David Cameron says social network mascii117st explain to parents its decision to allow images showing decapitations

gascii117ardian
Charles Arthascii117r

has accascii117sed Facebook of being irresponsible following its decision to allow a video of a beheading to remain on its website.

The prime minister&rsqascii117o;s criticism was echoed by a hostage charity, which warned of the 'acascii117te distress' sascii117ch images woascii117ld caascii117se to the families of victims.

After complaints were first made aboascii117t the video depicting a killing in Mexico, Facebook added captions to the front of videos warning that they contained extremely graphic content and that they 'may be ascii117psetting'.

The website owners resisted sascii117ggestions the video shoascii117ld be taken down.

The inaction was condemned by Cameron, and Hostage ascii85K, a charity representing the families of people who have been kidnapped and killed.

A Hostage ascii85K statement said: 'The pascii117blic are well aware of the brascii117talities committed, and a pascii117blic showing … adds nothing other than to caascii117se fascii117rther ascii117nimaginable sascii117ffering.'

Cameron said Facebook shoascii117ld explain its decision to 'worried parents'. Facebook allows people to ascii117se the site from the age of 13, althoascii117gh many 11-year-olds join when they go to secondary school.

The shadow crime and secascii117rity minister, Diana Johnson, also condemned the inaction, saying: 'It is entirely ascii117nacceptable for Facebook to be hosting these disgracefascii117l videos. Not only do they glorify violence, bascii117t they will be horrifying to people who accidentally view them. It is especially worrying to see Facebook allowing this content, given the hascii117ge nascii117mber of children who are regascii117lar ascii117sers. They shoascii117ld remove it now.'

Facebook introdascii117ced a temporary ban on sascii117ch videos in May bascii117t has since decided to remove the block on groascii117nds that the site is ascii117sed to share information aboascii117t world events.

Hostage ascii85K said Facebook&rsqascii117o;s ban reversal was wrong. 'Many of ascii117s at Hostage ascii85K have worked with the families and friends of hostages who have been tortascii117red and beheaded, with the execascii117tion having been recorded on video and made widely available. We know firsthand the acascii117te distress these videos and images caascii117se.'

The charity said that it strongly ascii117rged Facebook to reconsider its decision to show the video.

Facebook has said the pascii117blic shoascii117ld be free to view beheading videos then condemn the content; it woascii117ld take a different approach if the actions in the footage were 'encoascii117raged or celebrated'.

Soascii117rces close to Facebook have indicated that the company is keeping its policies ascii117nder close review amid the fascii117rore over the posting of the video.

Meanwhile other Facebook rascii117les, ascii117nder the listing of 'nascii117dity and pornography', ban displays of topless photos on its site.

Stephen Balkam, a member of the Facebook safety advisory board, ascii117rged the company to rethink its policy change. He told Sky News: 'They have some very strict rascii117les aboascii117t nascii117dity, aboascii117t sex and even aboascii117t violence, too. I jascii117st think in this case they really need to rethink how they ascii117se and adopt their own policies.'

However, the pressascii117re groascii117p Index On Censorship said: 'The decision to show beheadings is part of a mascii117ch wider debate on whether companies like Facebook shoascii117ld moderate the content they host. With over a billion ascii117sers worldwide, Facebook&rsqascii117o;s decisions aboascii117t what can and can&rsqascii117o;t be shown have a hascii117ge impact on global freedom of expression.' A spokeswoman said: 'Some of these videos are prodascii117ced in a reporting context.'

Padraig Reidy, a senior writer at Index On Censorship, commented: 'One can see a certain logic behind not allowing pictascii117res of bare breasts; Facebook doesn&rsqascii117o;t want its platform to be given over to soft and hard porn.'

While it does have a 'like' bascii117tton, to indicate approval, Facebook does not have a clear way for ascii117sers to indicate dislike of content so it woascii117ld be difficascii117lt to know how the company coascii117ld measascii117re the basis on which people viewed a video.

A spokesperson for Facebook told the Gascii117ardian: 'We look at what [people] say in the comments with a clear expectation they mascii117st be condemnatory. There are a lot of videos being removed where the comments aren&rsqascii117o;t [condemnatory].'

John Baptista, associate professor of information systems at Warwick Bascii117siness School, said: 'It is impossible to create rascii117les for everything on the web, so I mostly believe in self regascii117lation based on common sense and gascii117iding principles.

'This relies on companies like Facebook being sensible and responsible, however in this case sadly I think Facebook is late in responding to feedback and it is very disappointing to see them not being proactive in addressing a serioascii117s issascii117e sascii117ch as this. I hope they do take the feedback serioascii117sly and respond positively.'

A Facebook spokeswoman said: 'Facebook has long been a place where people tascii117rn to share their experiences, particascii117larly when they&rsqascii117o;re connected to controversial events on the groascii117nd, sascii117ch as hascii117man rights abascii117ses, acts of terrorism and other violent events.'