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

281–290 of 454 posts

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

#281

Post by dTal »

visarga wrote: post #260
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.

> once your platform gets popular enough, the government can tell you what to do with it I'd say there is considerable public interest, yes. Facebook without the users is nothing, but the users without Facebook are the same society, just using another software.

>the users without Facebook are the same society, just using another software

When the software shapes your interactions to the degree that Facebook does, I'm not so sure. You don't think Facebook has changed society?

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

#282

Post by kefka »

landryraccoon wrote: post #277
witty_username wrote: post #274

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Corporations are just a group of people with legal status. How many people beyond which you won't accept that argument? 1? 10?

Not the OP but: A corporation crosses the line when it has a single person who is protected from the legal actions of the corporation by statue (i.e., a shareholder). At this point the quasi-libertarian theory of a corporation as "just a bunch of guys" completely breaks down as there is a special legal protection for shareholders. A corporation isn't a partnership. A partnership is just a group of people who have agr…

The state can still attack people in the corporate structure individually. For example, if VP Jones decides to go execute a competitor, VP Jones can be brought to trial for murder.

But if that company decides to, say dump toxic chemicals in the waterways, it's only a few hundred thousand dollars, versus millions to dispose of them. Or if the company decides to refuse doing a recall because the cost of recall doesn't equal or exceed its liability, well, too bad.

Corporations can, and do, a great deal of harm. And many of those behaviors are collective across multiple levels and people. But yet, the most we do is a hand-slap of a fine.

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

#283

Post by witty_username »

kefka wrote: post #282
landryraccoon wrote: post #277

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not the OP but: A corporation crosses the line when it has a single person who is protected from the legal actions of the corporation by statue (i.e., a shareholder). At this point the quasi-libertarian theory of a corporation as "just a bunch of guys" completely breaks down as there is a special legal protection for shareholders. A corporation isn't a partnership. A partnership is just a group of people who have agr…

The state can still attack people in the corporate structure individually. For example, if VP Jones decides to go execute a competitor, VP Jones can be brought to trial for murder. But if that company decides to, say dump toxic chemicals in the waterways, it's only a few hundred thousand dollars, versus millions to dispose of them. Or if the company decides to refuse doing a recall because the cost of recall doesn't…

> Or if the company decides to refuse doing a recall because the cost of recall doesn't equal or exceed its liability, well, too bad.

Is that wrong (I think that's what you're implying)? I'm serious. More money can be used to make things safer, but there's a point where the benefits become marginal compared to the costs.

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

#284

Post by palerdot »

cabalamat wrote: post #254
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.

> Government should have no say what a private entity can/can't do in their walled garden. I have some sympathy with this point of view. I would like to see a world where anyone can build whatever website they want, and the amount of attention the website gets is determined by its "worth" as defined by how many people choose to use it. However... > The fact that over a billion people use it is a different issue. ...t…

> One possibility might be if social networks, one they reach a certain size (say >10 million users) be required to put all their public data on standard APIs (such as RSS feeds) under terms that allow anyone to re-use them.

I'm genuinely glad that someone had made this point of putting public data accessible to other people after reaching critical mass.

I'm equally sad that it might never happen.

PS: There are other discussions going on having a common standard/protocol for social media communications so that it can be picked up by anyone like an email provider without locking out the people using a particular service. I'm now wondering what is stopping this from happening. FB and other private monopolies can be forced to adopt the protocol and data from them can be shared between other services like FB. How FB would react to this is whole another matter.

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

#285

Post by ljk »

hughperkins wrote: post #42
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…

Thats not really true. I dont use facebook (i use wechat, never had anything censored, and the privacy controls are awesome), but i dont think facebook wakes up in the morning and thinks "why doesnt Hugh use facebook? We should make it more like wechat". If you want change, the most effective way to get it is to ask for it.

> but i dont think facebook wakes up in the morning and thinks "why doesnt Hugh use facebook?

If enough people stop using it then they might. It's all about profit for corporations.

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

#286

Post by golemotron »

Facebook needs to be broken up like Ma Bell was. It's too big to manage well and network effects are preventing alternatives from gaining ground. The world needs more diversity in policy than it has with this mediated communications juggernaut.

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

#287

Post by reitanqild »

golemotron wrote: post #286

Facebook needs to be broken up like Ma Bell was. It's too big to manage well and network effects are preventing alternatives from gaining ground. The world needs more diversity in policy than it has with this mediated communications juggernaut.

I tend to agree. Microsoft needed to be punished by authorities and they do better now as a result, all while behaving better.

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

#288

Post by reitanqild »

GavinMcG wrote: post #153
pi-rat wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pretty sure you would have a manual step for important verified people. Imagine the PR disaster if an algorithm removed a post by Obama.

Now I'm curious what would happen if Obama posted a similar response, including the photo.

Anyone here knows him or some of his close friends and want to ask? I might be wrong but I'm pretty sure someone here is at least friend-of-a-friend to him.

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

#289

Post by jbmorgado »

dajohnson89 wrote: post #279
jbmorgado wrote: post #235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Yes, your honor, but I believe the jury should know what the victim was wearing that night."

Oh please. I am honestly curious. Why is the PM of Norway posting a graphic photograph of the Vietnam War?

You just have to read the Article. It's stated in the 2nd paragraph why. Basic defense of liberty of speech was why.

"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."

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

#290

Post by npiazza83 »

Dirlewanger wrote: post #227
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.

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.

> Government should have no say what a private entity can/can't do in their walled garden.

Except in matters of de-segregation, food and drug safety, safe and healthful working conditions for working men and women, a minimum wage, waste disposal and environmental protection, truth-in-advertising, Employment and Labor discrimination, privacy of employees and customers, and licensure of trades...

Post reply on HN