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

261–270 of 454 posts

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

#261

Post by visarga »

amscanne wrote: post #207
red_admiral wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Facebook arguably has a monopoly position in the way that your local mall, movie theatre or newspaper does not. If I don't like the Times, I can read the Guardian instead. If I don't like what's on at one cinema, I can go to another (granted this may be harder in a small town with only one). Of course I can close my facebook account and move to diaspora, but then I'd lose everything from keeping in touch with my frie…

TIL that I wear an antisocial badge. It's perfectly possible to be happy and healthy without a Facebook account. You might lose out on one particular kind of "social" connection, but that doesn't mean you lose actual social connections. You just catch up with people in person, via telephone, via email, via chat, or a million other ways. Personally, I don't really find the "social" information Facebook has to offer al…

The parent poster just said that he felt like he missed on some important communication that he was expected to have been aware of. It's not possible to be happy without FB, it's not possible to be happy with FB either.

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

#262

Post by wyager »

zdkl wrote: post #237
wyager wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Huh? What are you talking about? I'm defending the right of everyone to be free of excessive government interference, whether it's an individual or a popular company.

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

#263

Post by visarga »

rrego wrote: post #196
toomuchtodo wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

Yes free expression obviously does have limits; It probably doesn't have that silly "Fire in a theater" restriction. Holmes (the supreme court justice you are quoting) said this with respect to this case: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schenck_v._United_States where they prosecuted Schenck for anti-war pamphlets. This is something that would be protected by the constitution today. This quote is a pretty lousy excuse f…

FB isn't just a specific company. FB has grown to such a size that it has become a large part of the media/press. So it has to be regulated like press.

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

#265

Post by wyager »

Daishiman wrote: post #250
wyager wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I disagree that anything on Facebook is "public" in the sense of "public ownership". Facebook is a private platform. Just because things are (maybe) publicly visible doesn't mean they're public property. Should the government be able to force people to put up or take down posters in public-facing Windows?

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

#266

Post by wyager »

curried_haskell wrote: post #253
wyager wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Exactly yes. Once your platform becomes this popular, you wield real power over human society. And society should absolutely start to dictate to Facebook what it can and cannot do to prevent it from abusing its power. How many times do we need to go over this? Any organization, when it becomes sufficiently large, essentially becomes a government.

> Any organization, when it becomes sufficiently large, essentially becomes a government.

Remind me when Facebook used violence to enforce laws or take taxes?

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

#267

Post by kefka »

YuriNiyazov wrote: post #259
Roboprog wrote: post #248

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

This is false. There is no such law that requires nothing but ruthless profit optimization. I invite you to disprove my claim by pointing to a relevant piece of legislation.

First, your "claim" is loaded with a false question to begin with.

Laws can either be created (legislature), or interpreted (judicial). The basis of corporate law has been founded upon the judicial branch, as well as the requirement to shareholders.

Dodge v. Ford Motor Co. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dodge_v._Ford_Motor_Co. (1919)

eBay v. Newark https://h2o.law.harvard.edu/cases/3472 (2010)

Disproven.

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

#268

Post by csharp »

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…

I suspect information exchange and debating, was not meant to be enforced on private property during the constitution's writing. If I owned a tavern, I do not suspect the founding father's intent was for me to allow whatever kind of debate/information exchange to take place in my establishment. If anything, I suspect the opposite to be true.

If I own a coffeeshop today, I would have the right to restrict what is hung on my walls (e.g. advertisements, local events), and what is announced (i.e. someone loudly giving an announcement) to my patrons. I may not be able to control small group conversation though.

That being said, posting something publicly to Facebook is greatly different than DMing a person / group of friends. If Facebook deleted the image sent from one friend to the other, this would be a different conversation. I think your analogy and inspection of the constitution's intent, even further justifies that Facebook has right to do what they did.

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

#269

Post by 794CD01 »

untog wrote: post #240
794CD01 wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

There is free competition between social networking sites, while governments are definitionally regional monopolies.

Facebook can publish what they wish to publish, and not publish what they fundamentally disagree with. They are a private entity. That is pro-freedom, not anti-.

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

#270

Post by jMyles »

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…

> It's a social network with kids on it.

What is this supposed to mean? There are adults too.

You seem to be falling into the fallacy of protecting kids by prohibiting adults from engaging in adult behavior.

Post reply on HN