Facebook asks users: Should we allow men to ask children for sexual images?

“Facebook has admitted it was a ‘mistake’ to ask users whether pedophiles requesting sexual pictures from children should be allowed on its website,” Alex Hern reports for The Guardian. “On Sunday, the social network ran a survey for some users asking how they thought the company should handle grooming behavior. ‘There are a wide range of topics and behaviours that appear on Facebook,’ one question began. ‘In thinking about an ideal world where you could set Facebook’s policies, how would you handle the following: a private message in which an adult man asks a 14-year-old girl for sexual pictures.'”

“The options available to respondents ranged from ‘this content should not be allowed on Facebook, and no one should be able to see it’ to ‘this content should be allowed on Facebook, and I would not mind seeing it,'” Hern reports. “A second question asked who should decide the rules around whether or not the adult man should be allowed to ask for such pictures on Facebook. Options available included ‘Facebook users decide the rules by voting and tell Facebook’ and ‘Facebook decides the rules on its own.’ In neither survey question did Facebook allow users to indicate that law enforcement or child protection should be involved in the situation: the strictest option allowed involved turning to the social network as arbiter.”

Hern reports, “Yvette Cooper MP, chair of the Home Affairs Select Committee, condemned the survey. ‘This is a stupid and irresponsible survey,’ she said. ‘Adult men asking 14-year-olds to send sexual images is not only against the law, it is completely wrong and an appalling abuse and exploitation of children. I cannot imagine that Facebook executives ever want it on their platform but they also should not send out surveys that suggest they might tolerate it or suggest to Facebook users that this might ever be acceptable.'”

Read more in the full article here.

MacDailyNews Take: WTF? If you thought Facebook couldn’t get any worse, here ya go!

We haven’t had personal FaceBook accounts for many years now. And happily so.MacDailyNews, May 11, 2017

Beyond the privacy aspect, Facebook is Creepster Central. It’s a Narcissists’ Paradise. In general, yuck. — MacDailyNews, March 27, 2015

SEE ALSO:
Study: Facebook is for old people – February 12, 2018
Mark Zuckerberg is fighting to save Facebook; announces major change to News Feed – January 12, 2018
Facebook developing ‘Portal’ gadget which will let it put microphones and cameras in people’s homes – January 11, 2018
Facebook is giving the US government more and more data – December 21, 2017
Former Facebook exec: Facebook is ‘destroying how society works’ – December 11, 2017
In bid to curtail ‘revenge porn,’ Facebook wants you to send your own nude images via Messenger – November 8, 2017
Apple CEO Tim Cook: Russian Facebook ads didn’t elect President Trump – November 2, 2017
Young people are leaving Facebook – August 22, 2017
If you haven’t already, it’s time to remove Facebook from your life – May 11, 2017
How to delete your online existence, while saving your data – March 1, 2017
Free ‘Data Selfie’ tool reveals how creepy Facebook tracks and studies your activity – February 17, 2017
Facebook begins tracking non-users around the internet – May 27, 2016
Former Facebook workers: We routinely suppressed conservative news – May 9, 2016
FCC won’t force Google and Facebook to stop tracking you – November 6, 2015
European Commission: Don’t use Facebook if you don’t want to be spied on – March 27, 2015
Edward Snowden’s privacy tips: ‘Get rid of Dropbox,” avoid Facebook and Google – October 13, 2014
Tim Berners-Lee: You should own your personal data, not Google, Facebook, Amazon, and advertisers – October 8, 2014
Facebook conducts massive psychology experiment on 700,000 unaware users, and you may have been a guinea pig – June 28, 2014
Why Apple really values your privacy – unlike Google, Facebook, or Amazon – June 25, 2014
U.S. NSA used Facebook to hack into computers – March 12, 2014
How to permanently delete your Facebook account – December 16, 2013
Study finds link between number of Facebook friends and ‘socially disruptive’ narcissism – April 10, 2012

[Thanks to MacDailyNews Reader “TJ” for the heads up.]

33 Comments

          1. Ah, yes! handsomesmitty was clearly painting a contrast between Liberals and predominantly Atheist Conservative element that he probably belongs to. /s

            But seriously, remove “christian” from his statement and it remains valid.

  1. Is this article suggesting there is something wrong with pedophilia? I thought we all now respected LGBTQP. Pedophilia is just a choice and choice is always good right?

    1. Kent,

      We all figured out some time ago that you don’t understand the difference between sexual exploitation and consent between competent adults. If you know any responsible adults, ask them to explain it to you.

      I’m serious, not trying to be snarky. (If I were being snarky I would suggest that you talk it over with your mother, your sister, and your wife. I’m sure the two of you could work it out between you. I am NOT saying that because I don’t want to descend to your level.)

      Raging hatred for sexual (and other) minorities is not an attractive trait. The inability to distinguish between voluntary and coerced behavior is not just unattractive, but dangerous.

      1. Well, what is there that is magical about “adulthood”? We have teachers in public schools teaching young children it is OK to do whatever they want – boys can become girls, boys can have sex with boys, girls can have sex with whatever. This is actually being taught to young children, who, in some cases listen to their adult teachers and decide to become a different sex. There is no discussion of “age of consent”. I have to assume you are either mentally retarded or you live in another country. In America today, anyone can do anything with no judgement. Except, be a Christian. Then the world will rain hate down on you.

        1. Kent, I think it should be very clear that there is nothing particularly “magical” about adulthood, but rather an increasing body of scientific evidence that shows the human brain continues to mature beyond even the age of 18.

          A child being groomed for sexual exploitation is in NO WAY equivalent to the promotion of a sexually tolerant society.

          As a teacher myself, I can guarantee you that the vast majority of teachers do not actively seek out these topics, but young children do ask about things they see on TV, or what they hear adults discussing. Most teachers will choose to discuss it in a very neutral way – acknowledging that other lifestyles exist and offering no opinion on them other than acceptance.

          I personally doubt that you are able to speak to any specific example that is sanctioned by both the school and the district in which a teacher has done more than that.

          As to being a persecuted Christian in America: the public school I teach at in rural Canada still says the Lords Prayer over the announcements every morning right after the Anthem, so I dare say that there are probably places you might feel comfortable in your own nation.

          1. I thank you for your input, most of which I agree with. Kids should not be targeted or “groomed” for sexual exploitation by FaceBook. My point is that, in America, high school and middle school curriculums routinely “groom” kids for sexual deviancy. All you have to do is search the internet for stories about “gay clubs” and you will find countless stories about school sanctioned clubs in which sex is glorified and advocated to minors, with administration participation through the advisors. What is the point of “gay clubs” if not to promote “gay sex”? This is not a hidden thing, it is a trend that is increasing. And it is moving into middle schools. Sex advocacy is common. And it is now achieving the result of producing middle school age boys demanding the right to enter the girls locker rooms and get naked with the girls. This is now becoming a “right” in America. And amazingly nobody is loudly protecting the right of the under age girls to dress free of the presence of underage boys.

            There is massive sex advocacy in the school curriculums and behaviors. Most teachers don’t participate. But some definitely do and others do not shout down and show intolerance to those who do. Those teachers who do should be treated with the same intolerance as is being shown here to FaceBook, which intolerance I actually applaud.

            1. Sorry Kent, but I think you dove off a cliff into a rock pile. I cannot imagine your ‘middle school curriculums routinely “groom” kids for sexual deviancy’ scenario to be anything but paranoia, if not mere text characters written on a propaganda talking points sheet.

              If this was true, I’d heartily join in stopping it. There are some questionable opinions regarding children and transsexualism that concern me. But ‘promotion’ of deviancy in schools? I think you’re really upset about schools providing support for those children who express what you call deviancy.

              As for teaching about sex in the classroom to children in puberty, I entirely support it, including the teaching of safe sex methods. This is critical in this day and age as like-it-or-not, kids are going to have sex. Ignorance of sex leads directly to transmission of venereal diseases and unwanted pregnancies, accompanied often by abortions. If kids have the eggs and sperm to make babies, they HAVE to know how to make sane choices regarding their bodies. That’s not going to change, head in the sand or not.

            2. To Derek Currie – so you are all in favor of schools advising children on what sex is good and what is not taught by people with no expertise or moral qualifications. You are OK with teachers “grooming” stiudents with no oversight, no parent awareness of the content, and no opt out. Teachers, authority figures, are actually being given the Harvey Weinstein couch and subjects who have far less power to complain than adult women. You have proven yourself a danger to society.

            3. Kent, it would seem that we have clearly different viewpoints on the subject of homosexuality, bisexuality and transgenderism as evidenced by your use of the (loaded) term “deviancy.”

              But rather than try to convince you that these diverse sexualities are healthy and acceptable, I am going to try some arguments that will hopefully convince you that – done in the right way – some of the policies you oppose may help support your cause.

              First, pushing something under the rug or into the closet has been often shown to have a reverse effect than what was intended. For example: schools that teach “abstinence only” often have higher rates of teen pregnancy. When some of these students inevitably engage in “exploration,” they are unprepared and unable to do so in a safe manner. Less clear is whether the rates of sexual intercourse actually increase. Lesson: teaching safe sex is NOT sex advocacy.

              Discussion of the mechanics of homosexual intercourse is done from the point of safe sex, and since pregnancy is not a concern tends to come up with the discussion of STD’s.

              Second, schools often teach about relationships from the perspective of mental and emotional health. Most curricula teach that while sex can strengthen an already strong and caring relationship, (which is true, so there is no point in trying to deny it to teenagers!) it doesn’t make a bad relationship good. From the point of view of the religious establishment, this means marriage should come first.

              Third, students are taught to be aware of exploitative relationships in general, with particular caution given to internet relationships.

              Moving on, I question some of your support for “intolerance.” In today’s society there is certainly an increased number of children who attend school whose parents are openly gay. Setting aside the topic of adoption, which I imagine you are not in support of, there are numerous examples of students whose parents were in a heterosexual relationship, often marriage, before divorcing and “outing” themselves. Depending on the level of intolerance, these students can face significant harassment and bullying through no fault of their own simply because of circumstances out of their control. Advocating tolerance reduces the stigma these students face, though will likely never go away entirely. Further “gay clubs” which are more often referred to as Gay-Straight Alliances are not intended to promote gay sex, but rather as a way promote tolerance. Again, tolerance is important to schools for preventing harassment and violence, not as a “grooming area.”

              The subject of change rooms is a much more loaded issue, however. I personally feel that the concept of transgendered students entering change rooms or washrooms based on “choice” should be handled by making some effort to provide a limited number of “private” rooms that are non-gendered. Statistics show that transgendered individuals (biologically male) are far more likely to be assaulted in a mens room. Indeed, having other change room options could provide a safe place for any student being bullied, or even students who might have certain religious considerations.

              It’s getting late, and I hope some of my points have shown that many of these policies are coming from a place of consideration for the student. Some of these things get broadcast on the internet without explanation of the moderating influences that already part of the curriculum.

          2. Doug – this is in reply to your longer post below which no longer has a REPLY button. First, again thanks for a well thought out response. I think we simply have very strong differences about sexual morality. That is OK.

            I would pose this question – why does nobody consider that sexual organs be used for the purpose for which they were designed – producing children. That is THE purpose of sexual organs – to produce the next generation. Sexual organs do not exist for the purpose of producing pleasure, though that may be a side benefit which helps achieve the intended purpose of the next generation by making the activity pleasant. Bottom line – sex is designed as an activity between a man and a woman to produce an offspring. That is it. That is the science. That is the designers plan. That is the instruction in the User Manual. Now, we know people, especially Apple customers, prefer to disregard the User Manual and do trial by error. But we also know that ignoring the manufacturers stated purposes will void the warranty. So, there is that to think about.

            Again, thanks for the good exchange.

  2. …How would you handle the following: a private message in which an adult man asks a 14-year-old girl for sexual picture…

    Did a human ask this sick and stupid question? Or did a so-called ‘AI’ auto-generate this atrocity? Something or someone has zero common sense or conscience. What or whoever requires removal ASAP. Hit the road or hit the trash grinder!

    1. the question sounds like one asked frequently by the husband of Hillary Clinton’s most trusted advisor, whose computer had pictures of his sexual member in an erect state for mailing to young girls. This former candidate for Democrat Mayor of NYC also had on his computer highly classified US intelligence that Hillary had sent to her trusted aide’s husbands computer for printing, because Hillary operated an illegal private server for her Secretary of State duties.

      that is the kind of human who asks such a question.

      1. I’m glad we can at least agree that children require protection from sexual predators and those in pursuit of corrupting them.

        Meanwhile, I also have no respect for those you described in your first paragraph above. There are crazies to the left of us and crazies to the right of us. Sorting through the noise, lies, propaganda and deceit to find the good people is a sad challenge of our time. To protect our children from the crazies is of prime importance.

  3. I’m a retired teacher and find this question beyond belief. They are children and should be protected from all the deviants that want to harm them physically and emotionally. What has this society come to? The decision making frontal cortex does not develop until around age 25…in my estimation they are children until then. Anyone who agrees with this inane question should be placed on a watch list.

  4. Makes you wonder if they are going to ask the same question about women.

    Either way, seeing that sort of question arise from a company that is from Apple’s home nation is a good indication what happens when one abandons morality, and embraces torture and shows those pictures of torture to children.

    Terrorists torture, and Apple’s home nation has embraced that long enough for the first generation of their children to grow up with it. And so the long fall towards on bitch of a karma continues.

    “When children learn to devalue others, they can devalue anyone, including their parents.”
    – Captain Jean Luc Picard

  5. As far as I’m concerned no person under 18 should be allowed on Facebook without their page being monitored by a parent, who OKs every picture posted and who’s allowed to see them along with what groups can be joined and who friends are.

    Really, Facebook along with other social medias (since Facebook is actually losing its cool with kids now) are tuning kids out of actual relationships with people as well as sports and other forms of reality.

Add Your Feedback

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.