Feeds

Facebook boobs over breastfeeding page... again

Leaky breasted mums have their 'obscene' accounts deleted

Intelligent flash storage arrays

Facebook had one of its nipple-related related brainstorms last week, banning, unbanning, then re-banning breastfeeding support group, The Leaky Boob.

The Leaky Boob group allows almost 11,000 mothers to share their experiences on breastfeeding – as well as providing casual visitors with a treasure trove of advice and tips. Well, it would do, if Facebook didn’t keep deleting it – as they did the previous weekend.

This provoked an angry reaction from the tens of thousands of women who use the page for information and support.

Breastfeeding supporters responded swiftly, creating two pages on Facebook, Bring Back the Leaky Boob and TLB Support, which gained the best part of 10,000 fans in just two days.

On Tuesday, according to group founder Jessica Martin-Weber, the page was back up.

On Wednesday it was gone again.

Then, later in the day, it returned and is still up today.

On both occasions, Martin-Weber claimed that she had received the same form letter explaining how the site had been deleted "for violating the terms of service".

In addition, she blogged angrily of how "Several "Leakies" .. had their accounts disabled after receiving warnings for supposed obscene photos. Just like TLB, they received the non-specific form letter via email informing them that their accounts had been deleted for violating the terms of service.

Martin-Weber said that these individuals, "along with numerous other group and business pages", have had their accounts deactivated "because someone decided that their breastfeeding photo or information was vulgar".

Judy P Masucci, president and owner of online business "A Mother’s Boutique" also had her Facebook page shut down last summer. Writing on her own site, Masucci urged readers to write to Facebook and "respectfully ask that breastfeeding support groups be treated with respect and be exempt from the 'rules' Facebook has about posting words like 'breast' or showing photos that might have a little breast exposed in them".

She adds: "These sites provide invaluable resources to moms."

Meanwhile, Martin-Weber said there was nothing on her page that would compare with the content of sites such as Facebook’s Playboy page. She adds: "The first media coverage I could find on this problem dates back to 2007. You would think Facebook would get tired of this and make some necessary changes. Four years is long enough: fix it."

By way of response, Facebook issued a statement which read: "Our reviewers look at tens of thousands of pieces of content a day that are reported to them and take action according to our policies, which are designed to ensure Facebook remains a safe and trusted environment for everyone, including the many children (under the age of 13)* who use the service.

"Of course, we make an occasional mistake. This is an example. When this happens, and it’s brought to our attention, we work quickly to resolve the issue. In this case, we restored the page and reactivated the accounts of the people who were impacted. We sincerely apologize for any inconvenience this mistake caused."

Previous mistakes of this sort have led to Facebook being condemned in influential newspapers such as the Guardian and New York Times – and the NYT were quick to pick this story up again.

It seems that Facebook reviewers have no system in place warning each other not to "re-delete" groups which have already been deleted and "undeleted". The commercial threat is clear: it cannot be good for their business model if the social network is disorganised and arbitrary in its appraisal of what is obscene and what is not. And cracking down on nursing mothers is hardly good PR for the site... ®

Boobnote

Oh dear: a small typo over at the Facebook press office almost gave us our first highly embarrassing social networking scoop of 2011. However, it would appear that when Facebook refer to the “many children (under the age of 13)” who use their service, they actually meant “OVER the age of 13”. Glad to put that right.

Internet Security Threat Report 2014

More from The Register

next story
The 'fun-nification' of computer education – good idea?
Compulsory code schools, luvvies love it, but what about Maths and Physics?
Facebook, Apple: LADIES! Why not FREEZE your EGGS? It's on the company!
No biological clockwatching when you work in Silicon Valley
Lords take revenge on REVENGE PORN publishers
Jilted Johns and Jennies with busy fingers face two years inside
Happiness economics is bollocks. Oh, UK.gov just adopted it? Er ...
Opportunity doesn't knock; it costs us instead
Ex-US Navy fighter pilot MIT prof: Drones beat humans - I should know
'Missy' Cummings on UAVs, smartcars and dying from boredom
Yes, yes, Steve Jobs. Look what I'VE done for you lately – Tim Cook
New iPhone biz baron points to Apple's (his) greatest successes
Sysadmin with EBOLA? Gartner's issued advice to debug your biz
Start hoarding cleaning supplies, analyst firm says, and assume your team will scatter
Edward who? GCHQ boss dodges Snowden topic during last speech
UK spies would rather 'walk' than do 'mass surveillance'
prev story

Whitepapers

Forging a new future with identity relationship management
Learn about ForgeRock's next generation IRM platform and how it is designed to empower CEOS's and enterprises to engage with consumers.
Why and how to choose the right cloud vendor
The benefits of cloud-based storage in your processes. Eliminate onsite, disk-based backup and archiving in favor of cloud-based data protection.
Three 1TB solid state scorchers up for grabs
Big SSDs can be expensive but think big and think free because you could be the lucky winner of one of three 1TB Samsung SSD 840 EVO drives that we’re giving away worth over £300 apiece.
Reg Reader Research: SaaS based Email and Office Productivity Tools
Read this Reg reader report which provides advice and guidance for SMBs towards the use of SaaS based email and Office productivity tools.
Security for virtualized datacentres
Legacy security solutions are inefficient due to the architectural differences between physical and virtual environments.