The "New Economy," we are assured, will generate new jobs, "green" jobs, "high-tech" jobs, jobs to replace the manufacturing work now fled to places where the eight-year-olds are too cowed to unionize.
Example of a New Economy job: Facebook Vice-President In Charge of Areola Detection.
Facebook finds itself in a tempest in a c-cup thanks to its decision forbidding and removing user-posted pictures featuring mothers nursing their children. This has led to protest marches by the sort of people who march to protest such things.
All this might not have happened had the social networking site simply answered Heather Farley's e-mail asking why the networking giant in October removed photos of her breast-feeding her baby.
When she posted another photo and then received a letter threatening to delete her account, she went public.
The lesson is clear: never, never answer customer email. Most companies to which I send grumbling emails have learned that lesson well.
Facebook, through its Executive Vice President In Charge of Personally Demeaning Public Statements, explains that not all breastfeeding pictures will result in removal and eventually account deletion. It's just the really slutty ones. Hence:
To decide what's appropriate, the company had to decide "how much of someone's butt must be showing or, in this case, how much of the breast. We've made a visible areola the determining factor. It is a common standard," said spokesman Barry Schnitt.
Facebook takes no action on the vast majority of breast-feeding photos, Schnitt said. "We agree that breast-feeding is natural and beautiful and we're very glad to know that it is so important to some mothers to share this experience with others on Facebook."
As long as they don't flash partial nip. Because when you see areola, that transforms the picture from something natural and beautiful into something else entirely:
acebook says the areola, the dark skin around the nipple, violates a policy on "obscene, pornographic or sexually explicit" material.
The thing about "obscene, pornographic, or sexually explicit" is that they all presume a sexual component. Facebook's policy is therefore, as near as I can determine, that a breast is non-sexual if it has a baby attached unless the baby grins enough to reveal a particular part of the breast. This is a standard that I feel comfortable characterizing as odd, creepy, and dysfunctional. Of course, as a private company, Facebook is free to have odd, creepy, and dysfunctional policies about what can be posted on its web site — until, of course, some clever lawyer finds a creative way to make a buck out of suing them for it. That's the other type of New Economy job that's going strong.
Meanwhile, some poor bastard at Facebook is tasked with looking at user-posted pictures of nursing mothers — not for prurient purposes, not to bask in the warm glow thrown off by the maternal bond, but to ask himself, "Is that an areola? I think it's a shadow. Or maybe part of the baby's lip. But what if it's an areola? Shit. I hate my job."
Last 5 posts by Ken White
- Popehat Goes To The Opera: Un ballo in maschera - August 19th, 2017
- Department of Justice Uses Search Warrant To Get Data On Visitors to Anti-Trump Site - August 14th, 2017
- America At The End of All Hypotheticals - August 14th, 2017
- Lawsplainer: Why John Oliver Is Anti-Diversity Now - August 11th, 2017
- Anatomy of a Scam, Chapter 15: The Wheels, They Grind - August 10th, 2017