WARNING: Sharing This Image Will Get You Blocked From Posting On Facebook (IMAGES)

Author: April 23, 2013 3:27 pm

For anyone who regularly uses Facebook you’ve probably seen a plethora of offensive content, maybe even reported some of it, which Facebook never removes.

That being said, could someone please explain to me what Facebook found so offensive about this image that they removed it?

0000 removed content 1

It was posted yesterday on the Being Liberal fan page, and was up for less than six hours before I was logged out of my account, and told the image had been removed. Not only did they removed the image, I received the following warning after clicking “Continue” on the image above:

blocked from posting for 7 days

And today, when I tried to click “Like” on a friend’s comment on something I posted, I received this message:

liking blocked

Followed by this message:

confirmation requiredThat’s right, pointing out the hypocrisy of spending millions on mega churches while people are starving around the world was something which Facebook determined to be too offensive, and blocked my personal profile from posting because of it. Not only that, but they blocked me from clicking “Like” on anything, and make me confirm that I receive their warning each time I try. Unless facebook is offended by the word “fucking,” but I doubt that considering that “I fucking love science,” an excellent page, is one of the most popular, active, pages on facebook, this doesn’t make any sense.

Facebook might think the image offensive, but do you know what I think is offensive? Raising millions of dollars from your loyal followers, predicated on the fact that you’re doing “the Lord’s work,” while doing the opposite of what the Bible preaches. The Bible literally says you’ll go to hell for being wealthy and ignoring the poor;

Luke 16:19-31 ESV /

“There was a rich man who was clothed in purple and fine linen and who feasted sumptuously every day. And at his gate was laid a poor man named Lazarus, covered with sores, who desired to be fed with what fell from the rich man’s table. Moreover, even the dogs came and licked his sores. The poor man died and was carried by the angels to Abraham’s side. The rich man also died and was buried, and in Hades, being in torment, he lifted up his eyes and saw Abraham far off and Lazarus at his side.

I’m not saying the Bible should be taken literally, but the people who are exploiting the followers of the Bible to line their own pockets should be called out for it.

It’s shameful that Facebook would not only remove this image, but block me for seven days for posting it. The message in this image is something which needs to be said, and since Facebook didn’t provide the reasoning for removing it we may never know why it was determined to be too offensive.

If you have any idea as to why Facebook might remove something like this, feel free to let me know in the comments section below.



facebook comments:


  • It was removed because there are female breasts shown in the bottom right image. Facebook hates breasts. Google “Facebook breastfeeding” (which, after years of them claiming that photos of breastfeeding is offensive/indecent, as of this month they’re actually allowing it now), “Facebook breast cancer tattoo” and “Facebook post-op chest”.

  • If you’re willing to risk the ban again, it might be interesting to replace the word “fucking” with something milder (“cotton-picking”?) and repost without changing anything else. I’d be curious to know the results if anyone tries this.

    • I’m not saying the Bible should be taken literally, but the people who are exploiting the followers of the Bible to line their own pockets should be called out for it….

      .. kinda like those who use the violence of the State to exploit us, confiscate our property and pervert our liberty?

  • knowing well what is allowed on facebook the only fb issue i can see is the woman’s bare breasts?…good luck in resolving this love your page-g

  • While my husband used to post polls for people, we both noticed that the polls would be heavily padded toward the opposition to the poll as soon as it was posted … exactly how does one vote against something when no one has seen it yet … yeah … Facebook FAIL

  • Really? This image gets banned while content on the rape culture “offensive humor” sites remains? Wow! Just wow… So the hate speech associated with misogyny is perfectly OK no matter how many times we report it, but encouraging donating to feed the hungry vs. funding mega-churches is offensive. On what planet?

  • You were targeted by those who wish to insure that their gravy train continues unabated.

  • Some Christian, right-wing or Libertarian ass hole probably complained using nudity, attack on (rich) Christians (the offended “group”) in combination with “Fuck” as their excuse. The facebook community standards (which community?) can be applied to almost anything someone in those favored groups find offensive.

    Remember the community standards ruling on pornography from the Supreme Court? It was impossible to implement legally because no one could define a “community.” So now pornography is easily available almost everywhere. However, facebook, being a corporation can enforce any rule it wants because it is not a government entity. I wish someone would start a liberal social network site similar to existing social networks. If the little twerp that started facebook can become a billionaire because of facebook, surely a liberal could at least make a few million or so and I think we’d be pleasantly surprised at the number of liberals, progressives and free-thinkers there really are in the world.

  • Since you say you’re “Being Liberal”‘s admin, or at least you strongly implied it, I have to say that while I was using Facebook, your page was one of my favorites. That said, was your question in the article, “Why did this happen to me?”, a serious question?

    I have been “Facebook-free” for over two years now, because of several serious issues with the administrators and staff of Facebook, similar to this last incident with you. Many liberals find the posts and content on their pages censored, removed, or the entire page mysteriously vanished during the night. I believe that happened, in fact, more than once to the person who runs “Addicting Info”. . .

    The main issue, as I perceive it, and the answer to your amusingly naive question, is easy to explain. Facebook is “the rich man who was clothed in purple and fine linen and who feasted sumptuously every day”. And you, and every other liberal in existence, are the poor, starving man at the gate, covered in sores, not allowed even the crumbs from the rich man’s table.

    Your picture, in the eyes of whichever administrator is primarily responsible for the discrimination going on every day against the liberal users of Facebook, may as well have had the main office of Facebook and that administrator’s picture in the message. Your picture was removed, and your ability to post blocked for seven days, because you made a rich asshole uncomfortable.

    If you want to be ignored by the admins on Facebook, stick to posting pictures of Obama (or unwed pregnant women, or women who’ve had abortions, ad nauseam) being burned at the stake, torn asunder by hounds, dragged in chains behind pickup trucks full of assault-rifle-waving rednecks, or just hanged and left to rot with degrading signs hung around their necks. Hell, post that stuff and they’ll probably upgrade your account.

    But don’t you dare post pictures of starving children, and imply in any way that those childrens’ plight is in any way due to rich assholes not being willing to share a little of it!

    I weep for humanity.

    Henry D. Rinehart

  • My guess is someone [or several someones whined] about the content of the graphic. FB would have two choices…make a subjective decision or just cut its losses.

    The two guidelines in “community standards” that may have been involved are:
    No nudity or other sexually explicit content
    No content that contains hate speech or directly attacks an individual or group

    While I see it as neither of those, in any spirit of the rule, some will complain.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.