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

141–150 of 454 posts

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

#141

Post by toomuchtodo »

jMyles wrote: post #129
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.

It may be "more effective" to implore the government to crack down on media policies you don't like, but it's also as much a threat to free expression as Facebook's ridiculous and overt censorship of this image.

Free expression already has limits (No "Fire!" in a crowded theater when no danger exists), I'm absolutely fine with government saying what Facebook isn't allowed to do (remove journalistic posts without due process).

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

#142

Post by wslh »

RodgerTheGreat wrote: post #28

If you're a Facebook user and you are unhappy with the way the company strongarms, censors and manipulates its audience, the most effective way for you to express this dissatisfaction is to close your account, block social media bugs and encourage your friends and family to do the same. Facebook doesn't care how you feel when you use their service; their bottom line simply depends on your contribution to the statisti…

> ...the most effective way for you to express this dissatisfaction is to close your account...

I think the most effective way is to share the photo. I just share the The Guardian article with the photo.

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

#144

Post by r_smart »

zelos wrote: post #34
samfisher83 wrote: post #27

Maybe the censorship team was too young know the significance of the picture. I am guessing average Facebook employee is under 30. Probably younger than that. Vietnam war is over 40 years old, most American students learned about it and knew that picture, but I don't know how much Vietnam war is taught in other countries. It might have been a combination of age and where the person grew up that contributed to deletin…

I doubt it: "A Facebook spokeswoman said: “While we recognise that this photo is iconic, it’s difficult to create a distinction between allowing a photograph of a nude child in one instance and not others. "

>it’s difficult to create a distinction between allowing a photograph of a nude child in one instance and not others.

I'm assuming this is just PR, but if not, what a dumb statement. I'm sure there are cases where this might be true, but given the photograph we're talking about, give me a break. You really can't create a distinction between this and most other nude photos?

Unless she meant algorithmically. I could see that being a problem.

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

#145

Post by barrkel »

rm_-rf_slash wrote: post #83
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…

Well, something to consider: during the time that the US Constitution was being written, the most common site to exchange information (usually pamphlets) was the local tavern or coffee house. Sure, if the proprietor was being a prick you could always bring your friends to the shop across the street. But that environment influenced the founders' ideas about how information is exchanged and debated, and it's the format…

You're quite right. Democracy and consumerism don't always push in the same direction, but when they conflict, democracy has more moral legitimacy.

Arguing in favour of democracy does mean limiting some people's opportunity to make money. That can make it an unpopular view.

(Independent of regulatory capture and governmental corruption, of course. The point being that the people are in charge, not what they do with their wallets, because otherwise we end up with an oligopoly.)

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

#146

Post by jonathanstrange »

briandear wrote: post #120
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.

That's a very dangerous path on which to travel. China passes some strong laws what media organizations can and can't do. Free speech isn't a right given by governments, but one cultivated and protected by the people. The marketplace solves these problems. Nobody is forced to use Facebook. If so many people care, perhaps they ought to vote with their dollar and seek alternatives. If they are unwilling to do that, it'…

How does the market solve the problem that it is morally wrong (or at least dubious) to delete an iconic picture that exemplifies the cruelties of the Vietnam War?

Do you believe that billions of Facebook users will switch to another social network because they are some sort of moral saints who recognize Facebook's mistake and act accordingly? Or do you instead believe that the majority of Facebook users are that much of a moral authority that we should readily concede that Facebook is right, because almost none of their users complain?

"the market solves this" is a funny meme, but it's often plain wrong. Markets can solve certain optimization problems and find price equilibria, but they cannot somehow magically solve the vexing moral question of how much (if at all) a social media company should censor their user's content and who should control this in which way.

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

#147

Post by yread »

RodgerTheGreat wrote: post #28

If you're a Facebook user and you are unhappy with the way the company strongarms, censors and manipulates its audience, the most effective way for you to express this dissatisfaction is to close your account, block social media bugs and encourage your friends and family to do the same. Facebook doesn't care how you feel when you use their service; their bottom line simply depends on your contribution to the statisti…

I've just posted the picture

https://i.guim.co.uk/img/media/7fc6b8264e4c56cec514877c01fa9...

Perhaps facebook will do the closing for me

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

#148

Post by roadman »

ClashTheBunny wrote: post #134
roadman wrote: post #114

I'm not on fb. I read in the comment from the spokeswoman that the distinction cannot be made by their robotic rules. So I believe this illustrates a limitation of their AI. And they don't care so much about the people than their algorithms. Just an opinion.

The article states that it was flagged by users and moderated by people. This has nothing to do with AI.

Do you mean the last paragraph? I am not native English, so I thought the "would", "would" sounded highly hypothetical.

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

#149

Post by ivan_gammel »

briandear wrote: post #120
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.

That's a very dangerous path on which to travel. China passes some strong laws what media organizations can and can't do. Free speech isn't a right given by governments, but one cultivated and protected by the people. The marketplace solves these problems. Nobody is forced to use Facebook. If so many people care, perhaps they ought to vote with their dollar and seek alternatives. If they are unwilling to do that, it'…

It's not dangerous, it's the only path that society can choose. Facebook is dominant on social networking market and is subject to anti-trust regulations, that must be adopted to the nature of the service. Same can be said about Google in some countries.

It's almost impossible today for a person to switch SN, because for this to happen it has to be a group decision - most of the contacts must do the same switch. I have accounts in Path, VK and few more "yet another" social networks, but they are useless without social graph and it's beyond my control to move this graph there. It has to be regulated, because having freedom of speech in hands of a single corporation is wrong.

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

#150

Post by gerbilly »

briandear wrote: post #120
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.

That's a very dangerous path on which to travel. China passes some strong laws what media organizations can and can't do. Free speech isn't a right given by governments, but one cultivated and protected by the people. The marketplace solves these problems. Nobody is forced to use Facebook. If so many people care, perhaps they ought to vote with their dollar and seek alternatives. If they are unwilling to do that, it'…

>Don't like tacos? Don't buy tacos.

Except because of network effects, if everyone's preference is tacos, then all the grocery stores will sell only tacos.

Post reply on HN