Qantas sorry after boy exposed to cough

[Hvr]

Qantas has apologised to the family of an eight-year-old boy who was exposed to a hardcore coughographic image while checking a Lions tickets promotion on the airline's Facebook page on Friday morning.


The Sydney boy had been looking through posts on the page on his father's iPad when he came across the image. The father asked not to be named to protect his son.

Qantas confirmed the image was apparently visible on its Facebook page for about seven hours.

Read more: Qantas sorry after boy exposed to cough
​

While it happens and scum will post cough in inappropriate places I think not removing it for that long is a bit slack. Maybe posts need to be moderated before they can be viewed or not allow pictures to be posted?

Not sure what the answer is but I do have empathy for Qantas in this situation.

 

[whatmeworry]

7 hours is quite ridiculous! Ok its a Facebook page, but someone either at FB or QF should acted earlier.

 

[erkpod]

Good luck getting Facebook to do anything about it in a timely manmer!

 

[Mal]

Pfft. Storm in a tea cup. Son should not be allowed to use Facebook.... He is under age.

Is Queensland rail responsible if someone opens up a playboy on a train? Should Qantas have staff monitoring social media 24x7? Nope. Their office hours are clearly stated.

Dad should go back and learn how to parent.

 

[VHOEJ]

Have to agree with Mal - people under a certain age are not meant to sign up to Facebook and shouldn't be 'viewing' it either.

QF and any other company can't have someone monitoring thier site 24/7. People always post rubbish like this, other spam etc. Facebook should be the ones getting rid of it but they never do.

 

[Mal]

To expand my earlier post... A company could have someone monitoring 24x7 but Qantas social media is based in Australia so tends to stick to traditional hours.

Basically the father is an idiot complaining over nothing. I do believe the comment about him "trying to scam tickets" is probably true. I actually think I saw the post in question... It was spam and yes contained an inappropriate picture. But really daddy? Get off your high horse... You leave junior to play with Facebook without supervision. He is exposed (allegedly) to an inappropriate avatar picture when viewing a post about Lions. Again pfft. Daddy wants his pay day. And even more pfft that the journalist allowed him anonymity in the story.

Won't you think of the children?

 

[medhead]

I've report cough on the qantas fb page a couple of times. Never checked how long before its taken down

 

[ScottWebb]

Pfft. Storm in a tea cup. Son should not be allowed to use Facebook.... He is under age.

Is Queensland rail responsible if someone opens up a playboy on a train? Should Qantas have staff monitoring social media 24x7? Nope. Their office hours are clearly stated.

Dad should go back and learn how to parent.

I agree. When will some people learn that letting young kids loose on Facebook isn't so healthy and start being responsible

 

[SeatBackForward]

he might only ask for 55million points.

 

[MarkD]

It says it was the guys profile picture. Even if they didnt allow posting of pictures he would have still had image posted because its his profile pic.

 

[tuppaware]

What a load of BS.

Its like a kid seeing a stack of cough on a desk, then suing the company that makes the desk for holding it!
Anyways most kids these days have seen that stuff already.

 

[serfty]

Re: QF Offal in Red Wine Sauce

Qantas hosts the FacePimple page

Qantas allows the free putting up of images and words on said FacePimple page

Qantas does this in spite of the long and sordid history of people posting offensive materials on this type of page and indeed Qantas' page previously

Qantas apparently does not actively moderate the FacePimple page - at least not out of Eastern Australia business times

.... Hence I think its pretty reasonable to say that Qantas is directly responsible for the images and words it allows to be posted on its FacePimple, and its other web sites.



... but .... back to the offal its said they serve their passengers ....

This is off topic, but one of the T&C's of having/using a facebook account is that one is over [-]18[/-] 13 years of age. The blame for this should be placed squarely on the head of the child's father for letting the 8 yo child have access to his facebook in the first place.

Qantas have the right to assume that any accessing their site are of age.

 

[Ewing]

Re: QF Offal in Red Wine Sauce

This is off topic, but one of the T&C's of having/using a facebook account is that one is over 18 years of age.

13 actually.

</pedant>

 

[RooFlyer]

Re: QF Offal in Red Wine Sauce

This is off topic, but one of the T&C's of having/using a facebook account is that one is over [-]18[/-] 13 years of age. The blame for this should be placed squarely on the head of the child's father for letting the 8 yo child have access to his facebook in the first place.

Qantas have the right to assume that any accessing their site are of age.

Happy that Ewing pointed out the 13 year 'threshold' and that you have corrected your post serfty. But unless cough on Qantas' web site is OK for the 13+ brigade, I believe my point stands.

 

[simongr]

Re: QF Offal in Red Wine Sauce

That was the result of someone with cough in their profile picture posting on their Facebook page... I don't see how that is Qantas directly at fault though.

Qantas hosts the FacePimple page

Qantas allows the free putting up of images and words on said FacePimple page

Qantas does this in spite of the long and sordid history of people posting offensive materials on this type of page and indeed Qantas' page previously

Qantas apparently does not actively moderate the FacePimple page - at least not out of Eastern Australia business times

.... Hence I think its pretty reasonable to say that Qantas is directly responsible for the images and words it allows to be posted on its FacePimple, and its other web sites.



... but .... back to the offal its said they serve their passengers ....

Happy that Ewing pointed out the 13 year 'threshold' and that you have corrected your post serfty. But unless cough on Qantas' web site is OK for the 13+ brigade, I believe my point stands.

The image was in a profile pic - not in a pic hosted on QF's page. For example Ansett has an image of an uncovered lady in their profile pic (in a bikini) - that might be offensive to some people.

 

[Ansett]

Re: QF Offal in Red Wine Sauce

←

The image was in a profile pic - not in a pic hosted on QF's page. For example Ansett has an image of an uncovered lady in their profile pic (in a bikini) - that might be offensive to some people.

Slightly OT BUT

Should I remove it???? LOL

 

[oz_mark]

Re: QF Offal in Red Wine Sauce

The image was in a profile pic - not in a pic hosted on QF's page.

Absolutely. Dealing with a profile pic is a Facebook issue.

 

[BD1959]

Re: QF Offal in Red Wine Sauce

Slightly OT BUT

Should I remove it???? LOL

I find this highly offensive - the guy in the picture makes me feel .... inadequate. :shock:

I'm off to counseling ... and to put in a claim for 3m QFF points.

Regards,

BD

 

[simongr]

Re: QF Offal in Red Wine Sauce

Slightly OT BUT

Should I remove it???? LOL

Exactly! It was a perfectly timed post to illustrate my point. Thanks for that

 

[RooFlyer]

Re: QF Offal in Red Wine Sauce

The image was in a profile pic - not in a pic hosted on QF's page. <snip>

So if Qantas' web site has a normal URL link to a red-hot cough site, because that cough isn't hosted on QF's page, its OK?

Look, this isn't OT, and my apologies for that, but if accessing Qantas' Facebook (there, I said it) page allows one to access cough, than that's not OK and Qantas are responsible to the extent that adequate moderation can detect the 'bad' links and then remove them.

Simple, and incontestable, I would have thought.

The fact that Qantas does expunge the links when they finally become aware of it shows that they find it unacceptable too. Its just that they don't appear to put adequate resources into moderating what's posted.

<snip>

For example Ansett has an image of an uncovered lady in their profile pic (in a bikini) - that might be offensive to some people. .

Oh, please, don't go down the path of what "might" offend someone as if that's analogous to the case in point. Hard core cough isn't "offensive to some people" - that doesn't make it OK for Qantas either IMUO.