PetaPixel

Instagram in Hot Water for Disabling Mom Blogger’s Account Over Innocent Photo

instagrammom

The big social networks seem to have a hard time determining what is and is not inappropriate, and to their PR detriment, they seem to make the wrong judgement time and again. The latest case in point comes out of the Instagram camp, that this week decided to disable a mommy blogger’s account for posting ‘inappropriate’ photos of her kids that seem completely innocent.

Courtney Adamo, the writer of Babyccino Kids, tells the story in a blog post published two days ago. Apparently she had recently been receiving email after email saying that certain photos on her account had been flagged as inappropriate and removed.

She received several emails over the course of a week but, for the life of her, couldn’t tell what images had been removed. She assumed it was an error.

On Wednesday evening she posted the photo below to her account: a sweet image of Adamo’s daughter Marlow in her ‘big girl undies,’ displaying her toddler belly with pride at the end of a successful day of potty-training.

innocent1

The next morning she had received another email, and the photo was gone. This time she was certain it was a mistake:

I read the entire page twice and was positive that I had not violated any rules. Unless a baby’s belly is considered ‘nudity’… but surely it isn’t! She is a BABY! [...] to entertain the idea that it is even remotely inappropriate is a disgusting thing in itself. Again, I was sure there was a mistake, so I reposted the photo. And by yesterday evening my account was disabled.

Four years of family photos and memories and comments and well wishes and direct messages gone overnight. “I am sick just thinking about it,” she writes.


She’s reached out to Instagram through Twitter and, given the media attention her story is getting, chances are good her story will reach the company’s ears soon. But as of this writing the account is still down, and BuzzFeed says Adamo has received neither explanation nor apology from Instagram as of this morning.

“I really do want to get my Instagram account back and will continue to use it if I do,” she tells the viral news site. “I also want to make sure that my experience is educational for others and changes an Instagram policy that is overbearing and imbalanced.”

(via BuzzFeed)


Image credits: Screenshot and photograph by Courtney Adamo


 
  • PazinBoise

    Everyone can complain all they want but at the end of the day Instagram can take down what they want and disable accounts as they see fit. I’m sure it states this on their terms and conditions, which all users with an account have agreed too.

  • Bolkey

    Just every discriminating procedure makes mistakes. Either way. Nothing to get excited about that in itself. What’s really worrying is that it is a one-sided decission without any option for appeal.

  • Thomas Kingyblot

    Foot fetishes are not illegal though…

  • Thomas Kingyblot

    THE EPIC FLOOD OF 7 PEOPLE.

  • ninpou_kobanashi

    Since you have an icon of a dog, what about a dog’s?

  • Edgar Allan Bro

    It’s like an internet version of Snitches Get Stitches.

  • dukeofurl

    Then I’m glad for her. What is your source on that however? Because I haven’t heard or seen anything else about this.

  • Robertt1

    Is it such a drama not to share you anus photos with the world?

  • http://www.weathermon.com Vin Weathermon

    Huh? Oh guest…never mind.

  • http://www.weathermon.com Vin Weathermon

    Killjoy, do you see a whole lot of difference between baby girl nipples and baby boy nipples? This is a test.

  • Killroy™

    I do but since most pedobears don’t Instagram does not want to take a chance.

  • RegularGuy55

    My experience with several ‘tech’ companies is that they have very small staffs, and are not equipped (by design) to deal with individual customer service issues. That’s particularly true when the service(s) they provide are free. It’s the old, ‘You get what you pay for’ kind of thinking.

  • Koko Valadez

    They are owned by Facebook, that is the problem. Facebook takes down things they don’t like. I have seen pictures of Second Amendment rights groups taken down and atheist post taken down for supposedly being “offensive”

    Cyanide and Happiness had this taken down:

    http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2013/10/31/popular-cyanide-happiness-comic-artist-gets-banned-from-facebook-for-mild-crucifix-joke/

    There was nothing illegal with any of the content. Wanna put up pictures of your weed? Go ahead. Wanna take photos of underage drinking and what nots? Go ahead! Wanna put up videos of people randomly assaulting other people? Go AHEAD! Wanna put up an edgy comic strip? Woah… your crossing the line now.

  • ‘P-villeGuy

    So I guess you should never take your kids outside or to the playground or let them wear a swimsuit at the public pool, just in case one of the dozens of people around might be a pervert watching. There is nothing wrong with that photograph!

  • http://www.markwheadon.com/ Mark Wheadon

    There are perverts that get turned on by a child’s feet, there are perverts that get turned on by a child’s hair, and on and on. Worrying about innocent (to the majority) images turning on perverts is a sure path to eventual insanity. The paranoia likely does more damage to the child’s well-being than the perceived danger.

  • WKYA_Radio

    How about these mommies NOT put borderline inappropriate images online. So their kinds online? The foolish parents use their kids as pawns. Its not a great image, the child is pretty much undressing herself. NOT GOOD. The parent should have soem perspective. If i was the father iw would tell her to take it down., and limit how much thier kids have exposure.

    The image is just barely appropriate, but i can see why it was flagged ( i would just ignore it). Unfortunately the flagging / takedown mechanism is entirely broken.

  • Jay Smith

    In case you guys didn’t notice, the little girls nipple is out and visible… When you are at a beach you have on a bathing suit which covers that up.

  • ksporry

    probably right about that…