Facebook Backs Down on Censoring ‘Napalm Girl’ Photo
1–10 of 192 posts
Re: Facebook Backs Down on Censoring ‘Napalm Girl’ Photo
#2“While we recognize 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."
You'd have to be really fucking stupid for this to be difficult for you. I guess FB finally realized even their users are not all stupid enough to believe such a ridiculous statement.
Re: Facebook Backs Down on Censoring ‘Napalm Girl’ Photo
#3“While we recognize 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." You'd have to be really fucking stupid for this to be difficult for you. I guess FB finally realized even their users are not all stupid enough to believe such a ridiculous statement.
It is difficult probably because they don't want to employ real humans to discern the difference.
I'd take their policy over Twitter's. Know how many spam/porn accounts littering on Twitter? At least Facebook is not a home for spammers.
Re: Facebook Backs Down on Censoring ‘Napalm Girl’ Photo
#4“While we recognize 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." You'd have to be really fucking stupid for this to be difficult for you. I guess FB finally realized even their users are not all stupid enough to believe such a ridiculous statement.
I don't know, I can see their point. It's not like they can review every picture individually, so they're going to need a general policy.
They messed up, received backlash, and changed their policy based on it.
Re: Facebook Backs Down on Censoring ‘Napalm Girl’ Photo
#5“While we recognize 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." You'd have to be really fucking stupid for this to be difficult for you. I guess FB finally realized even their users are not all stupid enough to believe such a ridiculous statement.
Meaning, difficult to create a filter that "knows it when it sees it."
http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2007/09/27/the-origins-of-justice-s...
Re: Facebook Backs Down on Censoring ‘Napalm Girl’ Photo
#6Too little too late? They've set the tone when they deleted a post made by the democratically elected leader of a country.
That must surely be a tipping point?
Re: Facebook Backs Down on Censoring ‘Napalm Girl’ Photo
#7Too little too late? They've set the tone when they deleted a post made by the democratically elected leader of a country. That must surely be a tipping point?
> They've set the tone when they deleted a post made by the democratically elected leader of a country.
I'm not sure it should matter whether it's a Prime Minister or a 22 year old college dropout.
Re: Facebook Backs Down on Censoring ‘Napalm Girl’ Photo
#8Too little too late? They've set the tone when they deleted a post made by the democratically elected leader of a country. That must surely be a tipping point?
> They've set the tone when they deleted a post made by the democratically elected leader of a country.
They set the tone when they deleted one of the most iconic news photos in history; that it got reshared by the democratically elected leader of a country (and then deleted again) was just adding enormous visibility to the tone they'd already set.
Re: Facebook Backs Down on Censoring ‘Napalm Girl’ Photo
#9“While we recognize 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." You'd have to be really fucking stupid for this to be difficult for you. I guess FB finally realized even their users are not all stupid enough to believe such a ridiculous statement.
It is difficult probably because they don't want to employ real humans to discern the difference. I'd take their policy over Twitter's. Know how many spam/porn accounts littering on Twitter? At least Facebook is not a home for spammers.
What's wrong with porn accounts on Twitter?
Re: Facebook Backs Down on Censoring ‘Napalm Girl’ Photo
#10“While we recognize 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." You'd have to be really fucking stupid for this to be difficult for you. I guess FB finally realized even their users are not all stupid enough to believe such a ridiculous statement.
I don't know, I can see their point. It's not like they can review every picture individually, so they're going to need a general policy. They messed up, received backlash, and changed their policy based on it.
> It's not like they can review every picture individually, so they're going to need a general policy.
Even with a general policy, they still have to review whether a picture falls within the boundaries of the general policy. And there is no debate that they need a general policy, the debate is over what that policy should look like.