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

311–320 of 454 posts

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

#311

Post by jMyles »

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…

> it’s difficult to create a distinction between allowing a photograph of a nude child in one instance and not others

No it's not. 99% of photos of nude children are fine. Children are born nude. Most very young children play nude for many hours a day. They don't have, or at least the ones I know don't have, any matching sense of self-consciousness or modesty for the misguided cultural copy-paste being applied here.

If a photograph is pornographic, then someone will report it immediately, and facebook can take action.

And no matter how difficult it might be in some strange edge cases to decide whether something is "pornographic" (in reality, these cases are probably very rare), this photograph is obviously not pornographic is any sense of the word.

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

#312

Post by jMyles »

dragonwriter wrote: post #304
qmalzp wrote: post #300

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 expr…

> 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.

In a setting where respite from a resource is a click-away, I think that it's always more disrespectful to "protect" people from things from which they ask not to be protected.

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

#313

Post by palerdot »

jfoster wrote: post #273
Raphmedia wrote: post #172

It is kind of scary to see how countries are powerless when it comes to Facebook. I know that this article and the whole discussion here is not about that but I get a eery feeling reading about it.

Theoretically, the PM could find herself having trouble with her social media reach in the lead-up to the next election. The primary criticism that gets leveled toward Facebook is about privacy, but I think the degree of control they can exercise over communication is the more worrying issue.

In a way, both privacy and control issues of FB are related.

Privacy => how FB chooses to share your data with others, Control => how FB allows you to share your data with others

Ultimately it is the data about you that is funneled through FB.

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

#314

Post by ZoF »

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…

This post is exactly why Facebook will eventually fail.

People don't want a centralized authority controlling free speech. Democracy is what's needed in this context and it's going to be messy(read:human, we're all messy).

>I'm sensitive to censorship, and Facebook is a powerful and important platform for sharing, but I'm not prepared to say every photo of historical significance must necessarily be allowed.

False. If you think 'powerful' means big enough to censor things for everyone then you are not sensitive to censorship for rational values of censorship. We all deserve reality.

What is your argument against this photo? Too 'powerful' for a child to see? Are parents no longer held responsible for their own children? Are we all considered children now?

Who shouldn't see this, and why? Explain it exactly, not with 'feel good' stupidity.

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

#315

Post by castratikron »

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 similar to having the right to assemble peacefully in pseudo-public spaces like malls. But I would say the argument for freedom of speech on someone else's website is weaker than that; it's easy to just go to another website and say something there instead. Well, at least it's easy today. If Facebook succeeds at establishing a Facebook-only internet in parts of the world like India and Africa, then you might have a real reason to enforce that freedom, since those users wouldn't have any other choice.

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

#316

Post by smsm42 »

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…

> But that also means it is very hard to use an alternative, especially as Facebook buys relevant competitors of information exchange like Instagram and WhatsApp.

It's not very hard. There are literally thousands of popular forums that are not facebook.

> Given Facebook's overwhelming presence in modern daily life, it is necessary to regulate

No it's not. The fact that you are frequenting a particular site does not give you the power over other people, neither should it.

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

#317

Post by brianwawok »

jMyles wrote: post #311
qmalzp wrote: post #300

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> it’s difficult to create a distinction between allowing a photograph of a nude child in one instance and not others No it's not. 99% of photos of nude children are fine. Children are born nude. Most very young children play nude for many hours a day. They don't have, or at least the ones I know don't have, any matching sense of self-consciousness or modesty for the misguided cultural copy-paste being applied here.…

> Most very young children play nude for many hours a day.

Not in 'Muricia. Nude baby at beach = lifeguard called.

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

#318

Post by norea-armozel »

This is what you get out from centralizing your communications medium. Sure, we all can easily talk to each other but now you have to assume the host will find something you do or say a liability thus remove it as quickly as you post it. To say that Facebook shouldn't do this comes into conflict in protecting share holder value (which means also avoiding illegal content per local laws). So, you can't have it both ways. Either you have a corporate defend it's share holder value or you have it all nationalized and get NPR. I just wish people would realize that corporations aren't our friends, they're here to make a profit. And profit isn't always what's ethical. I think the better solution to the problem as it stands is to force people to start hosting their own content (which is why I support net neutrality and anti-metering laws). That way, you're in charge of your content and responsible for getting people to view it. We shouldn't have to return to the days of AOL (which we have largely done) to get eye balls. People still go to websites, so why depend on Facebook to distribute your content?

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

#319

Post by Noseshine »

mabbo wrote: post #126
falcolas wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's worth noting that the freedom of expression is generally believed to apply more broadly than just to governments. For example, from the UN Declaration of Universal Human Rights, Article 19: Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontier…

Sarcastically, I ask you: I would like to express myself by spray-painting swastikas on the side of your house. Is that protected? I would expect not, but that means there's a line somewhere. Where is it?

Fortunately you don't have to come up with your very own made-up example: We have a very concrete case that is the subject of this entire story submission.

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

#320

Post by ZoF »

jMyles wrote: post #311
qmalzp wrote: post #300

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> it’s difficult to create a distinction between allowing a photograph of a nude child in one instance and not others No it's not. 99% of photos of nude children are fine. Children are born nude. Most very young children play nude for many hours a day. They don't have, or at least the ones I know don't have, any matching sense of self-consciousness or modesty for the misguided cultural copy-paste being applied here.…

This. If anyone was degenerate enough to pursue the path, pedo-porn is easily available.(and these people should be rehabilitated, not denigrated or 'removed' from society entirely depending on your perspective).

When I say 'easily available' people might misconstrue the statement; so, again, it is relatively easy to acquire child porn and stay anonymous(e.g. no repercussions) if you wanted to do so.

We as society should not allow censorship on this premise; what is the underlying ideology? That once this photo is accepted mainstream people will start posting pedo-porn obfuscated as war crimes?

Spoiler: this photo has existed for quite a while and that has unsurprisingly not happened.

People are meta. You can't optimize against them in this authoritarian manner. Most humans just want the truth; hiding a child in pain from her environmental circumstances just because she's naked is not the solution and it looks orwellian.

Great job Zuck.

Post reply on HN