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

241–250 of 454 posts

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

#241

Post by ivan_gammel »

elorant wrote: post #217
ivan_gammel wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It's not the reason for censorship. Facebook may offer parental control and display explicit content warnings to serve this audience. After all, people who find nudity offensive may limit their subscriptions to accounts which do not post it - it's not that they are forced to look at it.

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

#242

Post by bbatsell »

Cyph0n wrote: post #18
Noos wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Um, plenty of violence is deemed inappropriate. I doubt much of USA broadcast TV even comes close to a hard R rating. I'd also point out that Italy in particular has had little problem with making hyper-violent content like giallo movies, in addition to showing copious nudity, and Norway has quite a few violent horror films under their belt. It's more broadcast standards originally prevented anything, nudity or extre…

You'd be amazed what some shows can pass through the censors. Watch NBC's Hannibal to see what I'm talking about. But nudity is a huge no-no.

(Kinda gross Hannibal spoilers below)

There's an episode where a man's skin is flayed off his back and turned into metaphorical wings, which are then used to hang him from the ceiling.

In depicting this from behind, you could originally see the man's buttocks. NBC censors objected, so the "fix" was to digitally add a massive amount of dripping blood to cover them up.

The absurdity of that has always stuck with me.

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

#243

Post by EnFinlay »

nekopa wrote: post #104
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.

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

It was unclear to me if the criticism post and the reposting of the image were separate or together.

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

#244

Post by wslh »

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…

> It's a walled garden, and it's their walled garden, and if you don't like it you're welcome to leave.

That is not what happens in a monopoly. We have old laws but the spirit of monopoly fighting is that they can't do whatever they want.

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

#245

Post by bbctol »

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…

Social networks pose a really interesting problem to the usual capitalist model, where competition (y'know, theoretically) ensures the best outcomes for consumers over the long run. If you build a definitely better automobile than General Motors, even only slightly, you can compete and bring the price down/quality of life up for the customer. If you build a definitively better social network than Facebook... no one cares. They're only on Facebook because their friends are. You need to vastly exceed their experience before they'd even consider it.

When the normal checks of a single business dominating a field fail, we need to find new solutions, especially when that field is communication. We don't want a future in which Facebook is non-democratic, but everyone gets their media from it and can't see a good reason to leave. I would hope that over the long term, we figure out public ownership of social media, and enshrine control and understanding of the systems that bring you information as an important right.

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

#246

Post by awinder »

pjc50 wrote: post #117
awinder wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

.. both of which are subject to different kinds of government regulation. But Facebook is definitely a medium . In some ways like a telecom or transit operator.

Sure, but they're regulated differently, and the parent seemed to assume it should be regulated as a media outlet

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

#247

Post by kefka »

pjc50 wrote: post #117
awinder wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

.. both of which are subject to different kinds of government regulation. But Facebook is definitely a medium . In some ways like a telecom or transit operator.

There's a simple path to change things here.

Start criminally charging Facebook for every criminal act they fail to remove. If they're playing the censor, then they need to be punished when they fail in that role.

The other choice, is not to censor anything, other than by the requirements of the law. Like the telephone system does.

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

#248

Post by Roboprog »

kefka wrote: post #232
Dirlewanger wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 al…

People seem to lose sight of that: corporations are REQUIRED to be as ruthless as they can legally get away with, or they are literally in violation of the law in terms of making money for their owners.

The law is the ONLY thing that curbs their bad behavior, other than publicity so bad that it (temporarily, until forgotten) causes a sales drop.

Yeah, I'd like to see more corporate death sentences handed out, as well. It may or may not deter any other bad corps, but it would cut down on second offenses :-)

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

#249

Post by ivan_gammel »

jlmorton wrote: post #186
jMyles wrote: post #133

Earlier 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…

Good news is that you can filter what you see in your feed. Why do you think you or Facebook have a say in conversations between people you have no connection with? Why are you ok with taking down that conversation because there's a disturbing image that you don't even see, because it is not in your feed?

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

#250

Post by Daishiman »

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. You become a medium of public discourse with network effects. That seems perfectly fine to regulate.
Post reply on HN