Can I tell Facebook friends to remove me if they like posting gory stuff?

[Calypso]

. I KNOW this is happening right now, but I don't have the heart to see it so vividly! Why are people sharing these photos on the Internet? It's almost lost its purpose...
 
You managed to say exactly what my problem is. I mean, by the time I hide the feed, I had already seen those pictures. And they are so vivid, so inhuman, that even if you see it for a second, it gets stuck in your brain.

I don't have the heart for it. I know babies are dying everyday. I know women are being abused everyday. I know animals are abused everyday. I know many people are dying in the war everyday. But I don't want to see those images.
 

I guess it gets back to what you imagine Facebook to be. I gather some people think "hey, it's my page, I can do what I want, right?".....but I picture it more as an outdoor courtyard with little groups of people having conversations with one another. You have some privacy----but you're also in public, in a way. You would think someone in the courtyard who started screaming obscenities or putting out posters of mangled puppies or
throwing stinkbombs was pretty boorish, right? Just because you can do something doesn't mean it's ok.

[Sharnita]

You don't think suggesting that we regulate the reproduction of others isn't a major stinkbomb in and of itself?

[Nemesis]

You don't think suggesting that we regulate the reproduction of others isn't a major stinkbomb in and of itself?

Well, to be honest, I don't think we can regulate what other people do. If we could, there would be no one mangling puppuies or abusing people. And thus, there will also be no nasty, gory pictures to speak of.

No, it's not about regulating others. It's about removing them from my friend's list and banning them from my page. It's facebook. I can't put them in a prison, but I think I can at least avoid them. I guess my thought is this: If someone is so fascinated by graphically violent images that they feel they need to share it with their friends, then I don't really want to be his friend.

[Calypso]

I really did not mean to derail the thread to this extent.

Sharnita, AngelBarchild, "licenses to procreate" don't exist, as far as I know, so you (Angel) were correct in calling that part of my post hyperbole.

I don't have children, and I guess the concept of having them/not having them is not as emotional an issue for me (as it naturally is for most people). No, I am not proposing to take away anyone's right to have kids.

But....didn't *you* ever wish that horrible people would refrain from having them? It bothers me a lot to think of an innocent child being subjected to being raised by sadistic, cruel people.
Can we at least agree that *that* isn't a crazy opinion to have? And it is just my opinion.

[squeakers]

I couldn't block the app, so I ended up unfriending her...

Do a search for the app.. and on the app page itself click block. If that doesn't work.. notify FB cos all of the apps I have ever seen have this available. (Doing the reverse is how you can unblock apps too.)

[Sharnita]

I really did not mean to derail the thread to this extent.

Sharnita, AngelBarchild, "licenses to procreate" don't exist, as far as I know, so you (Angel) were correct in calling that part of my post hyperbole.

I don't have children, and I guess the concept of having them/not having them is not as emotional an issue for me (as it naturally is for most people). No, I am not proposing to take away anyone's right to have kids.

But....didn't *you* ever wish that horrible people would refrain from having them? It bothers me a lot to think of an innocent child being subjected to being raised by sadistic, cruel people.
Can we at least agree that *that* isn't a crazy opinion to have? And it is just my opinion.

I do not think that posting a picture that some object to is enough to deem them horrible, csadistic, cruel or anything else.  And not only have individuals instituted policies on who could procreate at different points in history - they were enforced with great brutality with the justification that those were bad people who shouldn't be having kids.  I have to say that I fand that even more nauseating than any of the pictures described so far in the thread or even the idea of a close-up of an eye.  But you feel you can rationalize it and it is your persoanl opinion so you are justified in sharing it, not rude.  That brings me to my whole point - asking people to stop won't work and everyone has their own standards on what is gross/upsetting/offensive in that kind of thing.

[Venus193]

Sort of related... 2 other annoying Facebook trends -

1- This new tendency to post inhuman, cruel photos of what is "going on in the world". I don't need to see a dog beaten to near death or a child mutilated, or eaten alive by some sort of disease. I mean, just writing it here I feel like I wouldn't like to read it if I were any of you. I've cried at times looking at these photos, and was shocked to find them on my Newsfeed when I logged in. I KNOW this is happening right now, but I don't have the heart to see it so vividly! Why are people sharing these photos on the Internet? It's almost lost its purpose...

2- I get really upset/annoyed when people send me requests to join games via inbox. Actually, I know it's the game sending the requests (or the app, or whatever it is they're using...) but they have the option of sending them or not and they do so. Every day. Five times a day. I politely wrote to a friend asking her please, I am not playing this game and I literally have 5 inbox messages from you daily asking for coins or rocks or whatever she collects. Every time, I get excited thinking it's a proper inbox message. She apologized and told me since she can't *pick* who she sends the requests to, she can only ask for it to be sent to everyone on her list -- she can't do anything, sorry, but the points are really important to her. I couldn't block the app, so I ended up unfriending her...

You managed to say exactly what my problem is. I mean, by the time I hide the feed, I had already seen those pictures. And they are so vivid, so inhuman, that even if you see it for a second, it gets stuck in your brain.

I don't have the heart for it. I know babies are dying everyday. I know women are being abused everyday. I know animals are abused everyday. I know many people are dying in the war everyday. But I don't want to see those images.

Which brings me to the question of "WHY, Oh why are you posting this when it gets onto everyone's news feed?" And when I ask that question, my next instinct is actually somewhat similar to Calypso's response  which is to Block, Unfriend, and Avoid-Sick-Individual-Who-Thinks-It's-Fine-To-Post-Nasty-Pictures. <-- Okay I am being very judgemental now   

Let me defend myself: I'm the type of person who would distance myself from people who like sharing crude jokes or off-colour remarks in real-life. So why would I want to associate (online) with someone who likes sharing graphically violent stuff?

I'm the same.

A couple of months ago Blanche posted a disturbing photo in her news feed that related to a hot-button issue of hers.  I almost posted this thread over it, but didn't want to be seen as a Special Snowflake.  I simply avoided the page for a few days for the photo to drop down below the fold, as it were.

I will verbally address this with her if it happens again and tell her I will block her feed if she does that again.

Another reminder:  People have varying tolerances over this stuff.  Medical students, forensic scientists, etc., have to remember that many if not most people outside their professional areas can't look at gross medical photos.  And many of us are animal lovers who can't tolerate photos of abused animals; I mute the TV and leave the room or change the channel at the PSAs because I hate to cry.  I shouldn't have to treat my computer the same way.

[Betelnut]

I truly don't understand why posting pictures of "gross" or "gory" things makes someone horrible.  Are they commenting how wonderful death, destruction, cruelty is?  Are they saying, "Yeah, what we need more of are famines in Korea/Somalia, etc?"  Pointing out hard truths isn't horrible, in my book.  I get Time Magazine and my local paper and I am frequently confronted with uncomfortable pictures of war, starvation, tornado and flood victims.  Does that make the publishers of those publications, "horrible people"?

Interesting topic.

[Twik]

I truly don't understand why posting pictures of "gross" or "gory" things makes someone horrible.  Are they commenting how wonderful death, destruction, cruelty is?  Are they saying, "Yeah, what we need more of are famines in Korea/Somalia, etc?"  Pointing out hard truths isn't horrible, in my book.  I get Time Magazine and my local paper and I am frequently confronted with uncomfortable pictures of war, starvation, tornado and flood victims.  Does that make the publishers of those publications, "horrible people"?

Interesting topic.

Well, among other things, there is the issue of desensitization. These pictures are upsetting. If you send them to all your friends, you will either keep on upsetting them (which is mean) or eventually they will look at them and go, "meh, rotting corpses. Who cares?"

That doesn't make you a horrible person. It just makes you someone I do not want to correspond with.

[Sharnita]

Or some people might respond to the photos by fighting social injustice.

[Twik]

Well, what about all those pictures that have nothing to do with "social injustice"? Does a picture of someone with a maggot infestation make you want to fight racism? What if you are sent gory photos in support of a cause that you disagree with? What does it make you do then?

Gore slactivism is no more helpful than any other type of slacktivism, and it is not justifiable by saying, "I'll sit here all day sending out pictures of blood and rottenness, and my recipients will then actually get up and doing something about the problem". It merely enables people getting a nasty thrill from shocking other people to tell themselves, "I'm noble for doing this!"

[Calypso]

Gore slactivism is no more helpful than any other type of slacktivism, and it is not justifiable by saying, "I'll sit here all day sending out pictures of blood and rottenness, and my recipients will then actually get up and doing something about the problem". It merely enables people getting a nasty thrill from shocking other people to tell themselves, "I'm noble for doing this!"

Never heard the term, love it! It describes it perfectly!
If it were possible to take any issue that was important to you and get a list of the 1,000----or even 10,0000---people who are doing the most to work towards making the problem better, and ask them how they spend their time, I do not think any of them would say "sending out gross images on Facebook."

[Iris]

I truly don't understand why posting pictures of "gross" or "gory" things makes someone horrible.  Are they commenting how wonderful death, destruction, cruelty is?  Are they saying, "Yeah, what we need more of are famines in Korea/Somalia, etc?"  Pointing out hard truths isn't horrible, in my book.  I get Time Magazine and my local paper and I am frequently confronted with uncomfortable pictures of war, starvation, tornado and flood victims.  Does that make the publishers of those publications, "horrible people"?

Interesting topic.

Sometimes, yes. Sometimes the media swoops in on a disaster, get in the way of the REAL people doing the REAL work, contribute nothing positive, and all in the name of getting 'the image'. We can say "Oh yes, but it's raising awareness" but most of the time it's just chasing sales and awards really. Some journalists really really do want to make a difference but Time magazine? Ultimately they want to sell magazines and if putting a particularly awful picture from a war torn region on the cover makes more people buy their magazine then that is a positive result.

Secondly, the people who choose to buy Time magazine are aware of what that might entail seeing. Most people, when they click on Facebook, are expecting to see what their friends are up to. If they wanted awareness of world issues they'd go to the Amnesty International website.

Lastly, I think these 'shock' campaigns are really ineffective at changing people's habits or attitudes. One particularly egregious example from my own past was the boxing day tsunami in SE Asia. "There was a massive tsunami and they think 100,000 people have died. Also millions are homeless" was enough info for DH and I to contribute what we could. It's a definitively awful situation. I really didn't need to see corpses of children to get the message across. And frankly if being told about something like that doesn't make you want to help I don't think looking at a picture of it will change anything.

[melicious]

Most people, when they click on Facebook, are expecting to see what their friends are up to.

Not necessarily. Or at least, maybe when it started out. But nowadays people use it for many different purposes.

[Iris]

Most people, when they click on Facebook, are expecting to see what their friends are up to.

Not necessarily. Or at least, maybe when it started out. But nowadays people use it for many different purposes.

Perhaps. Your post doesn't really seem relevant to the point I was making though.

How about this - the average facebook user is NOT using facebook to be made aware of world issues and look at confronting photojournalism. And those that are probably part of a facebook group dedicated to world issues and confronting photojournalism.