance or gatecrashing of parties….. Some things on forums just shouldn’t be published.

Kristina says:

03:24pm | 08/08/12

Humour should not be in perpetuating a common racial stereotype.  this is when problems arise, ignoring it doesn’t make it stop. Obviously you’re happy with the common idea that Australia is racist.

Tim says:

03:58pm | 08/08/12

Kristina,
No I’m not OK with the common idea (well common for certain types of people) that Australia is racist.

The difference is that I wouldn’t try to get a page calling Australians racist banned.

Kerri says:

04:57pm | 08/08/12

It’s a group of aborigines, not aboriginals, Baloo. Aboriginal is an adjective, aborigine is a noun. An english lesson and a small dose of tolerance would do you the world of good.

Baloo says:

06:11pm | 08/08/12

Your not supposed to say Aborigines, it’s disliked.
I’ll tolerate them when they stop attacking me at the train station, fair?

Tim says:

02:21pm | 08/08/12

Yep,
They’re already talking about breaches to the racial discrimination act. I think you can guess which part.

Fiddler says:

02:24pm | 08/08/12

unlikely since their servers are in America, so they can choose whether or not they comply with our court orders.

James1 says:

02:46pm | 08/08/12

Could offended individuals go after the people posting these in the same way some offended individuals went after Andrew Bolt?  Or would the location of the servers get in the way of that too?

Fiddler says:

03:22pm | 08/08/12

James, the problem being identifying who created it I would suggest. A court in australia could issue a subpoena to provide the IP address of who created it and Facebook could simply refuse.

They coroporately will assist in serious criminal investigations, but really such subpoenas and warrants have no legal enforcement.

AdamC says:

03:28pm | 08/08/12

@Tim, not at all surprising, sadly.

@Fiddler, I suspect Facebook would be quite reluctant to thumb its nose at a Court order, wherever its servers are. But you never know, I suppose.

@James1, I cannot see what would be stopping them. However, I am no expert on the territorial limitations of the right not to be offended.

James1 says:

03:39pm | 08/08/12

Thanks Fiddler.

yobogod says:

06:53am | 09/08/12

hmm actually the Aussie Govt. firewall is looking better, seen in this light… Facebook a banned site in Australia…wewt!!!  :D

and all because of some douche bag whitey 13y’old boys ..*ironic yeh i know!*

nihonin says:

02:36pm | 08/08/12

sunny, your timing is a little out…..............fail. 

Swamp Thing says:

04:08pm | 09/08/12

“You can’t police everyone’s thoughts and comments. You can only police your own and mind the company you keep”.
@tubesteak: not yet mate but i am certain some bright spark is working on it.

pa_kelvin says:

05:36pm | 08/08/12

@JB…..All social media??? You would not have been able to post your comment if “all” social media were destroyed….

JB says:

11:47am | 09/08/12

@pa_kelvin, No this is a forum and would not be classed as “Social media” Social media serves no purpose except to that of the person. This site and other like it encourages discussion on various topics.
I primarily refer to Facebook and twitter and the like which really serve absolutely no purpose apart from people saying “Look at me” Then cry when things go sour!

Colin says:

03:12pm | 08/08/12

What hysterical nonsense! It’d be fascinating to find how you arrived at this ridiculous conclusion!

Fiddler says:

03:24pm | 08/08/12

dear Colin, please research what a “troll” is. I think you will find this is someone pulling the piss on one of our regular posters.

JB says:

03:38pm | 08/08/12

I notice that Gillard has not come out and disowned this website?
No?
WHY NOT?

BECAUSE SHE AGREES WITH IT ALL!

SHAME! GILLARD! SHAME!

Brad Coward says:

07:58pm | 08/08/12

Are you mad or what ?

Next you’ll be wanting us to believe that JG is racist and agrees with the content of this website because she has not come out and disowned it !

You poor, sad individual.

Ginger says:

03:57pm | 08/08/12

Agreed. People need to learn the difference between ‘freedom of speech’, as a concept, and discrimination/abuse.

Fiddler says:

04:15pm | 08/08/12

Chris, not reallym it’s more a conversation at the pub. Based upon someones security settings anything they post is either a quiet conversation in the corner that they will let you join in on, or a private chat in the bathroom. To see anything you have to actively look for it. If someone says something you don’t like you can not join in or walk away (ie defriend or block).

AdamC says:

04:34pm | 08/08/12

The problem with this argument is that ‘abuse and discrimination’ can be, and are, defined in such a way as to preclude anything which may cause offence based on someone’s ethnicity. That is completely antithetical to free speech ‘as a concept’.

The speech-crime censorship campaigning is also quite counter-productive in this case. Why turn a bunch of bigoted dills into heroes of free expression? How many more view and likes will this Facebook page receive thanks to this orgy of PC finger-wagging.

Tim says:

04:57pm | 08/08/12

You actually have to search for this group, so no, its not the same at all.

pa_kelvin says:

05:48pm | 08/08/12

@tim….Not anymore,its out there for the World to see…

Tim says:

07:20pm | 08/08/12

Pa_Kelvin,
No you had to search for it or your friends did. Stuff like this doesn’t randomly end up on your facebook page.

And Its now been closed down.

I went and looked at it before it was closed and it was all very low brow racial stereotype humour. Just stupid.

The thing I noticed was that the most ardent people commenting against the page had no problem using their own racial epithets in deriding the people who came up with the page. But I suppose that’s different.

pa_kelvin says:

08:39pm | 08/08/12

@Tim ...I’m not on facebook, my referance to everybody knowing was simply because of he media coverage fanning the flames…I still stand as to my earlier postings above. Glad its been taken down.

yobogod says:

07:03am | 09/08/12

i guess the idea is something along the lines that, it’s easy to generalise another person, to draw lines in the sand if you will, but when the situation is reversed how will you react? 
If these people can be trolled enough that they cry foul of racially stereotyping their own mob, then its not such a big step to inescapably point out what they were doing themselves.
Evidently the next logical step is to claim that all of their own slurs were based in truth.  Once again the coin is flipped and these same low brows call foul, it goes on for hours until their brain implodes and they have to punch something ...

For some calling people names is “fun”
For others watching low brow idiots tie themselves into knots, is “fun”
aah such a dishonest life :(

edit: I’m not racist… some of my best friends are dim witted, slack jaw, lazy-eyed whities…

fml says:

09:20am | 09/08/12

Have you ever tried to reason with a sponge about how dirty it is? Nope, you just wash it.

fml says:

09:22am | 09/08/12

Ah? how does it do that? Shutting down the page shows that the content is against facebooks guidelines and is not tolerated.

Ignoring racism isn’t going to make it magically disappear.

Sancho says:

03:57pm | 08/08/12

ITT: technophobes who get confused by Facebook but saw that South Park episode.

Mark says:

04:24pm | 08/08/12

Hmmm, not to sound like the geek here AugustusCaeser,but I think you’ve kind of missed the entire point of facebook and have clearly never attempted to use it for its intended purpose? I also find it a little hypocritical for a guy posting on a blog to say “Most are just nosey, probably sharp-tongued nasty gossips with empty lives”...
I have around 200 ‘friends’, all of which I have met, and most of whom I have seen in the past 6 months. My entire social calendar is managed through the facebook calendar of events, I receive photo’s from events I have attended that I would never have received otherwise, I can keep track on businesses / sports teams / interest groups that I follow, I can chat online for free with friends overseas….etc I could go on.
Anyway, I’m sure your parents / grand parents think your rebelious attitude is really ‘hip’, but I would suggest you get someone to show you how it really works as it is an amazing tool for business and personal. My 90 year old grandmother even has a profile through her phone and she doesn’t even know how to use a computer!

Troy Flynn says:

04:33pm | 08/08/12

Who the hell would want to be Kip Jorody after he got Stan’s friends list. 845,383 friends, no thanks.
I agree with the pages full of crap I couldn’t care less about, but I still have the account open. I’m just like Stan Marsh. I have an account but I don’t want to get sucked into it. I’ve only made one post in two years.

fml says:

09:39am | 09/08/12

Hang on, you signed up to facebook agreeing to their policies, now you are complaining and crying victim because you want to go against their policies?

What is it that facebook owes to you?

yobogod says:

04:21pm | 09/08/12

Utopia Boy:
you’re a little late, FaceBook is already on the way out, all that remains is for something to do what it does, but better and with less crap .. and with out a money grubbing, ego-maniac dictating the terms by which you can interact with the site.

yobogod says:

07:09am | 09/08/12

kids will seek boundaries ... if you don’t show them a few, they will just get even more extreme ... closing a facebook page is hardly corporal punishment, and it sets a limit so the kids know that that sort of behavior isnt tolerated

Pipitipah says:

07:34pm | 09/08/12

On Facebook, as an earlier writer stated,  people tend to take at face value that people are who they say they are.
A cynic might say it seems easy is for someone with an ulterior motive to post ” I am Aboriginal (sic) and I will find out where you are…etc”, when they are nothing of the kind. And so reactions are bound to be whipped up-  “look, see, ain’t they awful!”
We are often very lazy in searching for facts behind the superficial, and for reality behind the stereotypes.

Of course we are going to ‘trust’ those who reflect our own points of view- in trawling through this long picture of variation in response to, and behaviour towards others , I found little evidence of anyone acknowledging that their position on ANY subject had been changed by the comments of others.

fml says:

09:32am | 09/08/12

Unfortunately not many people here are arguing against this type of thing with reason and logic, they are tacitly saying it is acceptable because of free speech or by saying “Don’t like it don’t look” or “They should get over it racism is always going to exist”.

There wouldn’t be a need to censor this type of behavior if there were there natural forces you talk about to counter act it.

Also what people do not understand is that facebook is not a forum for free speech, it is a company that has rules and regulations, you have to adhere to those or get kicked out. These people do not own facebook and broke the rules. It is not a government owned entity, it owes them nothing.

JB says:

11:55am | 09/08/12

@Rachel @ The Kids Are All Right, please understand that Mark Zuckerberg doesn’t care. He’s too busy making money.
Here and a wonderful example of the type of people that work for Facebook.
There was a murder, a now Ex paramedic took pictures of the victim which was not pretty. He uploaded them to face book. Facebook eventually took them down but have not destroyed them even after repeated requested by the family.  This is now in court to have the pictures destroyed. Surely common decency would dictated they be taken down without question and destroyed. But they will ban a picture of a women breastfeeding! Go figure.
What you all forget is that everything you type and pictures you upload instantly becomes the property of Facebook. Are you aware that they sell you information to third parties EVERYDAY and make money from this!!!! Suckers!!!