Earlier quoted context omitted.
> There is free competition between social networking sites In theory, yes. In practice, absolutely not.
Theory is what matters.
"In theory, theory and practice are the same. In practice..."
Facebook deletes Norway PM's post as 'napalm girl' row escalates
351–360 of 454 posts
Re: Facebook deletes Norway PM's post as 'napalm girl' row escalates
#352This 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 just wish people would realize that corporations aren't our friends, they're here to make a profit.
I wish people would stop saying that corporations are some disparate entity, rather than a collection of people with a defined purpose, like our friends and family members. People just like you in other words.
Corporations don't have a mind of their own, nor do they pursue profit regardless of ethics.
Re: Facebook deletes Norway PM's post as 'napalm girl' row escalates
#353This 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 just wish people would realize that corporations aren't our friends, they're here to make a profit. I wish people would stop saying that corporations are some disparate entity, rather than a collection of people with a defined purpose, like our friends and family members. People just like you in other words. Corporations don't have a mind of their own, nor do they pursue profit regardless of ethics.
> I wish people would stop saying that corporations as some disparate entity, rather than a collection of people
The whole point of a corporation is to be a separate entity from the collection of people that have interests in it.
Re: Facebook deletes Norway PM's post as 'napalm girl' row escalates
#354This 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
Does this mean people need to start moderating their own content, also? I don't want to have to decide on rules of what to keep/delete, and I don't want to just let anything go, either. If I wanted to manage my own site, I'd build one -- I almost always just want to use a service that someone else maintains for me, including determining what content to show/hide. If I wanted to manage all that stuff myself, I'd just build my own Facebook.
Re: Facebook deletes Norway PM's post as 'napalm girl' row escalates
#355I'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…
"Freedom of expression" isn't specific to government-protected or limitations on government-censorship actions. It's a general principle. It's also not generally protected.
Specific legal structures protecting speech rights are government grants, within those legal constructs. The legal doctrine of the US First Amendment free speech tradition is that it is a broad, but not absolute, limit on government prior suppression of speech rights. It specifically doesn't apply to private individual or corporate limitations on speech.
The history of free speech protections in the US is complex and surprisingly recent. It wasn't until 1919 that Oliver Wendell Holmes in a Supreme Court dissent laid the basis for what would become seen as a very broad free-speech protection. Note that as a dissent, his views didn't carry at the time.
It wasn't until further cases in the 1930s and 1960s that the present regime of protected speech -- protected from government interference -- fully came into being in the US.
See: http://www.worldcat.org/title/great-dissent-how-oliver-wende...
Re: Facebook deletes Norway PM's post as 'napalm girl' row escalates
#356Earlier quoted context omitted.
That doesn't say the post included the photo.
> > Solberg was one of a string of Norwegian politicians who shared the iconic image after Facebook deleted a post from Tom Egeland..., > > > shared the iconic image ....
I find these quotes very confusing, did they delete any words of criticism&support as well as the repost of the photo, and if so were they posted separately or together with the photo?
It seems like purely reposting a photo without comment could now be being called a post of support. While fb users can use whatever slang they like, I expect a media that assumes we don't know about these behaviors in the walled gardens and tells us what specifically was censored.
(Perhaps this seems like splitting hairs to FB users, but as a non-user of a communication network, I would tolerate a network that bans pictures of blue but not a network that bans criticism of its ban of pictures of blue. The latter requires government intervention.)
Re: Facebook deletes Norway PM's post as 'napalm girl' row escalates
#357Earlier 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?
Is it the action or the message that's prevented?
Is there free access to anyone to do same?
What ove a telephone line over which only specific messages may be sent?
What of a wireless earpiece connection over which only designated messages may be sent, or to which only designated devices may connect?
Re: Facebook deletes Norway PM's post as 'napalm girl' row escalates
#358Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
I feel it incumbent upon me here to mention that two of the companies in your list belong to one of those here under discussion. Something perhaps you've overlooked.
Re: Facebook deletes Norway PM's post as 'napalm girl' row escalates
#359Earlier quoted context omitted.
To be fair it is child nudity in this case, which has different legal ramifications in some situations. Also the views on nudity vary a lot from person to person in the US.
Only if deemed to be pornographic. I think it's fair to say this picture doesn't meet any of the requirements to be deemed as obscene (at least in a sexual sense; using napalm on people is another matter entirely).
Very applicable Apocalypse Now quote:
"We train young men to drop fire on people, but their commanders won't allow them to write 'fuck' on their airplanes because it's obscene"
Re: Facebook deletes Norway PM's post as 'napalm girl' row escalates
#360I'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…
The PM didn't post the photo. Someone else did. The PM posted a criticism saying Facebook should "review its editing policy". And then Facebook deleted that. I can concede that there could be good reasons to pull the photo. But I don't see good reasons to pull the PM's post. I don't like any organization having so much power to make criticism about itself disappear.
> I can concede that there could be good reasons to pull the photo.
Such as................................................................................?
It could offend some peoples sensibilities? Fuck them. Let's try to remember the costs of war eh.