Posted by: Erika W. Smith in Feminizzle on Nov 17, 2012 
Hildur Lilliendahl Viggósdóttir
A well-known Icelandic feminist has been banned by Facebook for outing sexism online. In February, Hildur Lilliendahl Viggósdóttir set up a Facebook album called “Men Who Hate Women,” which is made up of screenshots documenting sexism on Facebook — such as this photo of a woman in her underwear strung up like a pig with an apple in her mouth. The caption reads, “Feminist found in town this morning — captured and put on the grill.”
“I started the album after hearing ridiculously misogynistic things in the media, even from public figures and politicians,” Hildur told British newspaper The Telegraph. “I had the feeling that people didn’t realise how harsh is the response that feminists receive for speaking up. I wanted to shed a light on how vile it is.”
Responses to the album have been varied. Along with praise, Hildur has received a number of death threats. Last month, an Icelandic man made a public Facebook status saying, “If I ‘accidentally’ ran over Hildur, she is probably the only person on earth that I would back up over, and leave the car on top of her with the hand brake on!! Put this in your ‘men who hate Hildur’ folder, Hildur Lilliendahl.”
So she did. And now Facebook has given her a 30-day ban for posting screenshots of other people’s Facebook statuses, which is against Facebook guidelines — even when those statuses are public.
The hypocrisy of Facebook strikes again (theantibogan)
A Facebook spokesperson had this to say: “At Facebook we deplore bullying. We made this rule because screengrabs are one way that bullies can try to bypass privacy and sharing settings.”
So publicly posting death threats is completely okay, but documenting those death threats breaks the rules? Come on, Facebook.
“What I’m doing is not radical—I’m just re-posting the internet on the internet,” Hildur said. “Every comment on the album has already been made publicly. I’m not taking it from a friend’s news feed or a private conversation.”
This isn’t the first time Hildur’s album has been reported, so she also created a Tumblr page so the album wouldn’t be lost. You can check it out here (but, fair warning, it’s all in Icelandic).
Images from telegraph.co.uk, karlarsemhatakonur.tumblr.com
Source
And from Gettin Real Tired of Everybody’s Fuckery
This is all kinds of fucked. Icelandic woman creates a photo album to document all the sexist shit she sees on Facebook, then this happens:
Responses to the album have been varied. Along with praise, Hildur has received a number of death threats. Last month, an Icelandic man made a public Facebook status saying, “If I ‘accidentally’ ran over Hildur, she is probably the only person on earth that I would back up over, and leave the car on top of her with the hand brake on!! Put this in your ‘men who hate Hildur’ folder, Hildur Lilliendahl.”
So she did. And now Facebook has given her a 30-day ban for posting screenshots of other people’s Facebook statuses, which is against Facebook guidelines — even when those statuses are public.
And Facebook says it’s because of their anti-bullying policy.
FUCK THAT. Because calling someone sexist is worse bullying than a death threat?
Fuck you and your blatant misogyny, Facebook.
Wasn’t I also just hearing yesterday about a woman who, when she reported a terribly sexist page (one of upskirt photos ones, I think I recall?) she was the one who ended up getting banned for supposedly having two facebook pages or not using her real name or something? And the page she reported is still up?
I mean, it doesn’t seem facebook ever takes down those really awful pages that I’ve reported (and know many of you have) so… I don’t know what else I expected.
So creep-shots and rape-threats are a-okay with Facebook. But women fighting back? Oh no! Can’t have some uppity ass b*tches ruining all the fun of The Dudebro Collective.
(via gynocraticgrrl)
Source: lostgrrrls
Elsewhere
Australia Day Hoax Sparks Anti-Gillard Citizens Misogyny
Huffington Post: The 12-Year-Old Slut Meme and Facebook’s Misogyny Problem
you said it... 
Another lie from Facebook, as their own actions and words proves, in not banning abuse and racists groups and users who come up with abuse and racist.
Facebook has proven they not only LOVE bullying, abuse and racism, but LOVE to help group and users go against Facebook own so called Community Standards and help them break the law.
So Facebook should be investigated for helping others break the law?
Including Facebook for taking death threats seriously.
Including Facebook for NOT taking death threats seriously.
Well said RH
So if you were policing a group consisting of millions of people from different jurisdictions and cultures, you’d take the time to make exceptions to blanket rules on the basis of what seems like common sense to a certain proportion of those people? I think not. I don’t agree with what Facebook has done, I don’t like it, but I do understand why they’ve done it. They’ve got rules, guidelines, which you must agree with to use Facebook, and she broke them. Case closed.
Actually I have adminned at message boards with thousands of members from many countries. We had about the same number of moderators that we have here. We also had very long discussion threads and often some lively debates.
It can be done.
Let’s face it, the clientele Facebook wants are the morons we feature who will invariably click on Facebook’s data miners. Activists tend not to do that.
Read their “rules” carefully, see the audience they are written for (certainly not responsible adults) and think about the number of times they break them themselves. Think about the number of young people who have been bullied and who have self-harmed thanks to Facebook’s poor policies – and they then have the nerve to market themselves as “family friendly”. Think about the welcoming platform Facebook is for racists and bigots, who were confined to their own sewers under the “old” web because they didn’t have the brains to run sites properly. Now they are out and about selling their equivalent of crack to the gullible.
We actually came across Hildur’s story via Michael Moore, whose Facebook page has been subjected to the same sort of abuse.
Read this. We wrote it especially to expose what is happening. And space constraints prevented us from detailing all the abuses we know of.
It is interesting, whenever these cases arise, the degree to which it is implicitly assumed by many people that online spaces such as Facebook are/ought to be subject to the same ‘common sense’ rules of free speech and communication that public space is (theoretically) subject to IRL.
In reality, the online spaces we inhabit are privately owned, and subject to the whim of the owners of that domain. The rapid disappearance of true public space, and the accompanying discourse and debate which is *supposed* to be the foundation of democratic society, is all the more alarming on the internet, given that it is often touted as an important means of free and open communication. The more our society moves towards political discourse in online spaces – something which is well on the way to being the *dominant* means by which most people engage with political problems and ideas – the more we need to think about who we are allowing to set the terms of the debate.
Facebook, Twitter, Reddit, and even the comments on the blog you are reading right now are ultimately vulnerable to the discretion of the persons or corporations which maintain the site.
We may look at running our own domain in the future. That way WE set the rules. Not US corporations.
The reason you just enforce blanket rules like instead of letting every decision be subjective is so that you don’t get people ruleslawyering. There is a rule against reposting images of others’ statuses. That rule exists for a very important reason. _Even if the statuses reposted were despicable things said by despicable people,_ that does NOT mean that punishing someone who broke the rule means Facebook supports the statuses.
Facebook often have done bad things but this is not one of them. I hope we can see a bit of a higher grade of critical thinking from TAB in the future.
We’ll stop criticising Facebook when it stops being blindly inconsistent. Among other things.
The reason you just enforce blanket rules like instead of letting every decision be subjective is so that you don’t get people ruleslawyering
So isn’t “rules-lawyering” going to be preferable to the real thing? The small Jewish community in Australia has already shown us the way. The Muslim and Indigenous communities are even larger. There are many human rights lawyers working pro bono who would see an opportunity to further assist their client base. Women make up 51% of the population. The government is about to legislate more teeth into the Commonwealth Racial Discrimination Act and give more powers to its Human Rights Commissioners.
We will be only too pleased to assist the Attorney General by alerting her to the many problems created by social media.
I suggest you read and ponder the judgement in Gutnick v Dow-Jones (2002) It has set an interesting precedent for the Facebook kiddies.
https://www.nswscl.org.au/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=54:defamation-on-the-internet-gutnick-v-dow-jones&catid=18:december-2001-issue&Itemid=31
that does NOT mean that punishing someone who broke the rule means Facebook supports the statuses.
No? One could be fooled into thinking that was the case.
It means that the robot scripts which comprise the bulk of the reporting system are not user-friendly. It means that a “black box” system which discourages and depersonalises reporting is failing consumers. It means that outsourcing services offshore will ultimately turn consumers away. Bang goes the business plan, as many telcos have discovered.
It means open slather for racist, bigots and the like to mass report any site or individual that disturbs their playground (maybe that should be “preyground”?)
The US anti-racism advocacy group One People’s Project has had to make a closed group. Their material should be viewable freely by anyone.
By contrast, racist, neo-Nazi, misogynist, anti-Muslim, anti-Semitic, anti-asylum seeker and anti-Indigenous groups abound and are openly peddling their filth. And that is just in the Australian context.
Yet Facebook is very quick to remove images of nursing mothers or the hint of a female nipple.
As one person said “You can be a Jew-hater on Facebook – as long as you are not lactating”
Facebook often have done bad things
Facebook is always doing “bad things”. By far the majority of hundreds of complaints about social media which come into our inbox are about Facebook.
I hope we can see a bit of a higher grade of critical thinking from TAB in the future.
We are onto it already
So Maelin since you are so intent on defending Facebook’s shambolic site administration, do you work for them?
Yes or no?
Josh, this kind of ad hominem stuff isn’t really helpful, and doesn’t further the debate. Engage with the arguments, not the person. Whether someone works for Facebook or not should not have a bearing upon how you consider their position.
I am wondering why someone would suddenly turn up here and defend Facebook when its many faults have been documented here and elsewhere in great detail.
mindmdeup covered the “debate” more than adequately. We know where he/she and presumably the blog, stands So seeking to uncover a perceived vested interest is a legitimate exercise
Because there are always two sides to a debate, and it is worth airing opposition. Otherwise you run the risk of missing something, weakening your own argument, or becoming stuck within a self-congratulatory circle.
I also disagree: a vested interest is neither here nor there. If Facebook paid someone to present an argument, that argument would be no less or more valid than if a totally unbiased party wrote it. This is what the ad hominem fallacy means – engaging with a person rather than their argument doesn’t prove anything of significance. The quality of an argument is in no way related to who makes it.
In fact, someone presenting the best possible form of the argument you seek to oppose is great as it gives you the opportunity to test your position against the best the other side has to offer. If you still come out looking sound, you know you have something worth holding on to – but having your argument challenged is really important!
And it could be Marc Zuckerberg himself – an argument is an argument – engage with that, not the person making it.
I think Maelin raised an interesting point, and I think mindmadeup also provided a great answer to it. Without Maelin’s position, we might not have covered an area of the discussion which is important.
No.
Using Facebook will only make you despise the human race even further. Stopped using it years ago after realising alot of my ‘friends’ were imbeciles. It just maximises the chance of being exposed to an idiot. Don’t risk it. It is not an essential part of day to day living despite what alot of people think.