Facebook bans road safety ad that’s ‘too gory’ for social media

[xstma]

Live-streaming terror events is fine but car safety adverts aren't? what has this world come to 

 

An Australia road safety ad has been banned from Facebook after the social media platform deemed the campaign as “too gory”.

The Australasian New Car Assessment Program (ANCAP) created a 60 second video, which features crash test dummies in a head on collision

The purpose of the clip was to show the difference between an old and a new vehicle when involved in an accident, showing the differences modern technology makes in a crash.

However the campaign was blocked from the social media website as the it was deemed too violent and “sensational”.
Read More

[ManosMax13]

2 minutes ago, AndromedaProductions said:

Live-streaming terror events is fine but car safety adverts aren't? what has this world come to 

 

An Australia road safety ad has been banned from Facebook after the social media platform deemed the campaign as “too gory”.

The Australasian New Car Assessment Program (ANCAP) created a 60 second video, which features crash test dummies in a head on collision

The purpose of the clip was to show the difference between an old and a new vehicle when involved in an accident, showing the differences modern technology makes in a crash.

However the campaign was blocked from the social media website as the it was deemed too violent and “sensational”.
Read More

I think I have seen the clip also that might be an algorithm mistake and it may get fixed soon.

[.Apex.]

Didn't show anything gory, but yeah the idea is messed up

[Trik'Stari]

Odd, I was in a head on collision similar to that, in a 1995 mitsubishi 3000gt.

 

The firewall and steering wheel did not launch themselves into my face.

[Guest]

They have these on TV all the time, why not on FaceBook? 

[PlayStation 2]

Streaming suicides? That's okay.

Streaming the assault of a disabled kid? That's also perfectly fine.

Streaming a live shooting? Oh yeah, we don't give a shit until people point it out.

But showing a mediocre PSA on road safety? Oh god, won't somebody PLEASE think of the children?

[mr moose]

9 minutes ago, Trik'Stari said:

Odd, I was in a head on collision similar to that, in a 1995 mitsubishi 3000gt.

 

The firewall and steering wheel did not launch themselves into my face.

Clearly you weren't wearing the appropriate yellow overalls with little black and white circles. 

[PlayStation 2]

Also, just an obvious word of advice for you guys: wear your seatbelts. No amount of airbags, cameras and sensors will save you as much as a strap designed to greatly reduce the amount of jolting around you'll experience in an accident. I can tell you right now if I didn't wear my seatbelt in the accident I got into a month or so ago, I probably wouldn't have just slightly moved around in my seat the way I did and I wouldn't have came out basically free of any injuries.

[yolosnail]

One road safety ad that I will always remember is the 'if you hit me at 30' ad that was broadcast in the early 2000s here in the UK.

I still get shivers down my spine when I even think about it.

[DeScruff]

1 hour ago, xstma said:

Live-streaming terror events is fine but car safety adverts aren't? what has this world come to 

32 minutes ago, Dan Castellaneta said:

Streaming suicides? That's okay.

Streaming the assault of a disabled kid? That's also perfectly fine.

Streaming a live shooting? Oh yeah, we don't give a shit until people point it out.

But showing a mediocre PSA on road safety? Oh god, won't somebody PLEASE think of the children?

Ummm excuse me, As much as I hate defending Facebook... ^{(and I REALLY do hate it)} I don't think Facebook ever said Terror events, suicides, assaults exc are fine.
One is Live, so the contents of which cannot be prescreened. Not unless your a time traveler
The other is a video clip that one can skip to the end and see the whole contents - And ads are usually submitted to somebody prior to when they start showing.

I don't think the two are directly comparable.

Be real with me...How would an algorithm predict a live video feed that something will be a suicide video?
And how does will that algorithm predict that it was a real suicide video vs a shitty Neil Breen movie?

That said: No idea whats the contents of the PSA. I personally don't really care.

[PlayStation 2]

14 minutes ago, Sypran said:

Ummm excuse me, As much as I hate defending Facebook... ^{(and I REALLY do hate it)} I don't think Facebook ever said Terror events, suicides, assaults exc are fine.
One is Live, so the contents of which cannot be prescreened. Not unless your a time traveler
The other is a video clip that one can skip to the end and see the whole contents - And ads are usually submitted to somebody prior to when they start showing.

I don't think the two are directly comparable.

Be real with me...How would an algorithm predict a live video feed that something will be a suicide video?
And how does will that algorithm predict that it was a real suicide video vs a shitty Neil Breen movie?

That said: No idea whats the contents of the PSA. I personally don't really care.

They are because Facebook only gives a shit if those kinds of events break their ToS if it makes them look bad.

Ditto with most social networks: they don't give a shit if people are literally murdered on their services so long as it doesn't make its way into news media.

[poochyena]

1 hour ago, xstma said:

Live-streaming terror events is fine

 

58 minutes ago, Dan Castellaneta said:

Streaming suicides? That's okay.

Streaming the assault of a disabled kid? That's also perfectly fine.

Streaming a live shooting? Oh yeah, we don't give a shit until people point it out.

Who is saying any of that is fine?

[Andreas Lilja]

No gore in video.

 

False advertisement. 

[DildorTheDecent]

2 hours ago, yolosnail said:

 

The ones here in Northern Ireland are pretty grim. Lad fires his Astra through a wall and rolls it over a classrooms worth of kids that were on a day out.

 

Good job they're shown after the watershed.

[leadeater]

3 hours ago, Trik'Stari said:

Odd, I was in a head on collision similar to that, in a 1995 mitsubishi 3000gt.

 

The firewall and steering wheel did not launch themselves into my face.

Those off center frontal crashes are one of the hardest to protect from and most pre-2000 cars do a terrible job at it. There are better cars of that era but none of them are comparable to day, those 3000GT's were pretty much driving tanks though. It would take a fair amount to deform a chassis of one of those, however if the impact misses or lifts up over the strong frame it'll ruin the car.

 

Frontal impacts

Spoiler

 

 

 

Roll over

Spoiler

Modern safety requirements are much stricter on roof and pillar strength, the above is fatal simply because it rolled.

 

Compare that to the 1998 Corolla in the video

Spoiler

Zero off center protection and the other car is encroaching physically to where the driver would be, not that the driver is even there anymore since they have been impaled and pushed backwards by their own car itself.

[SansVarnic]

@xstma your post does not meet the Guideline for the section, please refer to the Community Standards an make the proper amendment to your post.

 

Quote

When creating a thread in the News subforum, please make sure your post meets the following criteria:

• Your thread must include some original input to tell the reader why it is relevant to them, and what your personal opinion on the topic is. This needs to be MORE than just a quick, single comment to meet the posting guidelines.
• Your thread must include a link to at least one reputable source. Most of the time, this should be a respected news site.
• Your thread should also include quotes from the cited source(s). While you shouldn't just copy the entire article, your quote should give the reader a summary of the article in a way that gives the key details, but also leaves room for them to read the full article on the linked website. Please use quote tags to show that you have copied this content from another site.
• The title of your thread must be relevant to the topic and should give a reader a good idea of the contents of the thread. Copying the title of the source is permitted but absolutely not required. It should be to the point and not be done in such a way as to mislead a reader, such as clickbait, etc.
• If your article is about a product or some form of media, images are always appreciated, although they are not required.

Failure to comply may result in your thread being locked or removed without warning.

 

[Techstorm970]

2 hours ago, poochyena said:

 

Who is saying any of that is fine?

Facebook doesn't take down a lot of that stuff, yet they insist on taking this down.

[NumLock21]

Too Gory? The safety ad shows the truth on what happens during a car accident, whether they like it or not. Hiding stuffs like this only hurts everyone in the long run. Did Facebook provide free counseling to their poor employees who happened to watch that "too gory": ad.

[Misanthrope]

Ban seems odd: I usually get the "Click here to uncover the guts you fucking sicko" label on blurred pictures (And yes, I am paraphrasing what it says)

 

But since I live in a pretty violent city within a pretty violent country, pictures of people who got shot to shit or hacked into little pieces with machetes are probably considered "news" worthy.

[suicidalfranco]

FB did also ban an advert on breast cancer recently...

clearly we need more censorship

[poochyena]

11 hours ago, Techstorm970 said:

Facebook doesn't take down a lot of that stuff

They take down every single thing that was mentioned in the quote.

[Fnige]

18 hours ago, suicidalfranco said:

clearly we need more censorship

Theyre trying to impress china again

[Syntaxvgm]

On 5/4/2019 at 7:58 PM, Trik'Stari said:

Odd, I was in a head on collision similar to that, in a 1995 mitsubishi 3000gt.

 

The firewall and steering wheel did not launch themselves into my face.

On 5/4/2019 at 8:17 PM, Dan Castellaneta said:

Also, just an obvious word of advice for you guys: wear your seatbelts. No amount of airbags, cameras and sensors will save you as much as a strap designed to greatly reduce the amount of jolting around you'll experience in an accident. I can tell you right now if I didn't wear my seatbelt in the accident I got into a month or so ago, I probably wouldn't have just slightly moved around in my seat the way I did and I wouldn't have came out basically free of any injuries.

Van once rear ended me at the tail end of a traffic jam some years ago in this 2000 dodge stratus I was driving. I got hit so hard that it dislodged my drivers seat (passengers wasn't an automatic), and it made me smack a car in front of me (about a half car length away) despite having my breaks on and wheels staying locked. Airbags didn't deploy of course as they often dont in rear end accidents, so I smacked my head on the wheel hard which as you'd guess is a whiplash action from behind, pretty sure I had a concussion but I denied medical attention at that time because I would have been financially ruined, didn't have health care back then. Still feel neck pain from it every now and then. Anyway the van the hit me (much newer iirc) was completely totaled, front end just caved in, and they were going fast enough that if their airbags didn't deploy they would have been in trouble. My shitty little stratus didn't even completely lose the bumper (I repined it and it looked pretty ok), and it suffered no frame damage either despite force hard enough to break the drivers seat off the tracks a little. It shattered my exhaust and tore an engine mount though. No trunk damage, didn't crack the bumper, slight bends in the bumper mount point but hard to tell. Bulk of the van hit my trunk lid which did't bend in the slightest. Still can't believe that car's body came out in one piece despite that much force, like I don't know how it can derail a seat, shatter the exhaust in multiple places, and tear an engine mount (one was already bad I knew of, so it probably rocked easily and it was probably already rotted) and look like you came out of a parking lot accident on the outside
Actually a year or so later, someone backed into me in a parking lot and did more damage to the rear end the the collision did.

Point is cars and physics are funny, and where you get hit and by what can take the same car from no cabin intrusion to complete collapse- even on a car with crumple zones- at speeds that are not all that high if it gets hit just right. Older cars are death traps often, because even though they hold up well and sometimes better in a lot of collisions, as soon as they don't, you don't. A car with a good design and crumple zones is easier to total, yes, but is really worth it in the end. 

[Beskamir]

hahaha there's no way that's actually how those older models fall apart. If anything they wouldn't have the same crumpling features that newer models have so most of the momentum would be lost over an even shorter period of time. Meaning the main danger isn't getting crushed by the insides of the car, it's getting your momentum stopped nearly instantaneously rather than over the duration it takes for the car to crumble in a somewhat controlled way.

 

I guess it's basically like falling off a building, you're fine for the first several floors until you abruptly stop on the ground. Unless of course your negative acceleration can be extended over a period of time and thus be less extreme. Which in the case of falling can be done by a soft cushion and in the case of car accidents can be done by the car falling apart and the soft cushion that's commonly referred to as an airbag.