Any organisation that openly does business with the British Union of Fascists can hardly be expected to have taste. Facebook has been going downhill fast ever since they let non students join.

Mark Zuckerberg is a piece of shit. Didn't know that was new.

So now it's the students who are elitist? No fucking surprise there.

@Octavious
That maybe so, but zuckerberg is richer than ever, so a huge success for him.

The only argument I can see for this, and it's not one I necessarily agree with, is that letting there be bare breasts of Facebook is the thin end of the wedge to there being all-out pornography. There's not a lot of risk of beheading videos taking over Facebook, but an argument could be made that sex videos could. And, if they did, that would drive a lot of people (including advertisers) away.

Now, I think that's baloney. There's loads of porn on Twitter and that's not collapsed into a den of iniquity. But if I were running a behemoth like Facebook I'd be cautious too.

@ILN ... Zuckerberg is so caught up in his money. It's amazing that someone that stacks their house to the roof with, I don't know, rocks, or some old lady that has 50 cats or whatever is called crazy yet someone that stacks wads of hundreds in rubber bands in a giant metal safe until it's completely full and can't be satisfied with themselves if it's not full is considered a resounding success. That's what Zuckerberg is.

I'm not saying being wealthy is bad - if you want that argument, talk to Putin - but being so caught up in your money that morality goes out the window, replaced with obnoxiousness and a desire to hoard money is probably the biggest problem with people in the capitalist world.

@ Invictus: Just to be clear, I'm not arguing that Facebook should allow porn. I'm arguing that it shouldn't allow beheading videos.

I can get my porn from loads of other places.

Very soon those that behead people will make sure all there victims are nude, that'll cause some brains to explode over at Facebook.

I see some jurisprudence issues. What about cut-off breasts?

There is no way that it's actually legal for them to host these videos. I am really skeptical that Facebook have a case, if somebody takes them to court for damages due to trauma or upset children or whatever.

This from facebook terms & conditions:

You will not post content that: is hate speech, threatening, or pornographic; incites violence; or contains nudity or graphic or gratuitous violence.

https://www.facebook.com/legal/terms

Drug taking can still not be shown

Simply reflects the wider culture of acceptance of violent images over "sexual" images (even if bare breasts are barely sexual)? Consider video games for instance. How many video games feature bare breasts? That would surely be harmful for children afterall. But blood murder and mayhem is perfectly fine.

That said, actual images of actual gore and corpses is taboo in Western media (but not so in Latin America, and I suspect, other regions).

Because the kids that are of age to play violent video games definitely haven't seen bare breasts before.

Who gives a toss? Facebook is a place for sheeple to connect with other like minded sheeple. The only thing that keeps Facebook the 'center' of the universe is that people BELIEVE that Facebook is the center of the universe. Personally I don't care if they choose to show tits or not. Nor do I care if they show people being murdered or not. The internet is the only frontier left to us, and the majority of people are willing to sell their share of their thoughts to the data-mining companies that social-media makes their money from.

That isn't even a well structured sentence kaner. What does your opinion of Facebook matter compared to this which an issue similar to if they were playing snuff movies on TV.

Of course my opinion about facebook doesn't matter in the slightest. However the vast majority of people in the western world seem to think that what happens on facebook has a significant effect on the world around them (and I suppose if everyone around them responds to facebook posts it does). I am simply responding to say that whatever people post on facebook has no real intrinsic meaning to me or my life. If someone wants to post a snuff video on facebook, then be my guest. I'm not going to get my knickers in a knot about the fact that they have posted this violent offensive video onto a website. HOWEVER this should be noted, the people who are responsible for this act should be brought to court to answer for their crime. Having said that, am I going to go and actually capture and arrest this person? NO I'm too comfortable in my life to give a shit.... and this is the truth. Are you willing in your outrage to track these people down and then extradite them from *whatever territory they happen to inhabit, just so that the internet can be free from filth??? I don't think so.

Jamie, are you seriously concerned that you can't find nudity on the internet? More important, how many people on your friend's list do you want to actually see nude? Good lord, if all the now-old-fat-chicks I went to high school with suddenly decided they wanted to do nude selfies, I'd seriously puke.

So since I don't want to see my friends nude, that leaves strangers.

The internet is full of smoking hot naked strangers doing anything you want them to do for free in 10 second to full length clips. We don't need nudity on Facebook.

As for the comparison of nudity to violence...non-topic. Society deemed long ago that violence is less of a concern than nudity. You may not agree with this, and you may even be right (I don't think so...) but that's pretty much how society rolls.

@kaner - you are a moron. You may not like Facebook, but denying it's social/societal impact is staggeringly ignorant. That's like an Apple-hater, who rightly points out that many other manufacturers have superior products, saying Apple is overblown hype blah blah blah. That person, too, is a moron.

Apple is overblown hypoe. So what. IT is still a major player in the tech field. Saying someone is a moron for observing that Apple makes overpriced shit isn't the same as being blindingly stupid and saying Facebook doesn't matter. Now, if the Apple-hater said Apple had no effectg on the market, then you could call them a moron. McDonald's makes overpriced shit hamburgers, but they still rule the fast food market. Apple makes over priced crappy MP# players, phones and tablets, but the iPod, iPhone and iPad still dominate the market.

@Draug - you missed my pint -- I'm saying that if you think Apple is inconsequential because other's compete with them, then you miss the piont of the revolution that Apple started, which caused a sea-change in technology and arguably society as a whole.

By the same token, you can hate Facebook, and say it's for sheep, but you are a fool to deny the societal change that Facebook has brought about. Twitter, Instagram, whatever are *all* possible because of Facebook's success.

Both Apple and Facebook are arguably over-popular, for the wrong reasons. Both of them, regardless of their merit, changed society as we know it, and continue to.

@Krellin - That wasn't what you said...

"That's like an Apple-hater, who rightly points out that many other manufacturers have superior products, saying Apple is overblown hype blah blah blah."

Nothing in that statement was sayign the Apple-hater said Apple was inconsequential. I didn't miss any point. You didn't *make* the point. Had you *made* that point, I would have agreed with you.

See, I'm an Apple hater. I think they make great, but overpriced, computers, and that the rest of their personal electronics fail in comparison to their competitors. Only the iPad comes close and the Surface is the better tablet.

But I do realize they aren't inconsequntial. Far from it. They drive market demand through the fan boys drooling over the latest iPhone and such.