Facebook bans 'undesirable' plus-sized model

May 25, 2016

Sydney, May 25: Facebook has been forced to backtrack after it banned an Australian ad featuring a bikini-clad plus-sized model promoting positive body image, initially saying the photo's depiction was "undesirable".

The social networking giant blocked the ad for Melbourne's "Cherchez La Femme: Feminism and Fat" gathering, saying the image violated its advertising guidelines.

undesirable

When organisers questioned the decision, the Facebook Ads Team wrote back saying the ad did not comply with their health and fitness policy because "the image depicts a body or body parts in an undesirable manner".

"Ads like these are not allowed since they make viewers feel bad about themselves," said the letter to organiser Jessamy Gleeson, who posted a screen-shot of it online.

fb

Gleeson said she was stunned that Facebook "seemingly has no idea that plus-sized, self-describing fat women can feel great about themselves".

She urged followers on the platform to "rage hard at anyone who tries to tell us that some bodies are more 'desirable' than others".

"Facebook has ignored the fact that our event is going to be discussing body positivity (which comes in all shapes and sizes, but in the particular case of our event, fat bodies)," she wrote.

Facebook "has instead come to the conclusion that we've set out to make women feel bad about themselves by posting an image of a wonderful plus-sized woman."

Gleeson said Facebook later apologised for its actions, sending her a note admitting it had incorrectly reviewed the ad.

"Our policies are in place to help protect the community from offensive ads that can damage their experience on our platform," it said in a screen-shot Gleeson posted on Twitter.

"This is not the case here and I'm sorry for our incorrect review. We evaluate millions of ads per week and there are instances that we incorrectly disapprove an image that does not violate our policies."

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
Agencies
January 12,2020

Washington D.C., Jan 12: A recent study has claimed that people end up wasting almost an entire day when they take a vacation.

This can happen while standing in a queue or searching for places to visit, people do not keep a count of the time they have actually utilised during the trip. As a result, they end up doing much lesser activities than they originally had planned.

According to a recent report in Fox News, the study has also shared the fact that people try to justify time waste with planning and scheduling activities whereas the truth is that these things can be done well ahead to save time during the trip.

The average time waste according to the study commissioned by Sykes Holiday Cottages also said the people taking a seven days' trip waste a minimum of 17-and-a-half hours to figure out various factors.

But there are other causes involved as well. When one visits any crowded location, the real-time spent to enjoy the location is lesser than the time spent on reaching and trying to get involved. For instance, if one visits an amusement park, the activities take lesser time than the preparatory and other phases.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
News Network
April 28,2020

Los Angeles, Apr 28: People who experience loss of smell as one of the COVID-19 symptoms are likely to have a mild to moderate clinical course of the disease, according to a study which may help health care providers determine which patients require hospitalisation.

The findings, published in the journal International Forum of Allergy & Rhinology, follows an earlier study that validated the loss of smell and taste as indicators of infection with the novel coronavirus, SARS-CoV-2.

According to the scientists from the University of California (UC) San Diego Health in the US, patients who reported loss of smell were 10 times less likely to be hospitalised for COVID-19 compared to those without the symptom.

"One of the immediate challenges for health care providers is to determine how to best treat persons infected by the novel coronavirus," said Carol Yan, first author of the current study and rhinologist from the UC San Diego Health.

"If they display no or mild symptoms, can they return home to self-quarantine or will they likely require hospitalisation? These are crucial questions for hospitals trying to efficiently and effectively allocate finite medical resources," Yan said.

The findings, according to the researchers, suggest that loss of smell may be predictive of a milder clinical course of COVID-19.

"What's notable in the new findings is that it appears that loss of smell may be a predictor that a SARS-CoV-2 infection will not be as severe, and less likely to require hospitalisation," Yan said.

"If an infected person loses that sense, it seems more likely they will experience milder symptoms, barring other underlying risk factors," she added.

Risk factors for COVID-19 previously reported by other studies include age, and underlying medical conditions, such as chronic lung disease, serious heart conditions, diabetes, and obesity.

In the current study, the scientists made a retrospective analysis between March 3 and April 8 including 169 patients who tested positive for COVID-19 at UC San Diego Health.

They assessed olfactory and gustatory data for 128 of the 169 patients, 26 of whom required hospitalisation.

According to the researchers, patients who were hospitalised for COVID-19 treatment were significantly less likely to report anosmia or loss of smell -- 26.9 per cent compared to 66.7 per cent for COVID-19-infected persons treated as outpatients.

Similar percentages were found for loss of taste, known as dysgeusia, they said.

"Patients who reported loss of smell were 10 times less likely to be admitted for COVID-19 compared to those without loss of smell," said study co-author Adam S. DeConde.

"Moreover, anosmia was not associated with any other measures typically related to the decision to admit, suggesting that it's truly an independent factor and may serve as a marker for milder manifestations of Covid-19," DeConde said.

The researchers suspect that the findings hint at some of the physiological characteristics of the infection.

"The site and dosage of the initial viral burden, along with the effectiveness of the host immune response, are all potentially important variables in determining the spread of the virus within a person and, ultimately, the clinical course of the infection," DeConde said.

If the SARS-CoV-2 virus initially concentrates in the nose and upper airway, where it impacts olfactory function, that may result in an infection that is less severe and sudden in onset, decreasing the risk of overwhelming the host immune response, respiratory failure, and hospitalisation, the scientists added.

"This is a hypothesis, but it's also similar to the concept underlying live vaccinations," DeConde explained.

"At low dosage and at a distant site of inoculation, the host can generate an immune response without severe infection," he added.

Loss of smell, according to the study, might also indicate a robust immune response which has been localised to the nasal passages, limiting effects elsewhere in the body.

Citing the limitations of the study, the scientists said they relied upon self-reporting of anosmia from participants, which posed a greater chance of recall bias among patients once they had been diagnosed with COVID-19.

They added that patients with more severe respiratory disease requiring hospitalisation may not be as likely to recognise or recall the loss of smell.

So the researchers said more expansive studies are needed for validating the results.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
Agencies
January 4,2020

Washington D.C: One of the greatest spectacles of modern art is still thriving in the Australian outback as confirmed by satellite imagery of NASA. The Marree Man is a massive geoglyph depicting an aboriginal hunter, that spans over 2.6 miles in the Southern Australian region.

Discovered by a pilot in 1998, its origin still remains a mystery even to this date.

The Marree Man was given a new lease of life in 2016 when a group of people from the neighboring town of Marree plowed its lines to avert its fading due to erosion.

After NASA shared the image of the art-work that was taken in June, the efforts of the good samaritans turned out to be a total success, reported CNN Travel.

The restoration team believes that the refurbished Marree Man would last longer than its original version.

According to NASA, "They [the team] created wind grooves, designed to trap water and encourage the growth of vegetation. They hope that eventually, the man will turn green."

In a previous article, CNN reported that an entrepreneur by the name of Dick Smith took upon himself to unravel the geoglyph's mystery in 2016. His team combed through all the available evidence but couldn't find anything conclusive.

In 2018 he even offered a 5,000 Australian dollar reward for anyone who knows the identity of its creator.

Nobody turned up with an answer but it was speculated that unknown artist lives in Alice Springs or even might be an American.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.