Did Aboriginals Deserve an Apology? – “This is not a racist page”

apology3

aboriginal1

Kevin Rudd apologised as Prime Minister at the time on behalf of the government and people of Australia. Whether he was around during the period of the Stolen Generations or not is irrelevant.

apology2

Indigenous reactions to the Apology were positive. Indigenous people were not concerned whether Rudd had been “around” or not,  just that he was there as Prime Minister representing the government and the nation.

apology

Oh and we know of no Indigenous people, alive or dead, who were or are “grateful” for being snatched away from their families. The anonymous admin of that page must live in another universe!

aboriginal2

“He makes white Australians feel uncomfortable”

GOOD!

aboriginal3

The Stupidity Award for Facebook Racism has to go to Jarrod Schaub

aboriginal4

WRONG you cretin. Indigenous people have lived here for more than 40 000 years.

And guess what fuckwit!  The Chinese had an empire and an advanced civilisation for thousands of years and invented many things we still use but had no glass.

Why?

BECAUSE THEY DIDN’T NEED IT!

And they were even kind enough to invent the foldable umbrella for Jarrod’s European ancestors who obviously couldn’t manage it themselves.

jarrodschaub

And it gets better – or worse.

Jarrod is not the end of the dregs there. Take a look at “Mark Whiteman” who likes to grab the profile pics of people who dare to disagree with him and misuse them.

Sound familiar?

It’s something that goes with far right nutzi politics because when they get out in the real world they find their political nutjobbery has nothing to offer.

It is much easier for them to bully and intimidate young Aboriginal women for instance.

markwhitemanbullying

markwhitemanfacebook

We are fairly sure that the real owner of that picture, State of Michigan political analyst Marlon Brown, who is an African-American albino, would not be too impressed by knowing that a white supremacist was misusing his photograph.

We know where to contact Marlon and we’ll be letting him know.

Joining “Mark” for some tag team bullying action is Chris Smith.

chrissmithpost2

chrissmithnhewprofile
chrismithpost1

Yeah we know that Chris. You have quite a track record.

Chris Smith 1

This might have been at the Sandringham Hotel in Newtown where him and his motley crew like to hang out despite all the gay leftie greenies who are thick on the ground in that part of Sydney.

Chris has been in the neo-Nazi scene for a long time with a bunch of fellow fantasists called Volksfront.  That is, when he’s not fronting the beak at Penrith Court.

So is Did Aboriginals Deserve an Apology? a racist page?

Oh yes indeed!

Elsewhere

Slackbastard blog is a mine of information on far right fringe groups and their antics

Law and Order: Not-so-special-victims

NSW Police allow racist comments on FB page

Aussies for Freedom

Last night the ugly head of domestic violence reared it’s head in Bankstown and sadly a multitude of police officers doing what is a very hard job were injured.

The NSW Police Force posted the following status on their Facebook page:

nsw police

The post did not name any ethnicity at all, but as predicted, violent and bigoted and racist comments ensued by a large amount of people assuming that the perpetrators were Arab.  Because only Arabs commit crimes in this city, and white people don’t ever hit strangers,riot and stab people or kill police officers. Or anything bad like that, because in their mind, we’re a peaceful race.  Right..

Here are some screen grabs of bigoted and racist comments, that are prejudicial, that NSW Police have deemed to be law abiding enough to not be moderated out of the page.

iop90

io

hj

hhhh

h

Capture

34534

976

46

12

jyu

edit this one

Best wishes for the recovering police officers!

 

View original post 10 more words

Facebook fails the tolerance test

According to the film, The Social Network, Mark Zuckerberg conceived and founded Facebook largely as a result of being rejected by his girlfriend at the time.

So perhaps we must ask ourselves whether Facebook is merely a gigantic pervasive adolescent frat-boy fantasy theme park based on the need for acceptance and the need for the socially anxious to hang with the cool people and become awesome (and score women of course)

Adolescents are in the process of becoming adults. As part of that process they exhibit a number of characteristics, many of which are irritating to the real adults in their lives.

  • unrealistic expectations
  • pre-occupation with self – everyone is like me
  • preoccupation with image
  • overwhelming desire for acceptance
  • black and white thinking
  • impulsivity

However in the real world, in order to survive, adolescents need to grow up.

Unrealistic expectations

We are told that Facebook has a physical workforce at its US headquarters of around 4000 people. This is supposed to ensure the smooth running of an organisation which has a customer base estimated at one billion

Ingham’s Chickens Victorian factory employs about 3000.

Except Facebook deals with all the complexities and pitfalls of human interactions online.

Inghams deals with dead chickens.

Facebook deals with customer complaints, privacy concerns, online security and hate speech (?)

In a lame attempt to stretch its Californian workforce more thinly, Facebook has outsourced much of its moderation and response to reports to an offshore entity called oDesk Part of this process is the running of bots which supposedly identify offensive content and sends alleged offenders automated messages.

oDesk moderator on the job

Some four billion pieces of content are shared every day by 845 million users. And while most are harmless, it has recently come to light that the site is brimming with paedophilia, pornography, racism and violence – all moderated by outsourced, poorly vetted workers in third world countries paid just $1 an hour. (Daily Telegraph UK)

However this kind of “moderation” is full of pitfalls and is open to abuse as pointed out by activist Segway Jeremy Ryan who got his account compromised while campaigning against the Governor of Wisconsin’s planned budget cuts.

Trolls are now having activists removed by filing fake Facebook complaints. That is right, people are suppressing information in Wisconsin by actively reporting people they deem to be a threat on Facebook. I myself have been reported and banned for one to three days for simply posting “Good job” or “The majority of Wisconsin doesn’t like Scott Walker.” People have been reported on pages for saying nothing more than my name and have been reprimanded by Facebook. The strategy is simple and Facebook lets it continue. If someone reports something as abusive to Facebook they don’t actually look at it, they just remove it and warn the person who posted it. If you get enough you are not able to dispute them at all, and with no admin contacts and no one at Facebook actually looking at the posts reported as “abusive,” the person gets blocked.

Pre-occupation with self – everyone is like me

Mark Zuckerberg, it is said, wants the world to be an open place where everyone is transparent (except for the Facebook business model but that’s another story) So much so it seems that Facebook managed to upset no less a person than acclaimed Nobel Prize-winning British author Salman Rushdie.

Read more


Pre-occupation with image

Well at least where women’s breasts are concerned – specifically the breasts of nursing mothers.

So while racists, bigoted, anti-woman Facebook hate sites abound, if you dare show a picture of a happy nursing mum and her baby you are likely to get a bot warning from oDesk.

Or as one wit put it “Jew-haters are welcome on Facebook as long as they are not lactating”.

Your warning would look like this:

And if you are really really lucky you might get one of these, complete with either space tags or misplaced end tags, just to underline and emphasise its innate stupidity.

The Gold Medal for Facebook Stupidity is an e mail like this one below. And again note the tags.

The item in question was actually this. We remember it well, it was posted at TAB Facebook page and mass reported despite being neither obscene nor featuring real people.

Then again the racists didn’t like it…

Apparently Zuckerberg and the kiddies came up with this  “solution” for the problem of undesirable content on Facebook.

socialresolution1

Well hey we could really see how that one would work…

socialresolution2

Err Mark, which planet are you on again?

socialresolution3

Sorry Mark, from our point of view most anti-discrimination activists are way past the age of having teachers and some of us don’t even have parents. It might work if our “trusted friend” was this err…person.

The “trusted friend” we’d like to have

Desire for acceptance

Facebook goes out of its way to be accepted as THE universal social network platform. Its whole business bottom line is based on that premise. The more fools click on the ads and sign up for the data miners, the more money Facebook makes.

In doing so it hosts a variety of fringe wackos who’d be hard pressed writing their own names in the real world.

On Facebook, you do not need the rudimentary web skills you require to run a message board for instance. So that’s why racists, bigots and other semi-literate hate mongers have flocked there in droves rather than gathering at other longer-established hate sites like Scumfront or Winds of Jihad, where they can mix exclusively with others of their kind.

And this is why.

Not only does Facebook give them a laughably easy platform to use, it also lets them share a space with the mainstream. It is rather analogous to the local crack dealer setting up a store on the village green, rather than hiding away in a dark alley.

Hello kiddies. Welcome to Freakbook. We want you to make us very happy…(League of Gentlemen)

So when the kids get onto Facebook to interact with their real-life friends, there’s a whole bunch of Fuck Off We’re Full-type sites just waiting to groom them and entice them in. Something which did not escape this critic from an atheist site.

As far as Facebook pages and groups go, we use the living-room test at TAB for sites. Would you allow the people on site XYZ into your living room? If the answer is NO then we shouldn’t have to endure their intrusion into our space. In real life we do not choose to, nor do we have to associate with, racists, bigots and the like. And we can ensure our kids are kept away from haters.

Of course Zuckerberg apologises. In fact he does so often. Perhaps a little too often for someone who is trying to float a public company. Maybe that’s why savvy share buyers have stayed away in droves – that and everything else we have outlined.

In fact Better Business Bureau gave Facebook an “F” rating with the following comment

Our opinion of what this rating means:
We strongly question the company’s reliability for reasons such as that they have failed to respond to complaints, their advertising is grossly misleading, they are not in compliance with the law’s licensing or registration requirements, their complaints contain especially serious allegations, or the company’s industry is known for its fraudulent business practices.

Impulsivity

One day Zuckerberg must have awoken with a brilliant thought bubble. Why not allow users themselves to police the Facebook site? That way he wouldn’t be forking out hundreds of thousands to pay a bunch of nerds to moderate content.

This sounds nice and cosy at first, not to mention cheap as chips, until you take a look at the calibre of some of the Facebook users. You don’t have to go very far to do that.

Just check out the names on our very own tag cloud.

From Wikipedia:

Enabling of Harassment

Facebook instituted a policy by which it is now self-policed by the community of Facebook users. Some users have complained that this policy allows Facebook to empower abusive users to harass them by allowing them to submit reports on even benign comments and photos as being “offensive” or “in violation of Facebook Rights and Responsibilities” and that enough of these reports result in the user who is being harassed in this way getting their account blocked for a predetermined number of days or weeks, or even deactivated entirely…In addition, Facebook does not ban the IPs of users who have proven to create multiple accounts for the purposes of trolling or stalking others, thereby enabling the harasser, even if they do have one of the offending accounts deactivated, to simply create another one and continue the harassment with no lasting consequences

Take a look at what happened recently to one of our sister sites, a group which exposes racism directed at Indigenous Australians.

complaintagainstracists

So the ABC’s 7:30 programme recently decided to check out these claims.

And it gets better. After being criticised by our own AFP’s cyber crime unit Facebook responded thus:

Facebook is a service devoted to helping people share and making the world more open and connected.

As such, we often must balance the need for freedom of expression and the even greater need of preventing any harm to the people who use our service.

To achieve this balance, when we write our policies, we must exclude offensiveness when determining which pages are harmful.

So it seems thanks to Facebook we now have a new definition of “offensiveness”. “Offensiveness” according to Facebook are violations of areas which most of the civilised world has long decided are no-go areas.

Facebook regards the following as mere “offensiveness” it seems – racism, religious bigotry, particularly directed at Muslims and Jews ( including Holocaust denial and Protocol-style vilifying myths about Muslims),  but also at Indigenous Australians, misogyny, homophobia, bullying, intimidation, defamation, identity theft and the propagation of violent political ideologies such as neo-Nazism.

And speaking of names, this is what Facebook’s apologist Simon Axten thinks of activists who wish to conceal their identities.

And when asked to respond to a request for assistance from no less an agency than the WA Human Rights Commission, this was his glib reply.

facebooksimonaxten1a

In Australia for anti-racists and other social justice activists, having to reveal your identity can mean harassment, intimidation and violence from your enemies.In many other countries it can mean imprisonment, torture and death. But this obviously doesn’t bother Simon.

So let’s see if the new head of Facebook’s Australia-New Zealand operations can do a better job. Here’s his CV.

And his photo. Watch for him in the better Sydney eateries.

Here’s William Easton. No doubt the identity thieves at Facebook will be grabbing this.

Unlike what is demanded of Facebook members, William is a tad shy about revealing his contact details so that we can send our complaints to him. So we might help him out with a Facebook-style fatwa he can use. It’s a lot more honest than the one Facebook is using at the moment.

BONUS No tedious <br><br>

facebookmashup

Feel free to post it to your own profile, use it on your blogs and  annoy Facebook with it.

UPDATE

Facebook Australia has a page. However by the look of the randoms posting there we wouldn’t bother.

However William Easton has a Facebook page 

😀

———————————————————————————————————-
Read more

Report: Facebook A Haven For Hate Groups

The dark side of Facebook

Facebook lacks ‘social responsibility’, says top cop

Facebook is defying the common decency test

Facebook pages show not so social media

Inside Facebook’s Outsourced Anti-Porn and Gore Brigade, Where ‘Camel Toes’ are More Offensive Than ‘Crushed Heads’

The Hitler Shield: Mocking the Dead at Facebook

Ironic humour department

Facebook mistakes elbow for breast

And Where is Facebook’s Support Staff?

Well may we ask! 😕

However you may get somewhere by complaining to the local Better Business Bureau

Good luck!

Soldiers reprimanded over anti-Muslim posts

The Defence Department has charged and reprimanded two serving soldiers involved in making violent and racist comments in the wake of last month’s Islamic protests in Sydney.

Thirteen other soldiers have been formally counselled over their actions.

Defence launched an investigation after a group of Australian soldiers from the Townsville-based 3rd Brigade made threatening comments against the Muslim community on Facebook.

Those involved joked about using sniper rifles and machine guns on Muslims.

The remarks were made in the days after the Sydney protest sparked by an anti-Islamic film insulting the Prophet Mohammed.

These were some of the comments left on the Facebook page:

Give me a M4 and send to Sydney and I’ll do the dishes.

Could add a new meaning to clean up Australian day.

What about an SR-25? You could say some of those blokes look like farmers. Smile.

Mate, what I would given to drop the legs on a MAG 58, slap on a 500 round belt, adopt a stable firing position in the middle of the street and lay waste to every single one of those cancerous ****.

At least 20 people added that they liked what was being said.

And on the day of the Sydney protests, these comments were left:

The protests were triggered by a US film Innocence of Muslims, portraying the Prophet Mohammed as a womaniser and a paedophile.
Um, they are. And how many of these Muslims weren’t born in Australia? How many have read the Koran or been to Mecca?

And a sign said, ‘behead all those who insult the Prophet’. I know what I’m doing this week – getting my gun licence.

I’m getting one too.

Cronulla round two.

I was going to say Cronulla, ha ha.

I wonder if I could buy a flame thrower legally.

(From a previous report – Ed)

Some of the men making the comments have photos of themselves in uniform, including one person who has a variety of pictures of himself holding different machine guns.

Another of the men appears in a helicopter pilot’s uniform.

A simple search reveals photos of them on the Australian Defence Force’s public website or in Townsville media either during or after serving in Afghanistan.

Several Muslim organisations, including the Islamic Council of New South Wales, have received links to the Facebook page.

The council’s chairman, Khaled Sukkarieh, says he hopes the Facebook comments are just rants.

“We would be very concerned if former or current personnel of the ADF held such views, especially if they have served in Muslim countries or are serving in Muslim countries such as Iraq or Afghanistan,” he said.

“We would hope that these comments are just the ignorant rantings of a very small minority and not indicative of a big Islamophobic issue in the ADF.”

Conduct

The Australia Defence Association told AM in a statement that if these men are serving members of the ADF they will have breached regulations about the responsible use of social media.

It says a second rule could have also been breached which is one of common sense, saying: “You don’t make the diggers’ life on the frontline harder by making stupid comments.”

In a statement to AM, the Defence Department says it was not aware of the Facebook page in question but it is now looking into it.

Defence Minister Stephen Smith says he has not seen the comments, but says ADF members need to act appropriately on social media sites.

“What they do with modern digital media runs the risk of what they think is private becoming public, and they’ve got to conduct themselves accordingly,” he said.

“They represent a uniform and represent the nation, so their comments have to be appropriate and their comments have to reflect the modern Australia, and the modern Australia is an Australia which says we are sensitive, sensible and tolerant about the different make up of Australia.

“We’ve got a well-deserved and hard-fought for reputation and we don’t want that sullied by stupid actions of a minority.”

Defence says two soldiers have been charged under the Defence Force Discipline Act and were formally reprimanded.

Disciplinary action is pending against one other soldier.

The Islamic community has welcomed the action.

Ahmed Kilani, who runs the Muslim Village website, says he is satisfied with the outcome:

“I think it sends out a strong message that we need to stamp out this type of mentality in the Defence Force or elsewhere in society,” he said.

Khaled Sukkarrieh from the New South Wales Islamic Council says he hopes other soldiers take note.

Source and Source

How Facebook hurts women

Daily Life

October 11, 2012 – 7:52AM

Ruby Hamad

__________________________________________________________________

In Damned Whores and God’s Police (1975), her historical analysis on women in Australia, Anne Summers describes the trap patriarchal society sets for young girls:

The female child has (her) sex role and an awareness of its low status impressed upon her…she is threatened with insecurity and feeling of worthlessness unless she submits to it. But she is immediately caught within a contradiction…conformity to it means accepting a low status which (itself) engenders feelings of worthlessness.

Summers was referring to the predicament female children face when they first become of aware of parental expectations regarding gender roles. But fast forward forty odd years, and, whilst things have undoubtedly improved for western women, when it comes to female sexuality at least, this fundamental contradiction that both demands and punishes conformity remains entrenched.

The latest woman-hating page to take Facebook by storm, 12-year-old slut memes, demonstrates how women and girls are still expected to exhibit certain sex-role behaviours, only to be excoriated for conforming to them.

“As long as there are sluts, we will put them in their place” the page, which has over 215,000 ‘likes’, proudly boasts. Other writers have already discussed how Facebook’s refusal to remove the page demonstrates its cavalier attitude towards misogyny. Whereas blogging website Tumblr deleted a blog by the same name (the blog has since reappeared and at the time of writing has yet to be removed), the best Facebook was willing to do was add the caveat ‘[Controversial Humor]’ to the page’s title.

Not surprising for a site that removes images of women breastfeeding but thinks Wiping makeup off your shoe after a long day of kicking sluts in the face (87k likes) is merely‘[Humor]’ , and, Kicking a slut in the vagina and losing your shoe (11k likes) is acceptable as long as it is labelled ‘[Satire]’.

But this isn’t just about Facebook. It’s about society’s willingness to make excuses for hatred of women as long as we can pretend it’s just a [Harmless Joke].

Moreover, it shows just how our supposedly ‘enlightened’ younger generations are absorbing society’s dim views on female sexuality.

12 year old sluts memes is run by two Australian university students, James Silverwood and Dominic Terry, who claim to have created the page because they ‘hate to see young girls embarrass themselves.’ So aghast are they at the ‘sexualisation of minors’, that they feel the best course of action is to humiliate girls by reproducing images posted on private profiles to a wider audience, complete with captions such as ‘Your boobs stay in your f***ing shirts, you whores!’

At 19 years of age, Silverwood and Terry must be aware of the extent to which girls are influenced by pop culture. Everywhere they look, girls see women’s bodies objectified and sexualised with, as Ariel Levy wrote in Female Chauvinist Pigs, the emphasis not on female sexual pleasure but on making women’s bodies attractive to men.

Even as a girl’s virginity is hailed as a ‘precious gift’, young women learn that being ‘hot’ is pretty much how women’s existence is justified. Female bodies are commodified to sell everything from beer to animal rights to men’s deodorant. Porn stars are mainstream celebrities, every reality star worth her salt has a sex tape on her CV, and mainstream magazines reward their ‘Woman of the Year’ with a naked cover shoot even as her male counterparts remain fully clothed.

As Melbourne University cultural studies professor Michelle Smith said last week in a talk at the Wheeler Centre, “there is not a sphere of life where being sexy is not the ultimate achievement of a woman.”

It is unsurprising that young girls will act on these signals. However, unlike celebrities, ordinary women are not insulated by fame and money from the double standard that simultaneously fetishises female sexuality and condemns women for playing along.

Girls who succumb to the expectation that they make themselves conventionally sexually attractive to the male gaze face the inevitable ‘slut’ backlash. Meanwhile, other girls who don’t conform to the sexual ideal can only gain status by distancing themselves from the ‘sluts’. Divide and conquer.

While (almost) no-one seriously still expects women to stay virgins until their wedding day, women nonetheless tread a fine line between how much sexual activity is acceptable and how much is just plain slovenly.

Slut-shamers try to justify their actions by claiming they don’t hate all women, just the slutty ones. But what exactly makes a woman a ‘slut’? Five sexual partners? Two? Twenty? Can a 12-year-old girl be a slut if she’s never even had sex? There is no real definition because, in reality, there is no such thing as a ‘slut.’ It is simply an arbitrary insult aimed not only at ‘sluts’ themselves, but all women, who are meant to quiver in fear that it may be used against them if they fail to navigate conflicting expectations of how women should dress and behave.

And that’s the whole point. By masking all-out misogyny as [Humorous Disapproval] of just some women, patriarchy gets to perpetuate itself into infinity. 12-year-old slut memes reflects society’s attitudes to women because rather than criticise the culture that encourages girls to objectify themselves, it attacks the girls themselves. “We continue”, warns Michelle Smith, “to insist on girls remaining sexually innocent, through criticism of girls who wear revealing clothing and the shaming of teen mothers and sexually active girls”.

Young women are routinely humiliated for the unforgivable sin of submitting to the sex role behaviour that is imposed on them at a young age. But here’s the contradiction; girls who buy into the sexual-objectification-equals-empowerment trope are duly ridiculed, but those who aren’t ‘hot’ enough to be objectified are treated with utter contempt also.

In a culture that glorifies both virginity and ‘hotness’ young women simply cannot win. And that’s [No Joke].

Source

Huffington Post: The 12-Year-Old Slut Meme and Facebook’s Misogyny Problem

Hey, Facebook:

      • Millions of girls and women are murdered in “domestic violence” situations
      • Millions are sold, scarred, tortured, sexually abused and more

For being born female on a planet that tolerates unconscionable levels of violence against half of the humans that live on it.

So? What does this have to do with Facebook? Turns out a whole lot, because there is no being neutral in this situation. You either help change it or you actively tolerate it and encourage the perpetrators of violence by doing so.

Earlier this week I wrote about how the use of photography (especially without the subject’s consent) intensifies harassment, abuse and violence against women. Quicker than I could type “Feministe” this Change.org petition appeared in my inbox: “Please sign to remove 12 Year Old Slut Memes from Facebook.” One of the offending page’s profile photos is of a pink-lipped and pouty child (she looks a lot younger than 12) wearing a tank top that reads “I love COCK.” Now, anyone can create a page in Facebook (published at Facebook’s discretion) and this page doesn’t openly advocate violence against 12-year-old sluts. It is, however, the virtual equivalent of street harassment and, as such, demonstrates the way the photography serves to exponentially magnify the effects of subtle and real violence along a broad spectrum.

The page, which posts photographs of girls and women so that others can comment on their sluttiness, has more than 200,000 likes. Based on the comments, the photos appear to be in use without the consent or even knowledge of the girls and women featured. The owners of the page, 19-year-olds “Dom & James,” not sluts themselves according to their profile, are upset because their Tumblr of the same name was deleted and also because Facebook added the following qualification to their page: “[Controversial Humor].” That changes everything. The dynamic duo are so dismayed by the petition, and by people threatening to sue them, that they have started their own petition: “Please sign to tell people who complain about “12 year old slut memes” to shut the f**k up.”

The man who started the petition to have the page taken down thinks that it encourages violence against minors and is a violation of Facebook’s own guidelines regarding hate speech. Facebook says nothing and, indeed, as Anna North points out in Buzzfeed today, despite the fact that the page seems to fit the description of cyberbullying and endangering minors outlined in Facebook’s terms, Facebook will not remove it. The two owners of the page defend it this way: “You put something on Facebook, you no longer own it. Sometimes it pays to read the fine print. In short, shut your f**king mouth and accept you’re the one that put up that slutty photo, regret and forget, you f**king moron.” They have a point about the small print and, indeed, now that they have put up the “slutty” photos themselves, might want to consider the terms of their own indictment. As with rape joke pages, there is not shortage of support for this page. It’s funny. Really. As one woman put it in a common refrain on the page, “Wow nobody these days can take laughs.”

This is pretty much Facebook’s attitude and why it deals with this page and assorted others by adding [Humor] to titles. As a result, according to Facebook’s interpretation and adherence to its own policies, they will not take down Boobs, Breasts and Boys who love them, unless the boys are babies since they do take down photos of breastfeeding mothers. They will not take down [Controversial Humor] rape pages, but they will remove a photograph of a woman crossing the street in New York City because she is topless (legal in New York, but not the sovereign state of Facebook). Obscene being defined by Facebook as a breast not in service to a man. Maybe it’s not a breast problem at all, but a nipple issue. Maybe Facebook lawyers are scared or put off by nipples. This isn’t offensive. At best it is sloppy and stupid and incoherent and, at worst, overtly sexist and misogynistic.

And, yes, I know, I know, the 12-year old slut meme page does not openly suggest, say, hitting a pre-teen girl who makes the mistake of posting a photo that lends itself to Dom and James’ critical insights, nor does it make jokes about raping children or women. Other Facebook pages, with fans ranging from the tens to the hundreds of thousand, however, do. For example, “[Satire] Kicking a slut in the vagina and losing your foot inside” is still up and does not specify age of slut to kick and, as Cath Elliot pointed out in the Guardian last year, if “[Humor] Roses are red, violets are blue… I’ve got a knife, get in the van (and multiple variations thereof), is not “hateful, threatening or gratuitously violent, I don’t for the life of me know what is.” “Roses are red” is not controversial however, it’s just plain [Humor], like these side-splittingly clever pages and communities: “Seeing a Pregnant Woman and Wanting to Punch Her In the Face” (47K); I just want to get drunk and punch the slut in the face; or, accompanied by a photo of a woman down on her knees, hair gripped in a man’s hand…”got a sec you slut, Hit the deck you mut (sic)” (Note: this group appears to have been removed since the initial research for this post). “I’d Punch You if You Were a Woman” (“This is a Page fully dedicated to beating woman unmercifully! Haha kidding of course.”) Then there’s You are a Slut Get Hit by a Car and last but not least, in the less than 5 minute survey that I just undertook using search terms like “woman,” “hit,” “slut,” and “punch,” is the whole “Shut the F**k Up and Make Me a Sandwich” meme — punctuated occasionally by hilarious photos of women bleeding and with blackened eyes and bruises. The terms “babe” and “bitch” additions are optional for the search.

Facebook’s small print also prohibits the use or posting of content that is “threatening” or “hateful” or that “incites violence.” That’s what the terms say. Really. This stuff is [Humor], [Controversial Humor] and [Satire].

Just about now someone is jumping up and down taking the self-righteous, insulting and entirely disingenuous route of claiming this is a high-falutin’ “First Amendment” (gasp!) issue. Dom and James can put up anything they want and people can like any page they like. That goes without saying. But, that actually doesn’t mean Facebook has to tolerate it. Clearly Facebook censors content all the time. Violent content. Racist content. Homophobic content. Anti-insert-your-religion-here content. They have leeway in their interpretation of “violent,” “threatening” and “hate.”

This is now small things turn into bigger things: I think a reasonable person might find “I kill bitches” with its side-splittingly funny gun pointing at your face photo and the “I love killing fucking bitches” comment thread exceeds being offensive. I mean if the same gun were in place and the entire page and thread said, say, “I kill n*****s,” I don’t think we’d be having this conversation. Just replace the gender slurs in the examples above with a racial, ethnic or religious alternative and see how long THAT lasts in Facebook. There is NO SHORTAGE of racists, anti-semites, Islamophobes, homophobes and more out there who, I’ve got to believe, know how to use the internet and have Facebook accounts. I’m sure they would love to populate Facebook pages with threatening, inciting content. I tried searching. Whereas “punch a woman” yields lots of communities and pages, alternatives just don’t come up. Give it a whirl. I imagine, Occam’s Razor and all that, that those pages are not up because Facebook censors them and not because violent haters of difference have been miraculously purged from the planet. For example, as Angie Becker Stevens pointed out last fall in Ms. Magazine, Facebook removes anti-semitic pages.

There are real and serious issues to be resolved regarding content, the Internet, free speech and sovereignty, but by its own behavior Facebook is demonstrating how this situation is not among them. There are clearly topics and content that Facebook does not condone. And, Dom and James seem perfectly capable of insulting their critics in other ways if they have to. It’s a small price to pay for making a statement against the denigration of girls and women in ways that are tied to the trivialization of both actual and virtual violence.

Why is it so hard to imagine a world in which girls and women are not daily subjected to the use of hate-filled violence against us as entertainment? Endorsed more than tacitly by a major cultural force like Facebook?

It is arguable that misogyny is in Facebook’s DNA and integral to its culture. In defending his woman-denigrating representation of Mark Zuckerberg’s alcohol-fueled creation of Facemash, the precursor to Facebook, Aaron Sorkin wrote that “that was the very specific world I was writing about…Facebook was born during a night of incredibly misogyny… comparing women to farm animals, and then to each other, based on their looks and then publicly ranking them.” Even aside from the subjective nature of what people find funny and the erroneous use of the word “Satire” it is hard for me to ignore this origin story when considering Facebook’s gender selective interpretations of what constitutes “threatening,” “violent” and “hate speech,” in its content censorship choices.

What the interpreters of terms at Facebook have yet to realize is that these pages are not just “offensive” to some people. Of course they are offensive to some people and that is just fine. But, they are genuinely “threatening,” “hateful,” and appear to “incite violence.” They represent Facebook’s choices about what the company thinks is okay culturally. This isn’t hard to understand. Facebook doesn’t have a word problem. Or a terms problem. Or a censorship problem. It has a sexism problem. It has a puerile male norm problem, apparently well-informed by lad-mags. It has a problem with defining words like “violent” and “hate crimes” and construing how words like “punch” “die, bitch, die” “slap” “bitch” “slut” and more might not be considered “threatening” and “inciting.”

And, this isn’t a matter of men versus women, there are plenty of women who think pages like the ones above are hilarious and just as many men who understand why they are not and the real harm that they pose. That’s why, as with rape jokes, the problem is not that these pages exist, it’s that so many people find the idea of violence against women so entertaining and that the people running Facebook flaunt such an openly sexist and misogynistic interpretation of their policies.

This situation is more than [Controversial] and it’s really #NotFunnyFacebook. Facebook is on the wrong side of a divide it might want to reconsider. Facebook has the opportunity to do something good, particularly on the eve of Domestic Abuse Awareness Month. Despite the open support for pages like “12-Year Old Slut Memes” of men and women who don’t even realize the depth and meaning of this problem, it ultimately won’t pay for Facebook to stand against the tide of #onebillionrising. Facebook should seize the moment and actually take a stand against violence against girls and women. It’s a do the right thing and get with the program issue.

If you agree consider sharing Eve Ensler’s One Billion Rising video as widely as you can.

 

Source

 
Elsewhere
 
James Silverwood unapologetic about creating 12 year old sluts Facebook page

James Silverwood and Dominic Terry Unapologetic About Creating ’12 Year Old Sluts’ Facebook Page

If you’re on Twitter, retweet this ASAP.

“…our names are Dom & James. We are not 12 year old sluts. Your complaints will be answered with insults.”

Theantibogan admin refuse to take screenshots of this Facebook page. The admins of the ’12 Year Old Sluts’ page are more than happy to publish photos of 12 year old girls and boys with meme-style captions attached that denigrate and ridicule. Let’s not forget that these are minors that we’re talking about, and as you can see from the screenshot above, the page has over 214,000 followers.

That is fucking disgraceful.

Here’s some more of James Silverwood:

Perhaps you might like to contact James so you can lodge some complaints over his choice of ‘humour’, and so that he can ‘insult you’. https://www.facebook.com/SILVERJIM

Late mail:

Dominic Terry has been identified as the other admin on the ’12 Year Old Sluts’ page. How ironic it is that he says the page was created to inform parents of the world how screwed up their children are. How proud his parents must be of him…

https://www.facebook.com/dom.terry

Fear and Loathing in Adelaide

Ah Radelaide

So pretty one day

So bogan the next

Or so bogan pretty much all the time??…

The scene – Today Tonight Adelaide Facebook page

TTAdelaide

Specifically this thread

It starts with Mumma Paula going off about a simulation conducted at the local TAFE as part of her daughter’s Business Admin course.

The simulation in question was a mock Board meeting where students assumed certain roles and planned a project. In the case of this particular TAFE class, the project was to be a fund-raiser for refugee causes.

However xenophobe Paula did not approve of said topic.

Paula Eime

A procession of moans then followed from Paula’s fellow xenophobes, including the usual bleats about “teh_homeless” and “teh_aborigines”. Only one missing in this instance was “teh_pensioners” AKA “our elderly” – you know, the ones the xenophobes usually stick in nursing homes?

Truth is, racists and bigots could not give a stuff about disadvantaged Australians, but oh boy, they are handy to trot out when they want to justify turning their backs on refugees and asylum seekers.

Lulu TTAdelaide

And note the arrival of Lulu Gray, like Valkyrie descending. We doubt if Lulu even knows where Adelaide is but that doesn’t stop her.

And you might like to note that Lulu has already had a discussion about this matter over at a Muslim-hating site with her little coven of haters

Lulu Gray

Richards Burn

Burn

We are not sure either what Lyn means by “got out of hand”. It’s a simulation Lyn, probably as part of an assessment task. If a student does not participate in a VET (Vocational Education and Training) assessment for some reason then they have the opportunity to do the same task again or an alternative task  – though we very much doubt if xenophobia is a valid or acceptable excuse.

That is the case whether the student is either a full-time TAFE student or a school student doing a VET course as part of their senior school studies. Same rules for both.

Darko
Now we hear from Mumma’s daughter herself.

Hannah2

Well Hannah you have lost our respect. Not only that, if we were you we would be concerned about our spelling and grammar skills. No employer is going to hire an admin assistant who is (to put it kindly) deficient in both.

And that is not even touching the issue of employing people who make racist comments on social media and their suitability as employees in a modern workplace.

Perhaps Today Tonight’s next story should be on the dark underbelly of racism and bigotry in their fair city.

Fail: Josh’s ‘Benders’ page backfires

August 1, 2012

Elise Snashall-Woodhams

‘Just curious’ … Josh Turner outside court. Photo: Bendigo Advertiser

The creator of a Facebook page set up to rate the sexual performance of the residents of Bendigo that featured sexually degrading comments about people as young as 13 has been sentenced to a suspended jail term.

Josh Turner, 25, from the Bendigo suburb of Kangaroo Flat, was also banned from the social networking site for two years after he pleaded guilty in the Bendigo Magistrates Court yesterday to charges of using a carriage service to offend and using an online information service to publish objectionable material.

The community have been absolutely outraged by this. She is a young girl, still in school… her name has been trashed.

Prosecutor Senior Constable Mark Herman said Turner set up the “Benders root rate” page on Facebook in June last year. ‘Benders’ is a local slang term for Bendigo.

“He has invited people to join the group and make comments rating their past sexual partners,” he said.
Advertisement

“He posted them on the wall of the “root rate” feed. The page was not blocked and anyone could view it.”

Senior Constable Herman said a woman complained to police on June 2 about being named and sexually degraded on the site.

He said the woman was one of hundreds of people – some as young as 13 and 14 – who had sexually explicit things written about them on the site.

Senior Constable Herman said Turner was arrested on September 18 and made full admissions to helping create and administer the site.

“He said he had not read any of the messages before posting them on to the wall because there were too many,” he said.

Turner told police he created the page “out of boredom” and because there was “nothing to do”.

Informant Senior Constable Cameron Dean said his investigation into the page had unearthed half a dozen similar sites and a “massive” number of victims.

But Senior Constable Dean said only one girl – herself still under 18 – was prepared to take her complaint to court.

Turner’s lawyer Alex McLennan tried to argue that might have been because none of the others were offended by the site, but Senior Constable Dean dismissed that excuse.

“I’m assuming they were a little embarrassed by it. They didn’t want to go to court, especially with everything that had been in the media,” he said.

Senior Constable Dean said it had been hard to investigate the crime because Facebook was based in the United States.

He said police tracked down the accused through a story published in the Bendigo Advertiser.

Turner confessed to a Bendigo Advertiser journalist that he set up the page and issued an apology through the paper.

Senior Constable Dean said it was this admission that led to Turner’s arrest in September.

Mr McLennan said Turner’s creation of “Benders root rate” was a decision made by a young man using poor judgment.

But he argued that Turner’s culpability was diminished because he didn’t write the offending comments.

“He created the page out of curiosity. He had heard of them in other towns but noticed there wasn’t one in Bendigo,’’ Mr McLennan said.

“Within 24 hours he had 1000 comments in his inbox and 3000 friend requests. He acted recklessly in posting these up without filtering them.”

But Senior Constable Herman said the offending was at the “extreme” end of the scale.

“This victim is not only a victim on the day it occurred but is a victim for life. She will have constant reminders,” he said.

“The community have been absolutely outraged by this. A clear message needs to be sent.

“A term of imprisonment is entirely warranted.”

Magistrate Ian Von Einem said a victim impact statement had brought home to him the serious effects of the Facebook page.

“She is a young girl, still in school… her name has been trashed and she is worried it will affect future job opportunities.”

Mr Von Einem said he wanted to set an example. “But given these circumstances… and due to what I see as some naivety on your behalf, I am prepared to suspended this sentence.”

On top of the six-month suspended sentence, Mr Von Einem placed Turner on a community corrections order for 15 months, including 150 hours of community work and a sex offender assessment.

Source

Read more:

Facebook sex page creator rapped by Bendigo court