I feel the need to be VERY FUCKING CLEAR about that when a company decides it wants to e the endgame for one of the basic layers of the Maslows Pyramid, the ‘if you don’t like it, don’t use it’ retort to all types of critics to that company’s conduct to customers does -not- fly! Yes, I’m thinking Substance D again :P
So, it is not a secret that I a) love characterblogging, sockpuppets and b) hate Facebook. (Yes, onoz, I am one of those horrible, mentally disturbed people, who had multiple accounts talk to each other. Britney Spears is calling from the institution, she wants her last 45 personalities back) Both are not necessarily connected, because I also hate Facebook when being a single entity. Also, when playing on someone’s cyberturf means you have got to count in being punished when one does not adhere to the rules, that means, if FB decides to curb my sockies, they are in their Goddamned right to do so.
Here is why Facebook should implode and never rise again: People of whom FB is not sure is a legal person, and who does not have a cell phone at their disposal, are forced to send in governmental papers in order to prove you’re a legal person. I know that the general gist here now is “Who does not have a cell phone :P” I am a fairly young person in the industrialised world, who had periods without an MMS enabled cell phone. (And in my case I know the RAAH, SOCKS! But I am not talking about myself. Or my many cyberselves.)
The real gripe should be: “I’m not going to send a company of that magnitude shit about myself” Also, what would Facebook care, if they did not have a clear business plan of selling our information? It is not enough for them to sell “Account ID 675867834 like soft ice and Breaking Bad”, it has got to be legally verified person John Doe. And John Doe cannot have three accounts, on which he likes ice cream and Breaking Bad, and it is not good enough if he accepts to get served advertisement on all three accounts. Apparently spending more real eye time in order to maintain all those accounts is not important onFacebook. Seriously you all should run away from services, on which you absolutely have to give your legal name and more, because in today’s days this type of information does not mix with a corporate environment. Any other service will crack down on you, if you, say, upvote your own posts with your sock puppets. As long as you and your sock puppets look at advertisements and don’t troll or are disruptive in any other way, nobody cares.
Also, apparently MZ said that when you’re thirty, you’re too old to work at his allegedly awesome company. Which probably is, why naked breasts from the 1968 communes are Ze Forbiddin, whilst duck face and nipple tape is totally okay. I could say, well I’m not going to hang out with a bunch of sexist frat boys too young and too coddled to have any idea of how the world really works. But if a) all my friends are there and b) they do strife to be basically the one nation of which you -have- to be a member of, or else you’re cybernationally homeless, then yes, they have got to shape the fuck up and make their nation looking more like the human society. Yes, there are good coders older than thirty. There are people temporarily out of a cell phone. (Also, Stephen Glass and prepaid throwaway phones, if I really meant some fraudulent business with them sockies.) Yes, occupying one entity in cyberspace is not the norm. No, adding fifty ways of describing one’s cultural gender is not going to appease me. You’re still dumb and I don’t want to play with you, however you’re also too big to fail with your failures and shortcomings and all my friends live in you. And this is utterly depressing.
Today Lille Fregnede Louise wrote me a note that Facebook again has censored away her piece “Missoir”.
Also, there is an article on the Danish feature resource Journalisten, which also is being censored away. The article is linked at the end of this sentence and I will give you a fair warning that you will be greeted by naked people seen from the front of this article.
I myself have linked to this Gawker article, in which a Turkish employee at oDesk details censoring practices, and yes, I know there it says clearly and loudly that female buttcracks are not allowed, and yes, Lille Fregnede Louise shows her buttcrack in this picture, because how would she elsewise believably mimick male urinating practices, if she wore pants covering it? You would be able to argue that we should have known that this would happen, because it says in the Community Standards, that female buttcracks violate the delicate feelings of the board members.
Or does it.
Facebook has a strict policy against the sharing of pornographic content and any explicitly sexual content where a minor is involved. We also impose limitations on the display of nudity. We aspire to respect people’s right to share content of personal importance, whether those are photos of a sculpture like Michelangelo’s David or family photos of a child breastfeeding.
Lille Fregnede Louise is not breast-feeding, nor is she Michelangelo. I’ll give you that, Facebook. But neither are all those duck-faced girls keeling over from attention starvation.
Yes, we could stop this as adults, and not post art nudes on Facebook, because we know the standards, and we know we are violating them, and we know we are getting bancloppered. We are perfectly aware of, that we are not some glorious Femen freedom fighters. And we are perfectly aware of, that we are playing on the cost-free lawn of an US-company who are absolutely entitled to put down the rules on their lawn.
But should these actually enforced standards (not the ones nicely plotted down for everyone to read) not be challenged? I think they should be challenged. I think, when a company thinks it basically wants to be the entry to the WWW for any conscious biped of the humanoid line on this planet, they also should embrace the variety all those 5 billion+ people come with, and half of them come with female buttcracks.
If one never protests, nothing will change, and we are being herded around like sheep. And I believe every little databit counts, and so does our little drip in the ocean.
(Also, what happened to the little ‘This content contains graphic imagery. Make it non-available to underage users’ -button, Facebook??)
See this image:
This is the lovely backside of one “Lille Fregnede Louise” who stands in a pissoir purporting to do what men do in a pissoir. I think this is an awesome piece of commentary on gender roles and a splendid piece of art photography.
Also note that this image does not show neither her nipples nor her vagina. And if you’re wired like me, you have also noted how beautifully shaped she is :D most of all, all you may have noted that she is way over 18 years of age.
This picture was censored by Facebook.
Facebook has told us Facebook users on an earlier occasion that they have certain standards for nudity around the entire server, because 13 year olds are allowed to participate.
Or all the racist shit that came after when Amanda Berry fled and threw herself in the arms of one Charles Ramsey. Those images stayed up for far longer than Lille Fregnede Louise’s art work.
It certainly looks like the mods at Facebook have lots of standard. In fact they may even have double standard(s).
I’d dare say, having standards in double does not make it twice as good. Following this pattern of community standards purported by Facebook moderators, it is okay for the 13 year olds to be subjected to those images shown in the composite while they cannot adore the female form in the form of Lille Fregnede Louise, who is an awesome person actually existing in this form. They are not allowed to form an opinion about what gender roles are and what they entail, and they are cut off from seeing some wonderful photographic art where the focus is on composition and light setting. They are fed this disgusting Photoshop shit and desperate teens, who do not know the ways in which they are degrading themselves to the masses, becaus ethey have no parents to tell them. Is Facebook really okay with that, but not with a woman with a nice back and an opinion and a good photographer?
Shame on you, Facebook!
So I am having thoughts again of the “We all experience those, so why post them” variety, but I am one massive defiant bastard, and so I vigorously and with no regards to what is good in this World post it here on my own blog. Ta!
When I was a teenager, I was convinced that at some point in early adulthood lightning would strike in everyone’s life, and one would become, what is normally considered an adult in one’s mind. I thought it would be like when you felt your teeth breaking through or your body develop into sexual maturity. Your mind would suddenly stop making you giggle uncontrollably, and you would do your taxes just the same way you would fall asleep. It would be some biological proces, some biological necessity. You would totally see the point in taking responsibility for a variety of things, and guys would become men.
Now I sit here, having taken a good dig into my adulthood, pay my taxes, would be ashamed if someone would call me feckless and irresponsible, but I still have this unexplainable childhood thing in me, the ‘lets go ride a spaceship now’ thing. I have stopped being able to sit in a cardboard box and really truly fly to Andromeda, which is so well described in various Calvin & Hobbes, but I do believe this has transcended into the membership in the nearby aeroclub. Maybe the lodge with the pepples on in the backyard just became the instrument panel of a Piper 28, I don’t know. And I still fly spaceships in my comic panels and in my video games.
I can, from my anecdotical knowledge, report that there is no such thing as the Big Bang of adulthood. There is a Big Bang concerning puberty. suddenly you run into things. You are inexplainably pissy at what normally made you happy. Clothes that fit yesterday, don’t fit now. Also hair and smells. And, what does all this mean? How do I appropriately respond to the other sex now? Throw the pepples from the back yard flight deck on them?
But there is no discernible Big Bang to adulthood. It is just not happening. You see that you have to go to work and pay taxes and you do. Or you decided to not do that and you face the consequences. You either end in prison or become a survivalist. But the mind sort of stays the same, at least in me it did. You have a more cause and reaction thing going on, which has just arrived, because you saw it happen. Just as you in childhood did not put your hand on that plate, if the handle was turned on #3, because then it was glowing hot. There was not this crystal clear change. People respond to you the way they did to your parents only because your body looks like your parents’ bodies back then, and this is what they see.
So, yeah. Don’t think, you will grow up. It is a lie. Maybe even a trap.
So, Anders Behring Breivik has been convicted and news has been going around on, how his cells look like. Especially the BBC wrote an extensive piece on, what his cells look like. For example it is mentioned that he has three cells, not one, for compensation that he will not have access the sports and recreation facilities that other prisoners have. He also has a study room, in which a laptop computer is sort of fixed to the desk, with an offline version of Wikipedia on it. Also, he has training equipment in his quarters. Prison officials say this is because the stay at the prison must not be torture, therefore this equipment. And this is okay with me, because as much as I liked him to rot in a hole, we cannot become monsters ourselves. (I will for this post totally ignore the fact that we are monsters in so many other cases, because it is outside the scope of this particular post.)
Breivik will also have freedom of expression. Whilst he is not to have Internet access, he can write letters and send them. However, of course the prison will have a right to read them, and ultimately withhold them, if they contain illegal stuff. But writing and have it sent is not illegal. Breivik said he will study political science and write his autobiography. Also, he is allowed to receive journalists and be interviewed within visiting hours.
So, we will definitely hear more from him.
There has been a lot of people saying, they’d wished he’d just shut up and crawled in a hole and died, and I feel the same. But I don’t think we can have it this way. You cannot make him go away by silencing him and by never, ever talk about him. He (and the evils like him) will still be there. Just like Germans never ever can act as if there never has been an Adolf Hitler. Unfortunately, and to our all dismay, Breivik will always be a part of this plane of existence. It is better that those who feel they need to talk about Hitler, do so, and those who do not want to talk about him, get a chance to not do so. Within reason, that is. No one would start to pick up Hitler as a conversational topic in the house of a Holocaust survivor, for example. But people will produce books and TV broadcasts about him. Some will be made by fanatics, glorifying what Breivik says and be spread on the Internet, and others will take a critically and investigative look at it and be broadcast by major TV stations. You cannot silence this man’s existence. This is also, why I type up this post.
(More posterity may be expected :o) )