"What does a feminist internet look like?"

The article demonstrates the vulnerability feminists face, and at an online level it is worse.

The article discusses and displays figures such as 'a 10% increase in number of prosecutions for violence against women and girls in England and Wales" in a year. As well as 'more than 6,500 individuals had been subjected to 10,000 aggressive and misogynistic tweets over a three-week period in the UK, and 80,000 people had been targeted by 200,000 such tweets internationally." Feminists are triggered by these statistics and intend to change it, and as the article writes, an organisations by the name 'AWIDForum' brought together feminists around the world to imagine feminist futures. 

• 10% increase in number of prosecutions for violence against women and girls in England and Wales
• more than 6,500 individuals had been subjected to 10,000 aggressive and misogynistic tweets over a three-week period in the UK
• Globally, women spend 5.88 hours, compared to men who spend 4.75 hours

Probably most of the time when a male says something that may seem derogatory and ridicule women, it was just to get a reaction out of them and while some take it for a joke, some don't and take it for more than what it meant out to be. However, distinctively there are more consequential cases of misogyny where feminists have earned their right to have a say, such as intentionally victims being harassed by people on a sexual level, e.g. leaving a sexual comment under an individual picture, or sharing their picture without consent. So in my opinion, it is sometimes necessary and sometimes unnecessary to take action as a feminist, depending on the severity of the situation.

"Nudity and Facebook's censors have a long history"

The article discusses how Facebook sometimes censors nudity, abiding by the law, which sometimes can be the case regarding political affairs such as a completely nude girl in the southern Vietnam napalm attack. The article also discusses other content such as breastfeeding, which is regarded as nudity by Facebook, but allows other graphic content such as animals in context of food processing or hunting as it occurs in nature. 

Facebook's explanation to this was that pictures are processed by automated machines, therefore they have no human intervention and judgement on it's appropriateness. 

• Facebook doesn't allow natural things such as breastfeeding, but allows graphic images of animal being processed for foods and hunted
• Facebook uses automated processing, so there is no human intervention to give a judgement on the picture

I personally think for example, political pictures should not be carelessly be taken down, therefore to avoid this publishers will need to censor areas of the picture that violate guidelines THEN post them. Or entirely, they could post the picture on another platform, but as it is for now, they must abide by the rules of the media they're currently using.