Why doesn't fb just blur the content that users find disturbing like "Viewer discretion.., flagged by our users". Then you can click to view or adjust the sensitivity in your account settings.
Facebook deletes Norway PM's post as 'napalm girl' row escalates
231–240 of 454 posts
Re: Facebook deletes Norway PM's post as 'napalm girl' row escalates
#232Earlier 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.
Absolutely not. Government should have no say what a private entity can/can't do in their walled garden. The fact that over a billion people use it is a different issue.
A private individual, sure. I'll accept that argument.
But a corporation should have no such leeway. Companies exist for the mutual benefit of the citizens, and their shareholders. Just because we've lost that sense of ethic doesn't make it not true.
Now, the predominant view is "A company can fuck over whomever they want, as long as it lies within the confines of the law", is preposterous. Public corporations are already required to be sociopathic, given the legal requirement of profit (exception given to benefit corps).
Or in much more shallow words, "I'll believe corporations are people when they execute one in Texas."
Re: Facebook deletes Norway PM's post as 'napalm girl' row escalates
#233Earlier 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.
Absolutely not. Government should have no say what a private entity can/can't do in their walled garden. The fact that over a billion people use it is a different issue.
That Facebook wanted blurring or pixelation presumably relates to child pornography.
Re: Facebook deletes Norway PM's post as 'napalm girl' row escalates
#234Earlier 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.
Absolutely not. Government should have no say what a private entity can/can't do in their walled garden. The fact that over a billion people use it is a different issue.
Absolutely yes. Facebook has more members than entire countries and is the primary method that many of those people use to communicate. It has long surpassed any kind of protected walled garden and government absolutely has a say in how Facebook operates.
Re: Facebook deletes Norway PM's post as 'napalm girl' row escalates
#235What was the PM's motivation to make the post in the first place?
"Yes, your honor, but I believe the jury should know what the victim was wearing that night."
Re: Facebook deletes Norway PM's post as 'napalm girl' row escalates
#236Earlier quoted context omitted.
Asking the government to protect freedom of speech is the exact opposite of a threat to free expression. It's analogous to congress passing a law saying that newspapers cannot edit letters to the editor. Some newspapers might complain about having to publish things they find disagreeable, but nobody is being censored anymore.
Imagine if a paper newspaper were told that they had to publish every letter sent to them or no letters at all. They would stop publishing letters entirely. There are a lot of ways to construct laws such that they have the opposite of their nominal effect. It's important to note that the US First Amendment bars the government from passing laws respecting both freedom of speech and freedom of the press (among other re…
Wrong analogy. Newspaper does not offer a service of publishing customer letters. They offer a service of receiving and reading letters on premise that they may choose the letter to be published. It's a different story.
If a newspaper published all letters, then government could act on behalf of citizen to protect freedom of speech, by making sure there's no arbitrary censorship of publications.
Re: Facebook deletes Norway PM's post as 'napalm girl' row escalates
#237Earlier 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.
It's astounding so many people defend variants of 'power to the mighty'. Are you so naive you believe you are one of the mighty?
Re: Facebook deletes Norway PM's post as 'napalm girl' row escalates
#238Earlier 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.
They can tell you what to do with it and not use it too. This is the way it should be. Think of the harm that can be done in all sorts of abusive ways if there was no regulation of sites and services.
Re: Facebook deletes Norway PM's post as 'napalm girl' row escalates
#239Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I can concede that there could be good reasons to pull the photo. Yeah?
Sure. Facebook is not a history book. It's a social network with kids on it. Napalm girl is a powerful photo. So are photos of Aushwitz. So too are photos of trench warfare. Saddam Hussein's hanging is historically important, as are all the images of children killed in Aleppo, or drowned families washing up on shores in Italy. That doesn't mean we need all these things on Facebook. I'm sensitive to censorship, and Fa…
What is wrong with a kid seeing that particular photo? The only truly troubling things are the expressions on the people's faces (something which would take a parent about 30 seconds to explain), and the context (which is hard to infer from the photo directly).
Re: Facebook deletes Norway PM's post as 'napalm girl' row escalates
#240Earlier quoted context omitted.
Facebook is human?
People who work there are, but that's irrelevant. The right of freedom of press isn't based on the press themselves being human. The people who live in society have a right to access information that is violated through government censorship of media outlets.
It's weird because you seem to be advocating against government censorship, while also advocating in favour of Facebook censoring things.
Why is one good and the other bad?