NUDITY FACEBOOK wethenipple protest over double standards

FOLLOW-UP RESOURCES: 

2020 MARCH: LIZZO ATTACKS TIKTOK FOR RACIST, BODY SHAMING CENSORSHIP (Guardian)

2020 OCTOBER INSTA ACCUSED OF CENSORING ONLY PLUS-SIZED WOMEN'S BODIES (Guardian)

While IPSO has an Editor's Code (though it had nothing to say about Page 3 & it's discrimination clause certainly doesn't impact sexist coverage) the web is a largely unregulated media (the so-called wild wild web).

Facebook, like Google (especially YouTube) and others to a lesser degree, is under fire from governments and pressure groups for its undermining of democracy and general lack of openness. Unlike the BBFC and IPSO these FAANGS giants (& smaller co's) keep their algorithms and rule books as closely guarded secrets, their information firewall occasionally breached by whistleblowers or research.

STORY: Guardian, JUNE 2019: Naked protesters condemn nipple censorship at Facebook headquarters.

The different treatment given to the male and female nipple is one case where the social media giants' policies are known. All are censorious of the female nipple, operating a stark double standard with the male nipple, though the effectiveness of this varies - Instagram and Facebook run algorithms to remove such images (including many cases, controversially, of breast feeding), while the likes of YouTube run ineffective age 'blocks'.

This has sparked multiple campaigns I've blogged on before, notably freethenipple. #wethenipple is another, enacting a smartly designed naked protest outside Facebook US offices - covering their nakedness with cutouts of male nipples.

The issue, as I've pointed out before, is complex. The gender binary is well established in law - women can be prosecuted for 'indecent exposure' for baring their nipples, men can't. Media coverage continues to normativize the sexualisation of the female nipple.

Such law (and media policies) is oblivious to the contemporary undermining of the gender binary through increasing visibility and prominence of queered identities, leading to an increase in gender-free toilets. Butler would approve - while some US states have passed laws (sparking cultural boycotts) banning trans people from using bathrooms of their asserted gender.

What isn't so ambiguous is the problematic nature of giants like Facebook, increasingly influential in shaping opinion and cultural views, having secretive unregulated rules on what they deem acceptable or unacceptable.

As weak, largely ineffective and lamentably limited (ownership? lack of pluralism?) as the Editor's Code is, it is at least transparent, with decisions explained (though no ruling is made if mediated) on their website, as are the BBFC's (in their case backed by regular research into public attitudes on swearing etc).

What isn't

NETFLIX to set BBFC ratings

Netflix to set its own age ratings for film and television programmes. 

Film regulation just got more complicated ...

The BBFC has loosened its monopoly on film ratings, allowing Netflix to set its own age ratings (using the BBFC categories and logos), stating that the scale of Netflix content and additions is too much for the organisation's workforce to cope with. They'll do a monthly sample to check Netflix ratings meet and are consistent with BBFC standards.

There are powerful arguments for and against this:

+ its an overdue response from the BBFC to the explosion of streamed content not tied to traditional TV companies/stations/broadcasters+ checks are in place to ensure ratings are consistent with existing standards+/- its an extension of free-market ideology, favoured by right-wingers (usually opposed to state control; the public sector)- its an extension of censorship (if you accept arguments that age ratings = censorship)- will Netflix really be as accountable as the BBFC, who publish details (parental guide) with every age rating decision?

Netflix has been given the power to set its own official age ratings for its films and television programmes, in a move that could spell the end for the traditional role of the British film censor. 

Under a first-of-its-kind deal announced on Thursday, the British Board of Film Classification will allow the US streaming giant to rate its own material and then use the official British age rating symbols on all of its content. 

“Because of the sheer amount of material that’s out there it’s not logistically viable for the BBFC to view everything in the traditional way,” said Craig Lapper, the BBFC’s head of compliance. “We’re going to permit them to produce BBFC ratings by applying our guidelines and standards to their content.” 

At the moment only films or DVDs which have been watched and assessed by an in-house BBFC employee can carry the recognisable U, PG, 12, 15 or 18 logos.Under the new system Netflix will essentially be allowed to mark its own homework. The BBFC will carry out a monthly audit on a selection of programmes to make sure the streaming service is meeting its side of the bargain. During the year-long pilot Netflix will use an algorithm to rank its own content in line with BBFC guidelines, based on its existing human-created database of programme content.

SOCIAL MEDIA FAANGS 2019

Rather than posting multiple blogs, I'll gather new events/points in this hub post. The clear theme is an EU-led backlash against the wild west non-regulation of the web giants (FAANGS: Facebook, Amazon, Apple, Netflix, Google, Spotify), though US lawmakers won't necessarily be fooled by the millions being spent by FAANGS lobbyists to convince them this is a conspiracy against US business by a jealous EU which failed to produce companies/apps that appeal globally.

SOME FAQS/THEMES

Will there be statutory regulation?
Yes, its already happening: GDPR; Germany will enforce $20m fines if hate speech isn't removed within 24 hours, and it + France are leading the way on taxing the tax-dodging giants. Apple has already been forced by the EU to pay the Irish government €13bn in back-tax.

Will the FAANGS conglomerates be forced to break-up into smaller companies?
Probably, but the timescale is uncertain. EU pressure will be a factor, but it will be US regulators/politicians who ultimately decide if, like the film industry back in 1948 (Hollywood giants were forced to sell off their cinema holdings), they legally form monopolies and therefore competition + consumer protection law insists they must become smaller. The FAANGS are spending $millions to persuade US lawmakers that the EU are trying to undermine USA dominance, and that any attack on them is bad for the USA.

However, with deregulation being the long-term trend ever since Reagan back in 1980 (same for the UK from 1979 when Thatcher was elected, two very right-wing, 'free market' politicians), the film industry may actually see its anti-trust laws scrapped in 2019! Right-wing governments (eg Trump/Republicans, May/Tories) are reluctant to regulate the 'free market'.

The right-wing press may also be very free market, but they do frequently campaign for tighter regulation of other media (just not the press), which will add pressure to right-wing politicians to act.


Are children (+ how they are monetised) a factor?
Absolutely!!!
Protection of children, arguably even more than protection of democracy, is a (the?) key driver behind media regulation. The age rating system (film, games), TV watershed, multiple clauses in the press industry's Editors' Code, much of the ASA's policymaking, all are dominated or even defined by protection of children. The ASA's ruling that apps must not contain gambling if they're accessible to kids is just the start of what promises to be a tough EU-led fightback against the non-regulated, wild west approach of the 'digital gangsters' of new media.

Phone hacking was a scandal to Guardian readers until the Milly Dowler case broke, and within weeks the highest-selling Sunday paper was closed and a multi-year formal commission (Leveson) was set up to investigate newspaper malpractice, while the self-regulator, PCC, scrapped itself and announced IPSO would replace it.

Expect Facebook and Google/YouTube's lax age controls to become a major issue.

The non-regulated monetising of freemium apps (Lara Croft Go, Kim Kardashian's Hollywood) and vlogging social influencers like Zoella is already facing restrictions.




2019 STORIES

...

FACEBOOK + SOCIAL MEDIA TO GET STATUTORY REGULATION? UK MPs CALL FACEBOOK 'DIGITAL GANGSTERS'
Read more on the Feb 2019 'digital gangsters' statement + call for statutory regulation, which was quickly backed by the Labour party (but the Tories are unlikely to agree).

A 'digital gangster'? UK MPs are furious with Zuckerberg

Facebook (and Google/YouTube) are facing ever growing scrutiny over their (mis)use of user data and facilitation of anti-democratic forces (in US presidential election, Brexit vote, spreading of anti-vaccine ideas, etc). They have grown into vast global conglomerates with little or no formal regulation.

GDPR, laws passed within the EU to insist on minimal standards of privacy and registration of user data, was an early sign of this wild west era ending, though the lobbyists (PR, campaigners) employed by the FAANGS have successfully argued to US politicians that this is the EU trying to damage American business.

There remains the distinct possibility, though, that US regulators will get tough on them. Facebook is facing multi-billion fines for misuse of user data, which could lead to a re-think on regulation there.