Facebook 'censors' nude statue of sea god Neptune, the well-known Renaissance symbol of northern I

A virile, muscled statue of the sea god Neptune has fallen foul of Facebook’s prudish policies on nudity after an Italian art historian was told to remove it from her web page.

The sixteenth century Renaissance statue dominates Piazza del Nettuno, a grand square in the heart of Bologna.

A symbol of the prosperous northern Italy city, it was chosen by Elisa Barbari, a local writer, to illustrate her Facebook page, called “Stories, curiosities and views of Bologna”.

But the social media giant objected to the image, which shows a naked Neptune – Nettuno in Italian – holding a large trident. “I wanted to promote my page but it seems that for Facebook the statue is a sexually explicit image that shows off too much flesh. Really, Neptune? This is crazy!” Ms Barbari said.

Facebook 'censors' nude statue of sea god Neptune, the well-known Renaissance symbol of northern Italian city

Seriously Facebook???

This is so reminiscent of the Simpsons episode where overbearing do-gooder parents wanted to cover Michaelangelo's statue of David with blue jeans…

Or Khan of London removing all ads in the subway which had bikini-clad women displayed…
I'm sure it had nothing to do with Khans VERY open-minded religious sensibilities...

Can I please ask the tipper gore's, Mayor Khans, and Facebook's of the world to let me decide what is and is not offensive???

Honestly, just get off of my cloud...[pun intended with thanks to Mick Jagger]

I don't need a bunch of know-it-alls and/or religious zealots telling me what is and is not art and/or offensive…

-Chris

a reply to: Christosterone

Yet they allow ISIS beheading videos.......

So?

A private company has the right to provide a forum for what they deem acceptable - not to mention that it was probably reported by a person, not simply seen by a Facebook employee.

So I reiterate, so?

What a bunch of crap. Does everyone in our country have to be an idiot?

This company has some pretty erratic censoring.

Almost as if there were some political motive behind it all.

Islamic State beheading = fine

Nude Neptune = bad

Azov Battalion burning crucifixion = fine

baby photos = bad

Attractive woman showing her physique= bad

Landwhale doing the above = good.

Very strange.

originally posted by: CB328
What a bunch of crap. Does everyone in our country have to be an idiot?

I'd wager it's about the same as the number of people that have to be offended by every GD thing under the sun.

originally posted by: crazyewok
a reply to: Christosterone

Yet they allow ISIS beheading videos.......

Islamism is the accepted religion of the progressives…

Therefore anything and everything Islamists do is deemed to be not only accepted but encouraged…

For instance when Khan removed the bikini clad women in London from the tubes he said it was to stop bullying and body shaming which was brilliant if you think about it…
Khan was able to push forward sharia policies by appealing to liberals sensibilities..

Ironic Aside: The violence born of Islamists religious zealotry has only been a equalled in history by Inquisition era Spain…which is the most maligned epoch of time for the liberals...well, that and the Reagan era...

-Chris

Can I please ask the tipper gore's, Mayor Khans, and Facebook's of the world to let me decide what is and is not offensive???

As much is your authoritarian wont to control a private corporation, no you cannot ask such.



I see since I've started to reply you've turned this into a Muslim thing.
That's a surprise.

Just another arbitrary and inconsistent act from Facebook.

David (Michelangelo) on Facebook

And they get to be the ones to tell us what is, or isn't, FAKE news?

That's gonna work out real well.

Many of the so called atrocities committed during inquisition times in Spain never actually happened. The protestants discovered this thing called the printing press and quickly learned they could publish all sorts of nonsense.

The stuff that was going on in Spain was going on all over Christendom at the time at about the same rate. Witch burnings were pretty rare. I think the total is in only double figures for the entire period, which is remarkable given the stupid stuff you could get executed for in those days.

Just sayin.

...has to be a PC attempt to shield the lesbians who are triggered by the sight of classical male junk...

originally posted by: Hazardous1408
a reply to: Christosterone

Ok last one because I had to...

The violence born of Islamists religious zealotry has only been a equalled in history by Inquisition era Spain…

Slavery era?
Native Americans?
Bush' crusade?


Do missiles not count?


Or is this your American "Exceptionalist" mantra for today?


Put simply you're a disingenuous, agenda driven, liar 🤥.

The violence born in the name of a specific god...i.e. religious zealotry
I would accept imperial Japan as an equal since their civic religion to their messianic empower saw unimaginable horror wrought upon their enemies in the Russo Japanese war and later in World War II…

My sentence is true...I never lie...it's not possible as it is immoral to do so

American Slavery and the American Indian genocide were entirely different in both scope and motive…

Slavery in America was much more an economical decision made primarily in the American south where vast swathes of land required innumerable hands to tend the unimaginably large crops…
As for the American Indian, they unluckily resided on land that America viewed as their own soil gained through the conventions of the High West's processes and was, therefore, also an economic decision…

While religion may have been used to justify both of these positions neither were driven solely by religious zealotry…

So your analogies are grossly incorrect..

-Chris

If someone just castrated that statue or even made it a swim suit, nobody could claim it was offensive.

a reply to: Hazardous1408

As much is your authoritarian wont to control a private corporation, no you cannot ask such.

Unless said company wants to censor a wedding cake, am I right?

originally posted by: crazyewok
a reply to: Christosterone

Yet they allow ISIS beheading videos.......

And people laugh when they say Facebook is a tool of the C.I.A, right?

originally posted by: Christosterone

originally posted by: crazyewok
a reply to: Christosterone

Yet they allow ISIS beheading videos.......

*snip*

For instance when Khan removed the bikini clad women in London from the tubes he said it was to stop bullying and body shaming which was brilliant if you think about it…
Khan was able to push forward sharia policies by appealing to liberals sensibilities..

*snip*

-Chris

I don't even think most bikini ads are attractive. This isn't about what guys think, it's about what women think. They hate seeing those pictures because every.. single.. one.. wants to look like that but most can't.

For us guys I think most of us would like to look like Dwayne Johnson or a bigger Brad Pitt, but most of us can't. Do we get triggered when we see images of young sweaty bulky wrestlers? Not as badly. Look at games, for example. Almost all of the male protagonists are Dwayne Johnson look-alikes and few complain, even if he's half naked and flaunts himself. But woman characters are hated mostly by woman and mostly because they don't look realistic--they're too beautiful, too busty, too trim and too scantily clad. And yet men will start complaining if the male character doesn't look like a warrior demigod. "We want to play heroic males, not commoners!" they yell. My gay friend has oftne told me "How come men can be naked above the waist but woman can't?" Conventional wisdom is it's the men who don't want woman to be naked above the waist, but I argue it's the woman. They cannot tolerate the physical scrutiny.

So how is hte reaction so different? When guys are reminded how small, fat and ugly they're, how come they don't have an equal outburst? I think it's because woman and men have different brains. They process it differently. Woman I think are looking for sexual cues more than men. Maybe because they're more competitive in that aspect. When a woman sees a more attractive woman, even if it's not a real woman, her response is much more violent. Men respond more to other cues, like confrontation and fright--all behaviours. So woman are actually more objectifying than men are--to their own sex. This is not to say men don't objectify woman, but that maybe woman objectify woman more than evne men do. But they do it for a different reason.

a reply to: stosh64

Careful.

Too much truth in that post.

a reply to: Hazardous1408
Honestly, that kind of hurt to read. You called him three different things, after posting, and I quote, "Grossly inaccurate analogies". Just be sure that you are correct before you go calling people names. Even then, it is poor form.

a reply to: Christosterone

Facebook will censor itself out of existence with all the new changes. That may be a good thing. Out with the old, in with the next social media platform.