By SHAUNA ANDERSON
Take a moment and look at this photo.
What do you see?
The downy hair of a tiny baby. The soft creamy skin of a newborn. His long lashes. His perfect nose.
Do you have that primal urge to reach for his tiny hand and feel his determined grip around your finger?
Do you feel the love of a family behind him desperate for him to get better? Does your heart break at the tubes and bandages?
Or do you feel offended? Is it “scary, gory, or sensational”?
Does it “evoke a negative response?”
Is there any part of this image that you could compare to an accident, car crash, or a dead and dismembered body?
Is there any possible way it could be deemed “too graphic.”?
You’d have to be kidding, right?
But someone, somewhere at Facebook saw that. Someone, somewhere WAS offended. (Or perhaps they just didn’t really bother to look…)
And someone, somewhere took the disgraceful action of letting the family of this precious baby know. Makes you shudder, doesn’t it?
Hudson Bond is a desperately sick baby. His family anxiously waits for a heart donor for him.
He was born on July 18th and a week later his mum and dad found out he needed a heart transplant. Their lives were understandably shattered.
Top Comments
The Facebook moderators are jerks. I came a cross a Facebook page where people were sharing camel toe photos. There were images of women grabbing their labia and squishing them out whilst taking a close up photo. There were lots of comments from men understandably. I reported the page and images and it was deemed fine. Yet this gets banned. Its a world gone mad!!!! Bless that family and I hope their little boy gets his heart.
You do all realise these complaints (as in the ones various commenters have mentioned) are dealt with via an automatic algorithm? FB receives tonnes of complaints every day and it's not possible for a person to look at every single one- the ones that do get looked at are the kind that are so horrific they need to be reported to police. The way this was dealt with after the initial was horrible, though- it absolutely should have been corrected ASAP.
Really? Because the replies I received did not seem automated. They were all worded differently, some specifically addressed the issues (albeit coming from a place of ignorance) and used a customer service officer name and reference number - proformas are generally standardised