> "They shouldn't be treated as something shameful or sexual," she said.

Curious that the BBC is completely ignoring the UK government insane demands for mandatory OS level client side scanning malware on every device to block all nudity. This tattooist may find themselves unable to even view their work on their own smartphone.

> Carter says her posts are automatically removed "nine times out of 10". She always appeals the decision, but "it's as if nobody even reads it".

There are multiple large communities of people who have suffered false bans with no functioning appeal system to solve the issue. You are basically screwed unless you or someone you know has connections to the company that can resolve the issue. Politicians and those with enough fame or money don't understand this, because their accounts get special treatment.

The nipples in question are not real but realistic pictures, applied after surgery that removes real nipples. So it's a medical cosmetic tatto, not a bizarre erotic kink.

The funny thing about Instagram is that it's both:

1) One the most prudish social networks, in the West at least

2) The primary funnel to OnlyFans

BBC buries the lede slightly when its clearly Meta's censoring in specific.

Pretty realistic work in aesthetically restorative tattoos I will say that.

A woman could be nude for all intents and purposes, but as long as her areola and crotch are still covered by some strained piece cloth that leaves little of what it is supposed to hide to the imagination, it's still a-ok. I can't tell if its an elobrate charade or if the mere thought of female anatomy actually compromised some people's intelligence to such a degree we ended up with this delicious clownshow.

The hypersensitivity to only overly specific areas of skin of some US-based services was bewildering to the average European a decade ago, but we really should be over it by now. The time for frustration and confusion is over, and it ought to be the era of open amusement.