sigh

I know it's against HN rules to ask if people have read the article, but you clearly didn't read the article.

The "non-sexual nudity" example is at the bottom of the article. It's a stylized cartoon drawing of a nude man and woman with arms around each others' waists viewed from the back as they walk along a path. There is a heart strategically placed around waist level so you can't even see their whole butts.

It's about the tamest artistic depiction of nudity you can imagine, certainly something that is totally fine anywhere else on Facebook. Very clear that this is a bullshit excuse being used by Meta.

Further in the article when it is discussing that one page, which was not "shut down" as the title implies but had their content placement lowered...

"the organisation had received a message almost every week from Meta over the past year saying that its page “didn’t follow the rules”"

If you are getting content violation notices every week for a year, it is certainly not all because of this one cartoon.

[1] https://imginn.com/p/ClT7Cufrk0k/

[2] https://imginn.com/p/DCmnH4WPbXa/

[3] https://imginn.com/p/C-dBMzXRqnu/

> Fatma Ibrahim, the director of the Sex Talk Arabic, a UK-based platform which offers Arabic-language content on sexual and reproductive health, said that the organisation had received a message almost every week from Meta over the past year saying that its page “didn’t follow the rules” and would not be suggested to other people, based on posts related to sexuality and sexual health.

If you're getting a warning every week for a year, I would like to see the other 51 non cherry-picked examples that they didn't give to the guardian. Based on a quick look at some of their posts that are still publically available, I think Meta is completely justified in restricting visibility of some of these posts.

Indeed, how do we know they are nude if we can't see any of their parts? I mean, living in SF I've seen people walking around in public like that, wearing the most minimal covering possible.