Facebook’s community standards specifically state, “We have a strict “no nudity or pornography” policy. Any content that is inappropriately sexual will be removed. Before posting questionable content, be mindful of the consequences for you and your environment.” And today they proved that their definition of nudity is even stricter than ever thought. Earlier this afternoon, a photo of a beautifully adorned pregnant belly was removed from the site because – evidently – it involved unacceptable nudity in the form of a painted breast. Babble’s social media manager, Andrea Zimmerman, posted the photo in question (above) to our Facebook page a few hours ago, and it received several hundred views before it was deleted by Facebook without warning. This has happened once or twice before to photos on Babble’s account, and Facebook has responded by sending a message warning that if their guidelines are violated too many times, the account will be deleted.

While we can’t comment on individual cases, Facebook has a strict policy around the prohibition of nudity on the site. This mirrors the policy that governs broadcast television, and which places limitations on nudity due to the presence of minors on Facebook.

Any copyright lawyers out there want to share some insight? I have a request for comment in to the NFL for some clarification on what's happening here.

P.S. The "Halftime in America" video doesn't even play on Chrysler's own website, because Chrysler linked to the Youtube video, which no longer plays.

This is unfortunate for Chrysler because it is paying for paid ad links on Google, which is how I found the video on Chrysler's site. Clearly, Chrysler had high, viral video hopes for this Eastwood ad. The ad copy on the site says: Just One Person can start a chain reaction that reaches thousands. Share this video and watch as it spreads across the country.

Update: 8:20 am: I've been in touch with both NFL and Chrysler spokespeople and they're both researching what's happening, before making any public statements. 

That app you buy would go up a bunch of cents.

:: Here's the Senate bill, put in at the request of the O'Malley administration. The part about digital products starts at page 33.

The Maryland Chamber of Commerce is skeptical of this tax idea by O'Malley. Their vice president of governmental affairs, in a blog post today, said the organization will work to ensure this digital download tax doesn't become a repeat -- a Tech Tax 2 -- of the failed proposed tax on tech services in 2007.

For years, there's been a steady debate in Maryland about how to address the "sales tax loophole" on the Internet. Consumers who buy goods -- digital and physical -- from online sites that don't have any physical location in Maryland aren't charged the sales tax by the online retailer. Bricks-and-mortar retailers complain about unfair competition. (Note: See my second update below: there is a provision for this type of tax collection in the proposal.)

What other states are taxing digital downloads? I scoured the web for some info on this and I found a Wikipedia list; a proposed bill last year in Congress tried to solve the "who can tax what" conundrum when it comes to digital goods; and Amazon recently striking a deal with Indiana to collect sales tax a few years from now.

On the one hand, states such as Maryland are hurting for tax revenue to close budget holes. Maryland collects taxes on the sale of music CDs, for instance. But when that same music is digital and electronically transmitted, it does not, thus missing out on revenue.

On the other, there may be small businesses out there engaged in the digital download business who worry about new taxes.

Where do you stand?

If you're a ringtone addict, do you think you should now pay a tax? Or, if you're an iPhone app developer for instance, what does it mean to have to collect sales tax on your app sale in Maryland or elsewhere? How would this complicate your business? Or is it not that big a deal?

UPDATE at 3:25 pm: I've gone over the bill a little more closely and, of course, I have more questions. For one, how would the state go about taxing "chat room discussions" and "weblogs" (page 34)? Would this be where a user pays a fee to read or participate in these types of online media, and thus a tax is assessed and collected? (i.e. Online news paywalls?) And what about digital streaming services, such as Netflix and Amazon Prime and other services on Apple TV and Roku, for instance? The bill talks about taxing downloads, but is vague on the act of "streaming."

Update #2, at 3:50 pm: Ok, folks, some more closer reading of the bill indicates that there is indeed a so-called "Amazon tax provision" -- see page 42, 11-701(b)1 -- "engage in the business of an out-of-state vendor." O'Malley, like many other governors, does appear to want to collect sales tax from Amazon affiliates, to use the Amazon example, based on my read of the bill.  A business that's sold more than $10,000 worth of goods in Maryland over the previous four quarters, starting July 1, would be subject to collecting sales tax from customers. This type of bill provision has failed in the past, I'm told. 

RIM, who practically gave birth to the modern smartphone with the BlackBerry, has had its lunch eaten by its competitors over the last four years. Actually, make that two lunches: Lazaridis's and Balsillie's.

The company has caught a fair amount of flack for having two CEOs. I've always thought it was so odd that, in a hyper-competitive field, this one big company chose to muddle the chain of command by having two top dogs in these key positions. But wait, turns out they also had two chief operating officers, too! Noah, have you gotten all your animals aboard the Ark yet? How many RIM executives does it take to do one job?

For comparison's sake, here's Apple's executive leadership team. Notice Tim Cook is the CEO and his (apparently) direct reports are all senior vice presidents, with one also being the lone "chief" -- the chief financial officer.

At Google, the search giant recently clarified its upper echelon by making Eric Schmidt executive chairman, Larry Page as CEO, and Sergey Brin as "co-founder." Where Schmidt was once supposedly the adult in the room, while listening to Page and Brin, Page is now in charge.

Here is a previous executive team (an old web page I found via the Wayback Machine.) At one point, RIM had two CEOs, two chief operating officers, and a chief *operations* officer.

And here is RIM's new executive team web page. A bit leaner. They went from eight top execs, to five.

Having these "co-" positions at the highest levels could indicate some problems in management performance and board leadership. Sometimes, people get promoted to a "co" position as a reward for them staying with the company -- and the company doesn't have the fortitude to push someone else out. It's called executive bloat.

Sometimes, it signals the need for what is perceived as a lot of "strategic" thinking and direction, and the thought is that two people are better than one. But the lines of responsibility and accountability get muddled. And there's a danger that the co-executives sometimes end up listening more to each other than the little people down below -- their people on the front lines.

I'm not saying that happened at RIM.

I'm just saying these are the dangers of diffusing leadership responsibility. In RIM's case, they've had four people doing two key roles, and the company has been dogging it the last few years. Let's hope the new guy at RIM -- Thorstein Heins -- takes the reins of leadership firmly.

Image via The Sun/UK.

Everyone is talking today about SOPA, the controversial House bill (Stop Online Piracy Act) and what effect it may have on the Internet, freedom of speech, and e-commerce if it becomes U.S. law.

For a good overview of the bill (and it's sister bill in the Senate called PIPA), check out the Wikipedia entry for it. Wikipedia is one of thousands of websites that have gone on a voluntary blackout today to protest SOPA/PIPA. It's a fascinating day for Internet citizens. They are making their voices heard.

The Obama White House last week came out against the bills as they've been written. Here in Maryland, our state's citizens who are tuned into the debate are eagerly waiting to see what their representatives to Congress think of the pair of bills.

Sen. Cardin supports the bill in broad terms as a co-sponsor, but stated this month that he wouldn't back it in its current form. “I would not vote for final passage of PIPA, as currently written, on the Senate floor," he said in a press release quoted in Talking Points Memo.

According to ProPublica, Maryland's other senator -- Barbara Mikulski -- and eight seven representatives in the House have been silent on the bills.

UPDATED at 3:20pm: However, Rep. Dutch Ruppersberger, has come out against SOPA in its current form, in recent weeks. He has communicated his position with his constituents (you can see the email in the reader comments below), and an aide to the Congressman alerted me to a blog post today where he re-emphasized his position against SOPA.

UPDATED at 3:45pm: Rep. John Sarbanes put out a statement today saying he was against SOPA in its current form. I predict that we'll suddenly see a few more folks come out against SOPA now that it seems like it's becoming radioactive in Washington.

What do our other reps really think about SOPA and PIPA? Well, we don't know. Yet.

Another site, called SopaTrack, shows how much money each of Maryland's representatives have attracted from pro- and anti-SOPA/PIPA donors. Each representative has received more funding from supporters of SOPA/PIPA -- in some cases, a lot more -- than from the bills' critics.

At this point, SOPA and PIPA seem like a pair of dirty words in Washington. Does anyone really think these bills are going anywhere and won't be dead in the water in a few weeks' time?

Oh, and if you're looking for what some local (Baltimore) musicians think of SOPA, check out the latest from our entertainment blogger Erik Maza.