Facebook Reiterates, Expands Its Ban on Sexuality on Its Site

CYBERSPACE—Within the past few days, international social networking platform Facebook has expanded its ban on nearly anything having to do with sexuality. Although the platform had a wide variety of bans on similar material before, the current move follows closely on Tumblr's announcement earlier this week that it would no longer allow sexually explicit imagery or most nudity on its site, which itself appears to be yet another reaction to FOSTA, the federal ban, passed earlier this year, on sex worker ads on sites like Craigslist and the now-defunct Backpage.com. A list of the banned material can be found under Title III, Section 15 of Facebook's "Community Standards"—the same nonsense phrase used in anti-obscenity legislation. Obviously, many Facebook users want to talk about sexuality, and Facebook is saying that though those people are subscribers, they aren't actually part of the "Facebook community." Section 15 specifically bans "sexual solicitation"—apparently a reaction to the much-discussed Justice Department claim that it will target any website that allows sex workers to solicit clients, supposedly to clamp down on "sex trafficking." But currently, such a crackdown must target only those websites which police their members' postings, since those which do not are exempt from legal scrutiny under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. But Facebook, in a bow to recent congressional scrutiny over its attempts to ban certain types of political speech—far right-wing conservatives, who often post material that could easily incite violence, political propaganda and so-called "fake news" have recently become major targets of Facebook censorship—appears now to feel that policing its site for such content, not to mention other posts that violate its "standards," makes the platform vulnerable to legal action under Section 230. However, that's not what Facebook is saying in its posted "Policy Rationale" regarding the enhanced censorship: "As noted in Section 8 of our Community Standards (Sexual Exploitation of Adults), people use Facebook to discuss and draw attention to sexual violence and exploitation. We recognize the importance of and want to allow for this discussion. We draw the line, however, when content facilitates, encourages or coordinates sexual encounters between adults. We also restrict sexually explicit language that may lead to solicitation because some audiences within our global community may be sensitive to this type of content and it may impede the ability for people to connect with their friends and the broader community." [Emphasis added] What's unclear is how "some audiences within our global community" would even see such material, since the only material a subscriber would see, aside from Facebook's own announcements and ads, are posts from that subscriber's official friends or posts that those friends have indicated that they "like" or which they forward to their other Facebook friends. Should a Facebook friend's posts or forwards offend the subscriber receiving them, that person can simply unfriend the "culprit" and such posts would stop; no official censorship needed. Hence, the Section 230 problem is likely the actual reason for the ban. In fact, when PC magazine asked a Facebook spokesperson about the reasons for the ban, that person replied in an email, "This change was prompted, in large part, by conversations with our content reviewers, who told us that the sexual exploitation policy did not adequately distinguish between exploitation (e.g. 'My ex was a slut. Look at the photos she sent me.') and solicitation (e.g. 'Looking for swingers. Friday at 8 PM, [name of bar]. Wear pink.')... Facebook said it crafted the new rules with input from third-party organizations that specialize in women's and children's safety issues." And have no doubts: The ban is wide-ranging and targets some of the mildest sexual material and innuendo. For example, now banned are "Vague suggestive statements such as 'looking for a good time tonight'"; "Sexualized slang"; "Sexual hints such as mention of sexual roles, positions or fetish scenarios"; "Sexually explicit language that goes beyond mere naming or mentioning a state of sexual arousal or an act of sexual intercourse"; and much more. "These guidelines sound like they were extracted from The Handmaid's Tale," commented Free Speech Coalition Board member and sex-positive activist Sister Roma. "This is so vague it leaves everything open to interpretation. Who will be reviewing the flagged content? How do FB users challenge the removal of 'objectionable' content? If it's the same process they have now, it's nonexistent. They have ZERO direct customer service. What about private chat groups? Will they be monitored? "I think we need to protest this as the worst form of sex-shaming censorship," she added. "It's potentially harmful to members or marginalized sexual communities who rely on their network for outreach, health information, and social activities." New Section 15 expands on similar prohibitions in Section 8, "Sexual Exploitation of Adults," and Section 14, "Adult Nudity and Sexual Activity," that its moderators have used since shortly after the site went online in February of 2004, and which Facebook only revealed the full extent last April, after adding roughly 5,000 more words of instruction on which material should be banned/disallowed. Pictured: Stripper in club by Gogirl18/Wikimedia Commons