Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Facebook deletes Norway PM's post as 'napalm girl' row escalates

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 454 posts

Re: Facebook deletes Norway PM's post as 'napalm girl' row escalates

#101

Post by DanBC »

ythl wrote: post #61
hga wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm starting to get tired of making this point in some of the many discussions of this topic (most recently https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12457371 ), so the last time for a month, I swear: You tell me when I can open a segregated lunch counter, or refuse to bake a gay wedding cake, and I'll consider your argument to have merit. Otherwise, it's only a matter of time until Facebook and company are brought to hee…

I still don't understand the gay wedding cake argument. If I'm a baker, why can't I refuse to make certain cakes? I mean, I would never turn away a customer, but if the customer asked me to write obscene things on the cake, don't I have the right to refuse their request? "I'd like to have a rainbow cake" "ok" "with little penises sticking out of it for my gay wedding" "no, sorry." What's wrong with that? It's no diff…

Where the fuck did you get "with little penises sticking out of it" from? What the hell is wrong with you?

Re: Facebook deletes Norway PM's post as 'napalm girl' row escalates

#102

Post by ythl »

maxerickson wrote: post #95
ythl wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I still don't understand the gay wedding cake argument. If I'm a baker, why can't I refuse to make certain cakes? I mean, I would never turn away a customer, but if the customer asked me to write obscene things on the cake, don't I have the right to refuse their request? "I'd like to have a rainbow cake" "ok" "with little penises sticking out of it for my gay wedding" "no, sorry." What's wrong with that? It's no diff…

You're manufacturing your example. The refusal in a famous case wasn't based on lascivious content, it was based on the people buying the cake. http://aclu-co.org/court-rules-bakery-illegally-discriminate...

Well, in that case I agree. You should not be able to refuse service based on the person, but you should be able to refuse service based on the request.

Re: Facebook deletes Norway PM's post as 'napalm girl' row escalates

#103

Post by talmand »

maxxxxx wrote: post #2

I always find it interesting that no level of violence is deemed inappropriate in the US but nudity has to be avoided at any cost.

Actually, in most cases they are not judging the level of violence, but the graphic nature of the outcome of that violence.

Lots of bad guys that have gray dust instead of blood being shot up in your movie? PG, PG-13 at worst.

Lots of bad guys with thirty gallons of blood pumping through their veins being shot up in your movie? R.

Re: Facebook deletes Norway PM's post as 'napalm girl' row escalates

#104

Post by nekopa »

bjt wrote: post #89
mabbo wrote: post #21

I'm torn. Freedom of speech and freedom of expression mean that the government can't put you in prison or punish you for saying or believing what you do. Facebook aren't the government, they're a private entity and don't have to host anything they don't like- including hosting photos that they don't like. It's a walled garden, and it's their walled garden, and if you don't like it you're welcome to leave. And on the…

The PM didn't post the photo. Someone else did. The PM posted a criticism saying Facebook should "review its editing policy". And then Facebook deleted that. I can concede that there could be good reasons to pull the photo. But I don't see good reasons to pull the PM's post. I don't like any organization having so much power to make criticism about itself disappear.

I believe the fine article states that she reposted the image.

Re: Facebook deletes Norway PM's post as 'napalm girl' row escalates

#105

Post by greggyb »

bjt wrote: post #89
mabbo wrote: post #21

I'm torn. Freedom of speech and freedom of expression mean that the government can't put you in prison or punish you for saying or believing what you do. Facebook aren't the government, they're a private entity and don't have to host anything they don't like- including hosting photos that they don't like. It's a walled garden, and it's their walled garden, and if you don't like it you're welcome to leave. And on the…

The PM didn't post the photo. Someone else did. The PM posted a criticism saying Facebook should "review its editing policy". And then Facebook deleted that. I can concede that there could be good reasons to pull the photo. But I don't see good reasons to pull the PM's post. I don't like any organization having so much power to make criticism about itself disappear.

The PM's post included the photo.

> Erna Solberg, the Conservative prime minister, called on Facebook to “review its editing policy” after it deleted her post voicing support for a Norwegian newspaper that had fallen foul of the social media giant’s guidelines.

> Solberg was one of a string of Norwegian politicians who shared the iconic image after Facebook deleted a post from Tom Egeland...,

Re: Facebook deletes Norway PM's post as 'napalm girl' row escalates

#106

Post by mercutio2 »

ythl wrote: post #61
hga wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm starting to get tired of making this point in some of the many discussions of this topic (most recently https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12457371 ), so the last time for a month, I swear: You tell me when I can open a segregated lunch counter, or refuse to bake a gay wedding cake, and I'll consider your argument to have merit. Otherwise, it's only a matter of time until Facebook and company are brought to hee…

I still don't understand the gay wedding cake argument. If I'm a baker, why can't I refuse to make certain cakes? I mean, I would never turn away a customer, but if the customer asked me to write obscene things on the cake, don't I have the right to refuse their request? "I'd like to have a rainbow cake" "ok" "with little penises sticking out of it for my gay wedding" "no, sorry." What's wrong with that? It's no diff…

To be clear, the case in question involved a baker turning away the customer purely because of who the customer was, nothing about the cake they requested.

This is obnoxious, but probably doesn't need to be illegal, so I suspect we agree.

Re: Facebook deletes Norway PM's post as 'napalm girl' row escalates

#108

Post by shabda »

awinder wrote: post #88
red_admiral wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. It's more effective to lobby your local member of parliament/congress to pass laws restricting what media organisations can or cannot do. Granted, by "more effective" I mean something like 0.1% instead of 0.01%, but it's worth a try.

Why is Facebook a media outlet as opposed to, say, a private gathering place like a mall or movie theatre?

Because it is becoming the predominant way people consume media. If it were only used by 10% of its current use, it shouldn't be, but it current levels it should.

As Stalin said "quantity has a quality all its own".

Re: Facebook deletes Norway PM's post as 'napalm girl' row escalates

#109

Post by refurb »

hga wrote: post #32
kybernetyk wrote: post #25

Why should the PM be treated differently than anyone else? Just because she's the PM? FB has any right to remove whatever they want from their private property.

I'm starting to get tired of making this point in some of the many discussions of this topic (most recently https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12457371 ), so the last time for a month, I swear: You tell me when I can open a segregated lunch counter, or refuse to bake a gay wedding cake, and I'll consider your argument to have merit. Otherwise, it's only a matter of time until Facebook and company are brought to hee…

I'm pretty sure publishing historic photos isn't protected by civil rights laws.

Re: Facebook deletes Norway PM's post as 'napalm girl' row escalates

#110

Post by paganel »

awinder wrote: post #88
red_admiral wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. It's more effective to lobby your local member of parliament/congress to pass laws restricting what media organisations can or cannot do. Granted, by "more effective" I mean something like 0.1% instead of 0.01%, but it's worth a try.

Why is Facebook a media outlet as opposed to, say, a private gathering place like a mall or movie theatre?

Facebook has become a de-facto political "agora" for the politicians and high-Government officials from my country (I live in Eastern Europe). More exactly, that's where now they first express their views on current political, social and economics affairs affecting my country. Nowadays I would say that most of the important stuff first gets posted on FB, and only then it gets re-published by the local media (whatever it's left of it at this point).

So, even if I would want to "get off" FB and decide to ignore it completely then I would just have an "inferior" experience as a citizen of my country, i.e. I would not have first-hand account on what's shaping the things around me. It's not that I like what Facebook has become, but there's nothing that I can do to change it at this point.

Post reply on HN