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

211–220 of 454 posts

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

#211

Post by pritambaral »

greggyb wrote: post #105
bjt wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...,

That doesn't say the post included the photo.

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

#212

Post by ivan_gammel »

elorant wrote: post #190
ivan_gammel wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Technically it's possible to have an index of all images published is some registered media and assume they are already vetted by editors of that media. Then you compare the published picture and voila - you do not have this problem at all. Of course, it adds some costs, but it's exactly what M.Zuckerberg can decide to spend money on (before delivering this service to people in Africa and other places where it's easy…

It’s not that simple. What about artistic nude for example? Would you allow a picture like the following, which could have appeared in dozens of art related magazines? https://www.saatchiart.com/art/Photography-vision/84309/2880... I think that it’s much more safe to prohibit all nudity than nitpicking what to allow and what not. There are TBs of pictures uploaded daily on Facebook, it’s not a trivial task.

What's wrong with this image? Of course it should be allowed. I see no difference with David by Michelangelo, for example. Banning all nudity is just stupid censorship that has no moral ground.

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

#213

Post by ocdtrekkie »

wonks wrote: post #3

I feel like this is a good argument for taking another look at projects like Diaspora and Friendica Red

The biggest problem I have with Diaspora is the lack of width of types of people on it. Almost everyone there is an anti-corporate type or someone who is almost certainly only there because they've been banned everywhere else.

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

#214

Post by lillesvin »

1_listerine_pls wrote: post #203
nine_k wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not having a FB account may be unwise: an impersonator might take your name, if only to make fun of you before his/her/your classmates. Having an empty account, and actually not opening FB, may be a better way.

It's too useful to be ignored. Soon, interaction with businesses will be done through their platform. It's easier to set up a FB page with services + marketing included than to create a website.

I closed my account back in 2010-2011, and I haven't missed it the least. Only problem is that the board game group at work organize through a Facebook group, but we overcome that by talking to each other.

If a company can only communicate with me through Facebook then it's probably not a company I want to communicate with in the first place.

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

#216

Post by sitkack »

wyager wrote: post #209
paganel wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

So once your platform gets popular enough, the government can tell you what to do with it? Why? It's not Facebook's fault that politicians started using it.

Yes.

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

#217

Post by elorant »

ivan_gammel wrote: post #212
elorant wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s not that simple. What about artistic nude for example? Would you allow a picture like the following, which could have appeared in dozens of art related magazines? https://www.saatchiart.com/art/Photography-vision/84309/2880... I think that it’s much more safe to prohibit all nudity than nitpicking what to allow and what not. There are TBs of pictures uploaded daily on Facebook, it’s not a trivial task.

What's wrong with this image? Of course it should be allowed. I see no difference with David by Michelangelo, for example. Banning all nudity is just stupid censorship that has no moral ground.

I believe that a lot of conservative people would find a picture like that offensive. We have to keep in mind that Facebook's audience is in the billions.

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

#218

Post by wslh »

JadeNB wrote: post #185
wslh wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> ...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.

> I think the most effective way is to share the photo. I just share the The Guardian article with the photo. Let's imagine that we could mobilise everyone to take your course of action, or RodgerTheGreat's ( https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12462067 ). Do you really think that anyone in a position of power in Facebook is personally opposed to this photo, at least to the extent of feeling moved to change policy i…

I think this is a protest and if the protest is huge they will need to tolerate this photo even if it is against their policies.

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

#219

Post by falcolas »

mabbo wrote: post #126
falcolas wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's worth noting that the freedom of expression is generally believed to apply more broadly than just to governments. For example, from the UN Declaration of Universal Human Rights, Article 19: Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontier…

Sarcastically, I ask you: I would like to express myself by spray-painting swastikas on the side of your house. Is that protected? I would expect not, but that means there's a line somewhere. Where is it?

I'm afraid this analogy is off-base. To echo Ivan's comment, I'm not offering my house as a freely available communication medium to the world, from which I profit. If I were, then this would be a more valid line of argument.

Nobody's spraypainting on Facebook's house here. They're using it as it was intended: as a method of one-to-many communication for messages which contain nothing illegal.

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

#220

Post by ricksplat »

red_admiral wrote: post #45
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…

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.

* > No. ... *

He says as if the possessor of some absolute truth. The ignorant twit.

Post reply on HN