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

341–350 of 454 posts

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

#341

Post by rndgermandude »

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…

We regulate lots of things already to stop private entities from roaming free and against the interest of the general population.

So just playing the "but it's their walled garden" card does not cut it for me.

For me the question is whether facebook has a significant influence on the population or not. I think they already do when it comes to News, more so than traditional news organizations even. On top of that, they claim to provide an open space for exchange and even discussion.

Personally, I'd therefore like to see facebook being regulated to the point where they cannot simply refuse "service" to people of certain completely legal opinions discussing legal topics, same as they and other businesses should not be allowed to refuse service for certain classes of people.

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

#342

Post by 794CD01 »

throwanem wrote: post #272
794CD01 wrote: post #269

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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-.

I'm not sure it is accurate to describe a situation where two companies have a couple billion users between them and the rest don't come close as "free competition". Facebook and Twitter compete, sort of, between themselves. Does anyone really compete with them?

Sure. Off the top of my head, linkedin, google plus, whatsapp, instagram, wechat, vkontakte, and yikyak. I can keep going all day. Just because they are winning in the largest markets doesn't mean they have no competition. In contrast, I can't just decide "yeah I'd rather not be subject to US law, I'm going to declare myself a citizen of Petoria", and it's just that nobody WANTS to.

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

#343

Post by clumsysmurf »

norea-armozel wrote: post #318

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 way…

> I think the better solution to the problem as it stands is to force people to start hosting their own content

I'm encouraged that Tim Berners-Lee is working on this exact problem with Solid (Socially linked data) "a way for you to own your own data while making it available to the applications that you want to be able to use it."

http://www.digitaltrends.com/web/ways-to-decentralize-the-we...

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

#344

Post by 794CD01 »

untog wrote: post #275
794CD01 wrote: post #269

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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-.

> There is free competition between social networking sites In theory, yes. In practice, absolutely not.

Theory is what matters.

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

#345

Post by mason240 »

kefka wrote: post #232
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.

A private individual, sure. I'll accept that argument. But a corporation should have no such leeway. Companies exist for the mutual benefit of the citizens, and their shareholders. Just because we've lost that sense of ethic doesn't make it not true. Now, the predominant view is "A company can fuck over whomever they want, as long as it lies within the confines of the law", is preposterous. Public corporations are al…

>Public corporations are already required to be sociopathic, given the legal requirement of profit

False.

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

#346

Post by euyyn »

ivan_gammel wrote: post #171
mabbo wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Border line is the existence of service contract. If I allow anyone write anything legal on the wall of my house (the service I offer), I cannot restrict "anyone" to "white male", "anything legal" to "something I'll decide later what" etc.

Who says Facebook lets you post anything legal? Their terms of service surely restrict things like this?

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

#347

Post by untog »

794CD01 wrote: post #344
untog wrote: post #275

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There is free competition between social networking sites In theory, yes. In practice, absolutely not.

Theory is what matters.

That is the point on which you and I will have to disagree. Theory is useless if it has no bearing on reality.

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

#348

Post by mason240 »

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.

Freudian slip there.

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

#349

Post by MildlySerious »

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…

My question is, is there an actual conflict of interest between the two? (In this specific case)

I would think that getting denounced by the public would also be bad for said bottom line.

Wouldn't it be in Facebooks best interest to cater to the public as much as possible?

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

#350

Post by tomp »

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…

It's impossible to draw the line between "mere" and inappropriate nudity, a line that will satisfy all people. This is simply an instance of Facebook making a choice that is just a bit out of balance compared to what the majority thinks, but make no mistake, it's just as much of an arbitrary choice as all others.
Post reply on HN