Facebook deletes Norway PM's post as 'napalm girl' row escalates • Hacker News Board

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

#301

Post by smsm42 » Fri, Sep 09, 2016, 6:18 PM UTC

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…

Who are "we" and why "we" gets to decide what I need and don't need? I mean, when you say "Facebook is a private company and can do whatever the hell they please, including deleting random content because their left foot felt itchy this morning" - I get that. Completely. It's their service, if I like it, I post my cat pictures there, if I don't, I post them elsewhere.

But if you claim the mantle of "we" that is supposed to have special privileges on deciding who needs what on Facebook - I'd really like to know how comes you got this privilege and where it comes from. And no, "think of the kids!!!" is not a good answer.

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

#302

Post by rm_-rf_slash » Fri, Sep 09, 2016, 6:19 PM UTC

csharp wrote: post #268

rm_-rf_slash wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I would only agree with your interpretation of my argument if you stated that you owned a tavern franchise in every town in the country, and every patron had to have a (free) membership to...

Ok you know what? This analogy falls apart because the mediums of exchange are so vastly different there really isn't any comparison, so I really don't see how Facebook is in the right on this. I already said people can go to other "taverns," but comparing physical locations and Internet social networks is like comparing apples and Orange County, California.

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

#303

Post by wonder_er » Fri, Sep 09, 2016, 6:20 PM UTC

wyager wrote: post #266

curried_haskell wrote: post #253

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Along these lines, the argument says "Facebook is large, and should therefore be subjected to regulation".

Government is far larger than Facebook, and far more insulated from the people than is Facebook. I can't imagine why we extend trust to the government to fix a situation where we don't trust facebook.

It's all run by people, with their own competing goals.

And lets not forget that facebook could collapse overnight if enough people decided to stop using it. I don't think a population could exert that level of influence over a government.

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

#304

Post by dragonwriter » Fri, Sep 09, 2016, 6:22 PM UTC

qmalzp wrote: post #300

jlmorton wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Honestly, many of those things would maybe be okay on Facebook. The subject of this photo in particular was the controversy. From the article... A Facebook spokeswoman said: “While we recognise that this photo is iconic, it’s difficult to create a distinction between allowing a photograph of a nude child in one instance and not others. We try to find the right balance between enabling people to express themselves whi…

> While we recognise that this photo is iconic, it’s difficult to create a distinction between allowing a photograph of a nude child in one instance and not others.

Just because distinguishing between mere nudity and inappropriate nudity may be difficult in some cases doesn't mean it shouldn't be done, or, moreover, that it isn't necessary to be done in order to "find the right balance between enabling people to express themselves and while maintaining a safe and respectful experience".

Incidentally, protecting people from things that they neither need nor want protection from can be at least as disrespectful as exposing them to things that they wish to avoid.

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

#305

Post by wonder_er » Fri, Sep 09, 2016, 6:23 PM UTC

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.

>And society should absolutely start to dictate to Facebook what it can and cannot do to prevent it from abusing its power.

We have no good mechanism to prevent the government from abusing its power.

Those here defending FB are not arguing that FB can do no wrong, they are arguing that fixing a problem _with another broken system_ is not an improvement, and is, in fact, a step backwards.

I can opt out of FB, and I have. Facebook exerts no influence over me, compared to the influence the government exerts over me.

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

#306

Post by wonder_er » Fri, Sep 09, 2016, 6:26 PM UTC

red_admiral wrote: post #159

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?

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…

>I personally think governments should regulate media outlets in proportion to their influence on people's lives. FB is the new IE.

IE went into a decades-long decline, because superior products came to market. No regulation required.

Who regulates the governments in proportion to their influence on people's lives?

I wish my government didn't bomb other countries. Can I stop paying taxes, so I can stop supporting the murder of people around the world?

You're asking an organization that backs its wishes with the threat of violence and jail to regulate an organization that lets you keep up with your friends hiking accomplishments.

Facebook could be irrelevant in five years. The laws you're asking to be implemented would be in place for another 100. Are you sure this is a good idea?

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

#307

Post by wonder_er » Fri, Sep 09, 2016, 6:28 PM UTC

visarga wrote: post #261

amscanne wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It is so possible to be happy without FB. Just decide your life is fine, despite the occasional time lags in you discovering certain information.

FWIW, I deleted my FB account months ago, and my quality of life has gone up. If someone expects me to be available via FB, I give them my email address.

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

#308

Post by palerdot » Fri, Sep 09, 2016, 6:29 PM UTC

vidarh wrote: post #204

soylentcola wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As much as I'd love to see some alternative to Facebook that provides generally the same basic features (easy sharing of original content and links/reposted media with a large group of contacts) I feel that they'll all face the same issues for the foreseeable future. Same issue with the ones you mentioned or even ones like G+ that are backed by another big player: critical mass of users combined with no standardized…

Something that "gateways" to Facebook would be great, but of course Facebook would fight it with every weapon possible if it were to get any kind of traction.

Can you explain your thoughts a bit more on what might be that "gateway"?

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

#309

Post by dragonwriter » Fri, Sep 09, 2016, 6:30 PM UTC

wonder_er wrote: post #306

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…

>I personally think governments should regulate media outlets in proportion to their influence on people's lives. FB is the new IE. IE went into a decades-long decline, because superior products came to market. No regulation required. Who regulates the governments in proportion to their influence on people's lives? I wish my government didn't bomb other countries. Can I stop paying taxes, so I can stop supporting the…

> IE went into a decades-long decline, because superior products came to market, because superior products came to market. No regulation required.

The decline followed behavioral changes in response to regulatory action and ongoing litigation (even it began before the resolution of the litigation), so I'm not sure you can concluded from it that regulation was unnecessary to the outcome.

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

#310

Post by wonder_er » Fri, Sep 09, 2016, 6:31 PM UTC

visarga wrote: post #263

rrego wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Er... press isn't supposed to be regulated.

Unless that was your point?

The first amendment says: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press...

Where do you get that we should regulate the press?

Obviously you could argue that the constitution is wrong, and that's fine with me. It's just a document, but when you say "it has to be regulated..." what is the mechanism you're referring to?