0
39

[–] pl2 0 points 39 points (+39|-0) ago 

This is important. No nude pigs!

7
35

[–] Svoodie 7 points 35 points (+42|-7) ago 

I don't believe in censorship, so I can't condone this. Besides we need her content to point our fingers and laugh at. If fatties don't post shit then how will I be able to sit behind my screen and judge them? Think it through.

1
18

[–] Charming_Chaos 1 points 18 points (+19|-1) ago 

I agree with you. I am a firm believer in free speech and I'm against unnecessary censorship. I've had posts reported on facebook and it sucks. If you don't like something, don't click on it and keep scrolling. Censorship can be a very slippery slope!! Plus, we all complained loudly for weeks after FPH was banned from Reddit! (and rightfully so)

I also enjoy gawking at idiots!! I don't want their content removed because that would encroach on my entertainment! Hahaha :)

1
12

[–] crashtestgenius 1 points 12 points (+13|-1) ago 

Censorship or not, when using Facebook you agree to their terms of service, community guidelines etc, which this clearly violates.

0
2

[–] buddyp 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

Agreed, read the print, if it says something is in violation of their community guideline don't do it. On the same note, they should be enforcing that rule on everyone who violates it. It's pretty black and white, or rather it should be.

0
1

[–] the_winter_storm 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

This is a very valid point. If it violates their rules, it doesn't matter what it is. Censorship or not, violating community rules deserves some form of punishment.

1
6

[–] libertas_aut_mors [S] 1 points 6 points (+7|-1) ago 

Fair enough.

0
2

[–] KikiCat 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

Agreed, but the biggest thing that worries me is other people doing similar things that get banned.

I guess if humans do it it's pornographic but I guess if there's a naked wilder beast no one cares.

0
28

[–] RockyMountainLady 0 points 28 points (+28|-0) ago 

I have reported so many of her gag-inducing pics... Also the ones that glorify being fat under "self-harm" but they have rejected each one. If there is a human woman showing too much they take it down in minutes. It is sick.

0
5

[–] Reisilihas 0 points 5 points (+5|-0) ago 

Perhaps they think that there is no harm in posting pics of farm animals?

0
16

[–] wmeth 0 points 16 points (+16|-0) ago 

Aaaand reported. But I hate to be the cunt, here. I've reported dozens of her shit and nothing ever happens. Fatbook if infested with SJW bodypossitive boot licks, and I'm sure they just look at the reported content and ignore it.

0
5

[–] libertas_aut_mors [S] 0 points 5 points (+5|-0) ago  (edited ago)

Probably, and thanks for reporting. But I'm not sure anyone has done it in mass before, if they have I'd like to read about it. I'm hoping maybe if she gets enough reports, it will be taken down. If not, its a very public example of Facebook violating their own guidelines.

0
1

[–] wmeth 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

Yeah. I don't know if they've changed recently, but last time I checked, pretty much anything goes as long as there's no nipple or genitals.

0
12

[–] momdadibrokethevase 0 points 12 points (+12|-0) ago 

0
14

[–] christy 0 points 14 points (+14|-0) ago 

It's their fee-fee created rules coming back to bite them in the ass. Love it.

0
7

[–] BuzzingBeaver 0 points 7 points (+7|-0) ago 

Good. It'd be funny as fuck to see these bloated cunts faking happiness while posing for an activity like jogging or riding a bicycle. Ha!

0
10

[–] fattieboom 0 points 10 points (+10|-0) ago 

Such bullshit. I reported both photos for nudity. FB just said they reviewed them and they claim it doesn't violate their terms of use. Wtf facebook?? She's FUCKING CLEARLY nude in both photos? How does that not violate your fucking nudity rule?

Fuck all of this.

0
4

[–] click_norris 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago 

Reports probably are going to some program that uses an algorithm for nudity. Sadly this means it will never catch the nudity of this thing because the algorithm is based off of human bodies and this thing doesn't qualify.

0
1

[–] retailslave 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

If you ask me, this is an even better insult than just reporting pictures. You're not even recognized as a human, let alone sexual.

0
2

[–] ChineseCaptcha 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

The rule only applies to humans, you can't really put pants on hippos.

0
2

[–] libertas_aut_mors [S] 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

I know, I know. I just want to see if enough reports might do something. Or at least show their hypocrisy

0
9

[–] Kiddo_the_Weirdo 0 points 9 points (+9|-0) ago 

I'm pretty okay with the way Facebook has been handling it, honestly.

Tess is a sexless amorphous blob. She doesn't inspire any sexual feelings. She's as sexually stimulating as a boulder.

People who tell her she's gorgeous are just trying to prove a point. They don't mean it.

Whereas a naked shitlady would provoke the sexual reactions facebook policies disallows.

If anything, the FAs should be reeing over her pictures not being flagged as sexual.

0
2

[–] Charming_Chaos 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

I agree. People who call her beautiful are just trying to convince themselves and the world that fat is attractive.

0
0

[–] libertas_aut_mors [S] 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

HAHA I did think about that while I was reporting it. But I think it's shitty that they take down other photos but let her post whatever the fuck she wants

0
8

[–] pissflaps 0 points 8 points (+8|-0) ago 

Reported two pics. One of them had 9 flesh creases in it and I'm pretty sure that one of them was her ass crack.

0
3

[–] thereallg 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

Flesh creases = breeding ground for yeast and smegma.

0
1

[–] celadarlie 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

flesh creases

Thanks for that image.

load more comments ▼ (37 remaining)