On the Mirror.co.uk website they quote Facebook, “Content about animal cruelty is against our terms and will be removed once reported to us.” Is that enough and when should they be removed? They don’t appear to be sticking to their word. Such content is still being posted.
The general mood is that it is abhorrent to allow nasty characters to post pictures of animal abuse on Facebook. In some cases it is not actual animal abuse but indications that the person who posts the pictures is engaged in animal abuse. This is called ‘dark humor‘. It is evidence of possible criminal behavior. There is no humor in it unless you’re a sicko like Jamie Card, who appears to a be a mid-twenties Brit living in London, UK and perhaps working at Battersea Dogs & Cats Home (unlikely).
Card is becoming infamous. He (she? – see Michele S’s comment below) is a type of internet troll in some respects. He wants to provoke and be hated by decent-minded people. He likes to taunt pet-lovers. Perhaps he hates himself – low self-esteem. People with low self-esteem feel they deserve to be hated and therefore engineer situations in which they can be hated. Then their life is in balance.
The pictures I have seen posted by him provocatively indicate cat abuse but he’d argue, if he was arrested by coppers, that he is having harmless fun. In one picture there are 10 dead cats. Were they killed by him or by an animal shelter? The RSPCA says: “One photo was him holding 10 or so dead cats and another was a bin with dead cats in it….” This is the sort of thing we see at cat shelters where cats are euthanised.
The point I am getting to is that he feels compelled to advertise his objectionable behavior on Facebook. Isn’t this a good thing from one perspective? We can eventually identify him and check him out on the ground to see if he really is abusing cats.
Without posting on Facebook it could be argued that his animal abuse, should it really be happening, would be under the radar. It would be ‘dark’, invisible.
Perhaps the better compromise is for Facebook to assist in tracking him down (I am sure they can do it) and then once he has been identified and confronted on the ground (meaning not on the internet) and the matter dealt with by the relevant authorities, then his content on Facebook could be removed.
Posting so called ‘dark humor’ animal abuse on FB helps provide evidence against an abuser. To delete it removes evidence and presents a barrier to a potential criminal conviction.
Adrian, on the Change.org petition website under a petition to ensure that Facebook sticks to their promise to remove animal abuse pages, makes a nice point: Facebook only care whether visitors to their site will be upset by animal abuse pictures. They are less concerned about the animal abuse and stopping it.
The internet is the wild west. It is time for some regulation which will be resisted by Google and Facebook and the other major websites. They want total freedom and control because they can make more money. Facebook should be regulated to a certain extent and one regulation would place an obligation on them to assist the police in apprehending animal abusers.