Tuesday, April 17, 2012

Oreos and breastmilk? At least one is good for baby (but not for Facebook)

"A representative from Kraft Foods reached out to HuffPost Food to clarify the origins of this ad. The ad was created by Kraft's ad agency, Cheil Worldwide, for a one-time use at an advertising forum and was not intended for public distribution or use with consumers."

It's a cute ad, even if it's using something sacred to sell cookies.

But here's the real story: When my friend Ivan, from Ads of The World, posted it on Facebook, he felt compelled to censor the image:

Why? I can't blame him. He was just protecting his social presence, because Facebook is notorious for censoring breastfeeding pictures.

It's like Facebook gets kickback from Enfamil.

And they ban people who don't follow the rules. Even mighty FEMEN have acquiesced and censored their "weapons" of protest.

Now, this example is not so virtuous. But it's interesting that Facebook has made everyone afraid of posting breasts, even in their least sexual context. And how perverted is that?


  1. I got warned by Facebook twice for posting risky stuff. I going safe from now on. I have to respect their rules.

    1. I understand, Ivan. You have a lot invested in your social media channels, and you have to protect yourself. We have the same problem with Osocio posts on FB. These people are absolute prudes, even when the nudity is non-sexual. They are the ones I want to call out.

  2. Once, your (so-called) social network was your email address book, your chat contacts, your blogroll, and the people following your blog. Notice what all of these have in common? No big company had absolute control over them (unless you were silly enough to use AIM or MSN instead of a jabber chat client, but even then ...). Sure, you might have hosted your blog at Blogger and your email at Gmail, but it was trivially easy to move them around, especially if you used your own domain name instead of theirs.

    Twitter, Tumblr, FB, and G+ bring huge new functionality to communications in our networks, but in exchange, we give them the right to absolute censorship over everything we say or do. G+ and Twitter exercise that censorship with a light hand, while FB is extremely intrusive; the real problem, however, isn't that FB acts like a jerk, but that we willingly put ourselves in the position where FB's jerkiness can affect us.

    The future -- one I feel passionately about -- is our ability to get the features and tools we enjoy from these proprietary services out into more open networks. It's not impossible: email used to be proprietary before the general public moved to the Internet (remember AOL and Compuserve?), and even phone companies didn't used to allow their customers to call customers of other phone companies. It's going to take a ton of work, but eventually, I hope, big monolithic "social-networking" companies like Facebook and Twitter will seem as much dinosaurs as Compuserve does today.

  3. If one actually read the facebook rules before posting the very first word you would have known that anything that you put on facebook no longer belongs to you including the pictures that you take with your own camera and post on facebook,We all say how bad our countries governments are, but Facebook is worse than all of them put together for censorship.