371–380 of 454 posts
A picture of a naked child was removed from FB because of the law. No story there. Are we going to allow child porn on FB because it is artistic ?
Depending on the legal system involved, "child porn" and "artistic" are mutually exclusive.
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 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.
Of course not, as you mentioned they are composed of human beings who make the decisions about how a company operates.
I am sure you will agree that a significant number of humans will disregard ethics when it comes to personal enrichment. Let me provide one example who comes immediately to mind: Pablo Escobar (thanks, Netflix). US prisons do contain a large number of white collar criminals.
> nor do they [companies] pursue profit regardless of ethics.
This does not follow. Companies are composed of people, and people do disregard ethics.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Government should have no say what a private entity can/can't do in their walled garden. I have some sympathy with this point of view. I would like to see a world where anyone can build whatever website they want, and the amount of attention the website gets is determined by its "worth" as defined by how many people choose to use it. However... > The fact that over a billion people use it is a different issue. ...t…
> One possibility might be if social networks, one they reach a certain size (say >10 million users) be required to put all their public data on standard APIs (such as RSS feeds) under terms that allow anyone to re-use them. I'm genuinely glad that someone had made this point of putting public data accessible to other people after reaching critical mass. I'm equally sad that it might never happen. PS: There are other…
After all, opening up their API would completely defeat their current business model.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
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 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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The parent poster just said that he felt like he missed on some important communication that he was expected to have been aware of. It's not possible to be happy without FB, it's not possible to be happy with FB either.
It is so possible to be happy without FB. Just decide your life is fine, despite the occasional time lags in you discovering certain information. FWIW, I deleted my FB account months ago, and my quality of life has gone up. If someone expects me to be available via FB, I give them my email address.
Earlier 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 ....
That's all I was trying to say. The way the two cited sentences are written — and "her post" os on a different sentence from "who shared the iconic image" — does not say the image share was in the same post as the one being talked about.