DNA cover too hot for Facebook
Australia’s DNA magazine has been deemed so hot by Facebook that it deleted an entire web page set up for the magazine’s fans.
DNA editor Andrew Creagh told Southern Star Observer it was the third time in two years the fan page had been deleted by Facebook — but the first time they’d received an explanation.
After the most recent takedown, Creagh received a form message from Facebook stating that he had violated its terms of use.
“Facebook does not allow photos that attack an individual or group, or that contain nudity, drug use, violence, or other violations of the Terms of Use. These policies are designed to ensure Facebook remains a safe, secure and trusted environment for all users, including the many children who use the site.”
Creagh believes this was in response to the cover of the current Sexiest Men Alive issue, but he is yet to receive a response from Facebook confirming this.
“I would like to say to them, ‘Why are you acting as censors for material that the rest of the world, in terms of magazine distributors, magazine retailers and bodies like the Australian Classification Board, have deemed to be G-rated?’ ” he said.
Creagh said he’d come up against the same wall when trying to advertise with the site.
“Even if we reduce the cover to the shoulders or the torso of the model they still say it’s sexual and that we can only have a headshot.”
Creagh noted many individual Facebook users had pictures with exposed torsos as their profile pictures or in their galleries.
Nor is DNA the only one affected by the policy.
“It’s the same for magazines like FHM,” Creagh said.
“There’s a guy in New York who put out a book called The Art of Masculine Seduction which had a very innocuous picture of a man without his shirt on the cover — that got taken down as well.
“I’ve even heard of drag queens who’ve had profiles removed with the reason being given that they’re not ‘real people’.
“I’m all for protecting children but that has to be within reasonable bounds.”
Creagh believes the action would have been taken by Facebook in response to a complaint and wouldn’t rule out homophobes or a competitor being behind it.
“We’re not pornography — the magazine contains no nudity,” he said.
“I find it odd that a magazine like ours can be censored by Facebook, considering last week’s revelation that Facebook knew about a pedophile porn ring operating through its website and didn’t inform the police.”
DNA’s fan page is back online, but now only shows photos of models’ heads.
Requests for comment from Facebook went unanswered.
As both an advertiser and content updater for a page with some explicit content on Facebook, I would argue that it is definitely not an issue of homophobia playing up here. The difficulty for us has been in the way that the terms of use are not applied consistently across the board.
We’ve had ads placed and approved, but then when resubmitted for approval at a later date, they have been knocked back.
When ads haven’t been approved, we’ve challenged the decision successfully.
I think in this case – it’s making for more media attention for DNA, which it’ll love, and will make the cover for their latest issue seem all the more “desirable”.
So it’s alright for people to put up a page of a puppy throwing TROLL and only until hundreds,if not thousands of people report it it gets taken down..this is utter bullsh!@t,I smell a homophobic behind this.
As a parent I’m more concerned about pedophiles and animal torture being exposed to my children,get you act together Facebook.This is nothing different to what you see on a billboard or magazine cover on a shelf.