Source: Grace Coddington's Instagram/Rihanna's Twitter / Art: MTV Style.
Vogue's Creative Editor Grace Coddington joined Instagram, had her account taken down, and then had it reinstated all within the course of a week. Why? She had posted a nude selfie (of sorts) and with the help of a grassroots campaign, was able to get her account back.
This isn't the first time that someone's lost posting privileges after uploading content that wasn't age-appropriate. Bad
girl gal Rihanna happens to be the most well-known casualty of this policy (something that hurts all of us here on a daily basis). However, what Grace had posted wasn't a selfie, nor was it entirely a nude.
Grace had instead posted a cartoon representation of herself. Was she punished because of her high visibility? Or simply because any nude is a bad nude and violation of Instagram's TOS:
Don’t share photos or videos that show nudity or mature content.
If you wouldn’t show the photo or video you are thinking about uploading to a child, or your boss, or your parents, you probably shouldn’t share it on Instagram. The same rule applies to your profile photo. Accounts found sharing nudity or mature content will be disabled and your access to Instagram may be discontinued.
If that's to be the case, then all representations of the human form should be struck from the app as well. There would be no cartoons, line drawings, portraiture, or snaps from local museums and galleries. Artists would be held in the same contempt as pornographers. This might seem a little far fetched and Draconian, but maybe Instagram should (and for that matter, all of us) consider context in addition to content.
We're all adults (well, most of us), whom I think know what exactly is titillating and what isn't. As for kids? Parents should be mindful of what their children look at. Not the entire internet community. And Rihanna? Bb girl, I think I found you a loophole.