Silenced voices

When censorship speaks louder than freedom.

Anyone who subscribes to the Planet Nude blog will no doubt be aware of the recent situation regarding an attempt to get a children’s colouring book printed in the USA. If you haven't read the story, there is a link to it at the end of this blog.

The book, an initiative by the president of the International Naturist Federation, Stéphane Deschênes, uses cartoon-like drawings of families engaged in normal activities to help normalise nudity and support family naturism.

I won't repeat the details of what happened when Planet Nude tried to get a version of the book printed in the US, as that is their story to tell, but suffice it to say, the printing company refused to print it.

Situations like this clearly demonstrate that in some parts of the world, we have a long way to go to counter the pathological fear of the naked human body.

As I read the article, I thought there must be something I could do to signal my support for the idea of the colouring book. Of course, I jumped online and ordered a copy of the original Canadian version, but that doesn't send a message to those refusing to print the book because they are frightened of cartoon drawings of naked people.

Perhaps I could email the US printing company and ask when their version of the colouring book will be available? Maybe one person from the South Pacific might not cause them to reconsider, but if everyone concerned about the silencing of the naturist message sent an email, perhaps they might start to listen. I fear that their aversion to nudity is so ingrained and deep that they would still not reconsider, even in the face of a considerable demand for the book.

Censorship is alive and well, especially in the land of the free.

It's not just naturist content that is being shut down.

It was reported recently that thousands of people around the world have had their Instagram accounts suspended for apparent breaches of community standards. Accusations of posting nudity, or in some cases child exploitation, have been made against users whose content contains no such material.

A friend of mine had her Instagram account closed for “inappropriate pictures of minors”, despite the account having only a handful of images, and in all of them she was fully clothed. I imagine, like many people, she would like to be thought of as younger than her years, but I am sure that she won’t mind me saying that considering her a minor would be a stretch.

An Auckland musician had her Instagram account suspended for a breach of copyright after posting a video in which she was singing her own song. The 26-year-old was then advised that people under 13 were not allowed to use the app.

It's not just individuals. Community groups and not-for-profit organisations have had their pages shut down without warning for alleged breaches.

Attempts to contact Meta to argue against the ban seem to go unanswered, and in some cases, livelihoods are affected.

Having social media profiles cancelled or censored has been an ongoing issue for naturists. The inability of moderators, both human and AI, to distinguish between non-sexual nudity and pornography has blighted the naturist community for years.

Our complaints have largely fallen on deaf ears, possibly because the general population consider our proclivity for not wearing clothes as an oddity rather than a liberty denied. Meta could argue that they are simply reflecting the views of society and that naturists are such a small group and largely insignificant.

The argument that their almost puritanical views on non-sexual nudity are an effort to uphold community standards might be valid if they were evenly applied. The number of Instagram accounts of young women dancing or bouncing around, braless, or posing in ways that push the boundaries of modesty seem to be increasing, yet a grandmother from Northland has her account showing her gardening pictures closed for child exploitation.

Instances of child sexual exploitation are abhorrent and should rightfully be shut down with the perpetrators held to account. The stigma attached to such accusations is so visceral in our society that there needs to be some accountability for those making the allegations to provide evidence of their claim.

Now that normal people doing normal things are having their profiles closed down with demonstrably false accusations of inappropriate content, large numbers of people are starting to ask questions of Meta and their broken enforcement systems. It surprises me that some litigious-minded individual has not already taken a legal case against Meta for defamation of character.

I understand that Meta are using AI to make judgement calls on content. I can’t believe that people could get it so wrong.

Meta has been conspicuous in their silence on the matter. It is almost as if they don’t want to admit that they are out of control of their own moderation service.

What frightens me is not that AI has repeatedly demonstrated itself to be an abject failure at judging context, but that so many organisations are relying on AI to make decisions for them, believing AI to be smarter than it is currently demonstrating.

“The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge.” — Stephen Hawking

The decision not to print the colouring book was made by people rather than AI. I wonder how much they were influenced by the increased instances of social media accounts being closed for inappropriate content. Perhaps they perceived that they could be falsely accused of sexual exploitation of minors, a perception created by AI moderators.

Thank you for reading. Have a comfortable day.

Naturism:
Good for the environment, great for the soul.

Links:

Planet Nude : Rejected as obscene.