> it’s difficult to create a distinction between allowing a photograph of a nude child in one instance and not others

No it's not. 99% of photos of nude children are fine. Children are born nude. Most very young children play nude for many hours a day. They don't have, or at least the ones I know don't have, any matching sense of self-consciousness or modesty for the misguided cultural copy-paste being applied here.

If a photograph is pornographic, then someone will report it immediately, and facebook can take action.

And no matter how difficult it might be in some strange edge cases to decide whether something is "pornographic" (in reality, these cases are probably very rare), this photograph is obviously not pornographic is any sense of the word.

This. If anyone was degenerate enough to pursue the path, pedo-porn is easily available.(and these people should be rehabilitated, not denigrated or 'removed' from society entirely depending on your perspective).

When I say 'easily available' people might misconstrue the statement; so, again, it is relatively easy to acquire child porn and stay anonymous(e.g. no repercussions) if you wanted to do so.

We as society should not allow censorship on this premise; what is the underlying ideology? That once this photo is accepted mainstream people will start posting pedo-porn obfuscated as war crimes?

Spoiler: this photo has existed for quite a while and that has unsurprisingly not happened.

People are meta. You can't optimize against them in this authoritarian manner. Most humans just want the truth; hiding a child in pain from her environmental circumstances just because she's naked is not the solution and it looks orwellian.

Great job Zuck.

Well, that's easy for _you_ to say, you're not the one who gets your door kicked in and hauled off to jail and handed over to the inmates with a "he's a child molester, deal with him" if you happen to guess wrong.

> Most very young children play nude for many hours a day.

Not in 'Muricia. Nude baby at beach = lifeguard called.

> While we recognise that this photo is iconic, it’s difficult to create a distinction between allowing a photograph of a nude child in one instance and not others.

Just because distinguishing between mere nudity and inappropriate nudity may be difficult in some cases doesn't mean it shouldn't be done, or, moreover, that it isn't necessary to be done in order to "find the right balance between enabling people to express themselves and while maintaining a safe and respectful experience".

Incidentally, protecting people from things that they neither need nor want protection from can be at least as disrespectful as exposing them to things that they wish to avoid.

> protecting people from things that they neither need nor want protection from can be at least as disrespectful as exposing them to things that they wish to avoid.

In a setting where respite from a resource is a click-away, I think that it's always more disrespectful to "protect" people from things from which they ask not to be protected.

It's impossible to draw the line between "mere" and inappropriate nudity, a line that will satisfy all people. This is simply an instance of Facebook making a choice that is just a bit out of balance compared to what the majority thinks, but make no mistake, it's just as much of an arbitrary choice as all others.