Facebook censors image of Santa kneeling before baby Jesus, calls it ‘violent content’

#1

NEWS [FAITH] (https://www.lifesitenews.com/topics/faith), FREEDOM Wed Dec 5, 2018 - 1:00 pm EST Doug Mainwaring

Facebook censors image of Santa kneeling before baby Jesus, calls it ‘violent content’

December 5, 2018 (LifeSiteNews) – Facebook has covered over a posting of a picture of Santa Claus kneeling before the Baby Jesus, warning viewers that the photo "may show violent or graphic content.”

A second warning beneath the obscured image of Santa on bended knee, reverentially adoring the Christ Child states, “This photo was automatically covered so you can decide if you want to see it.”

Users can click on a button to uncover the photo.

Facebook explains on its site what it means by “Violence and graphic content:”

“We also know that people have different sensitivities with regard to graphic and violent content. For that reason, we add a warning label to especially graphic or violent content so that it is not available to people under the age of eighteen and so that people are aware of the graphic or violent nature before they click to see it,” the social media giant states.

“We err on the side of allowing content, even when some find it objectionable,” declares Facebook’s community standards, saying it does so in order to . . .

(Just when you thought it couldn’t get any nuttier . . . this occurs.)

0 Likes

#2

Private company. I’m so glad i don’t and never will have Facebook, the biggest waste of time ever w billions addicted to it.

8 Likes

#3

Only just today,believe it or not,I had this pop-out for the first time that my post had been rejected for violating Facebook policies or rules .
I posted on two closed groups of friends inSpanish asking if they knew anyone who could take care of my puppies for four days in December. Thanks! That was it.
Well,it was rejected for appearing to be selling weapons,animals,or sth else that was illegal. So…I had the chance to send a brief explanation and will have to wait for two days for their decision.
First time ever… and not that I use Facebook much at all.
And all this because I asked among friends if anyone knew who could take care of my puppies. Very dangerous little ones indeed!:smile:

2 Likes

#4

The Facebook post of Santa honoring Jesus appears to be uncensored now. Keep calm and carry on.

7 Likes

#5

I, too, have nothing to do with Facebook, but I suspect this was an incidence of an algorithm giving a duff response rather than the censoring hand of the dreaded Zuckerberg

4 Likes

#6

I don’t use Faceplant either. I’m sure this was an algorithm fail, nothing so see here folks except an agenda driven website trying to stir up controversy for no good reason.

2 Likes

#7

The real Saint Nicholas knelt before the baby Jesus.

6 Likes

#8

It is also possible that the anti-Jesus crowd flagged the post, causing the algorithm to kick in.

Facebook as a platform has many technical annoyances. I wish I did not have to use it, and I think all my friends wish the same, but as a practical matter we don’t have a better platform to keep up with each other when we are scattered all through the US and Europe. There’s no way I can keep up with 200 people in all different time zones on the phone.

4 Likes

#9

You are referring to CAF, right?

1 Like

#10

Just what I was thinking…

0 Likes

#11

No, to Lifesite News.

People on CAF are simply too eager to take the bait.

5 Likes

#12

It amazes me how people on CAF love to bash lifesitenews when the article is carried by plenty of other websites.

3 Likes

#13

What’s wrong with lifesite news?

1 Like

#14

Lifesite is like Breitbart. A lot of what both sites write is over the top, but there is also a kernel of truth, or sometimes more than a kernel, to many of the stories.

And frankly, I feel the exact same way about the very lefty sites like Vox and HuffPo.

It’s good to read everything with a healthy dose of reasonableness and skepticism.

6 Likes

#15

Sometimes when you see things like this and wonder why a person would have thought the image was inappropriate the reason is often that a person didn’t make that conclusion. Many services rely on AI or other algorithmic solutions for automating post classification. CAF does this too; I’ve occasionally had posts that were automatically flagged for possible content violations and made invisible until a moderator reviews it and allows it to show. I don’t think this image being censored on Facebook is an example of religious persecution.

If this is from an AI classifier, then Tumblr is having a related problem. To meet Apple’s content requirements and to combat problems in which child exploitative imagery was being posted they recently started to censor post using A.I. Their A.I. solution has had some false positives lately including flagging a picture of raw chicken and another picture of Joe Biden as porn. See #TooSexyForTumblr for some other innocuous images that have gotten flagged. Tumblr admits that these are mistakes but also says they want to err on the side of caution. Though some of this caution may also be from recent laws that increase the liabilities for certain type of content getting through.

A.I. classifiers are a bit odd in that people can build them while never understanding completely how they work. Unlike conventional algorithms in which a person might have written a lot of conditional statements to control what it does many A.I. solutions are “trained.” The developer might not be able to tell someone with absolute certainty how it will treat some input without just letting it process that input. When mistakes are made the items found to be misclassified can be added to the training set, the AI can be retrained, and the new algorithm can replace the old one.

1 Like

#16

I guess Facebook had to say SOMETHING. It wouldn’t look very good for them to tell the truth and say “We don’t like religious imagery and don’t want you to see it.”

0 Likes

#17

You’d think so, wouldn’t you, although as far as I can see lifesite do not quote any response from Facebook in their story, nor do they say, as far as I can see, that they have asked Facebook to respond. Why would that be? Well, it looks like the behaviour, not of a genuine news outlet, but of a propaganda site that doesn’t want facts to get in the way of a good story. And your comment “they’d have to say something” looks like evidence of a similar outlook,

As to Facebook wanting to censor religious content, they must be very inefficient censors, because a quick look shows there’s oodles of religious stuff on Facebook.

Disclaimer: don’t think I like or support Facebook. Evidence seems to be accumulating that they are untrustworthy. But this was almost certainly not deliberate censorship.

2 Likes

#18

I find LifeSiteNews for the most part draws criticism from the left, particularly for being critical of the Pope.

1 Like

#19

Why let that get in the way of our hobby of being in a constant state of perturbed agitation that everyone is out to get us?

4 Likes

#20

Lifesite sometimes quotes Breitbart as an information source.

0 Likes

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.