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

361–370 of 454 posts

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

#361

Post by acagle »

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…

The optimist in me would like to believe that we are still in a "Napster" world in terms of content, and we will eventually get back to a more bit torrent centric environment - what we lack is a killer UI that me, my kids, and mother-in-law will all use.

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

#362

Post by ntaenta »

tamana wrote: post #210

Guardian is pretty trashy for tossing that picture up twice in one article. The article isn't even about napalm or the war, the picture is being used as snuff shock. Show some respect for human dignity.

The first is a video still, and the second is part of the link to another article about Kim Phuc.

This article is not about napalm or the war, it's about the photo itself! Of course it will be featured...

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

#363

Post by dredmorbius »

smsm42 wrote: post #316
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…

> 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 g…

There are not literally thousands of forums that have Facebook's reach. Network effects, corporate acquisitions, walled-garden approaches, and similar mechanisms make an equivalent reach outside of Facebook difficult.

http://www.businessinsider.com/social-media-engagement-stati...

http://static6.businessinsider.com/image/576d559e52bcd05c658...

Global monthly active users, millions:

* Facebook: 1,650

* Tumblr: 550

* Instagram: 500

* Twitter: 310

* Snapchat:300

* Pinterest: 150

* LinkedIn: 100

For monthly hours engaged: http://www.go-gulf.com/blog/online-time/

Facebook sees 7h 45m monthly, vs. 1h 47m for Google, on roughly the same monthly users (153m vs. 138m).

Note that Google, a company with a $525 billion market cap, and a platform with a nominal 3.2 billion accounts, still manages to net only 5-20 million users with one or more monthly public posts. A topic on which I can claim some expertise. And the network doesn't even register above.

https://www.google.com/finance?q=NASDAQ%3AGOOG&ei=xhbTV9nNIo...

http://www.techtimes.com/articles/51205/20150506/many-users-...

https://ello.co/dredmorbius/post/naya9wqdemiovuvwvoyquq

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

#364

Post by jdavis703 »

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…

Facebook is a new source, maybe the news source, for many people. Sure, children could also be watching CNN, BBC or Fox News... Does that mean they should not report on the real world?

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

#365

Post by harigov »

TheSpiceIsLife wrote: post #360
bjt wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Automated system that detected it as child porn and deleted it. And this system didn't have any ways to manually override it.

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

#366

Post by alanaut »

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 would love to have a conversation on how big does FB have to become to be considered a monopoly?

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

#367

Post by TheSpiceIsLife »

PhasmaFelis wrote: post #323
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…

> It's a social network with kids on it. So is reality.

Bravo! That is brilliant!

The Earth has children on it

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

#368

Post by DanBC »

tamana wrote: post #210

Guardian is pretty trashy for tossing that picture up twice in one article. The article isn't even about napalm or the war, the picture is being used as snuff shock. Show some respect for human dignity.

> snuff shock

Snuff normally refers to dead people. She's not dead. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phan_Thi_Kim_Phuc

She uses the picture in her work around child victims of war: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/8678478.stm

> However, the realisation came to her she did not have to remain an unwilling victim. The photo was, in fact, a powerful gift that she could use to help promote peace.

> "I realised that now that I have freedom and am in a free country, I can take control of that picture," she says.

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

#369

Post by summerdown2 »

Dirlewanger wrote: post #227
red_admiral wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. It's more effective to lobby your local member of parliament/congress to pass laws restricting what media organisations can or cannot do. Granted, by "more effective" I mean something like 0.1% instead of 0.01%, but it's worth a try.

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.

You don't think there should be laws over obscenity, terrorism or monopoly ownership, then?

The reason I'm asking is that if a Facebook user decided to send out full instructions about how make a pneumonia virus with home dna equipment, for example, how would you feel about that?

Let's say they were in another country where they law couldn't or wouldn't stop them? Is it ok for Facebook to keep distributing the information in its walled garden?

Post reply on HN