Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Facebook Backs Down on Censoring ‘Napalm Girl’ Photo

wsj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 192 posts

Re: Facebook Backs Down on Censoring ‘Napalm Girl’ Photo

#31

Post by forgottenpass »

pessimizer wrote: post #18
joesmo wrote: post #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.

They could start by rejecting the default assumption that nudity should be considered sexual by default. And maybe the default assumption that sexuality is bad - I don't want them to shift to trying to detect if an image is arousing or not; but I do want whatever censorship system they feel they need to have in place to be able to distinguish between child pornography and a photograph of a child being burned by napal…

They could start by rejecting the default assumption that nudity should be considered sexual by default. And maybe the default assumption that sexuality is bad

I agree with the suggestion, but can't help but laugh at how impractical it is. The people who would make the change are bay area progressives working in tech. And that means saying all the "right" things about sex positivity but stopping short of actually becoming sex positive.

Re: Facebook Backs Down on Censoring ‘Napalm Girl’ Photo

#32

Post by mthoms »

daveloyall wrote: post #29
ibejoeb wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can't believe you're catching flak for this. It is absolutely not difficult to distinguish between a photo of burning children and a photo of a sex act. In fact, it's pretty ridiculous to characterize this photo as that "of a nude child."

I don't see any flames in that picture. I've never seen any flames in that picture, but I've been told (since junior high school) that it is a picture of a burning child. What's up with that? Common sense tells me that the child's clothing was on fire, and she took those clothes off and ran away, and that's what we see a photo of. Fine. But then... why is this photo described as a picture that contains flames? Not ju…

What an odd thing to be pedantic about. I mean, that's what bothers you about this photograph?

Besides, burning does not require fire to be present. It only requires heat (or chemical reaction).

Re: Facebook Backs Down on Censoring ‘Napalm Girl’ Photo

#33

Post by ibejoeb »

daveloyall wrote: post #29
ibejoeb wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can't believe you're catching flak for this. It is absolutely not difficult to distinguish between a photo of burning children and a photo of a sex act. In fact, it's pretty ridiculous to characterize this photo as that "of a nude child."

I don't see any flames in that picture. I've never seen any flames in that picture, but I've been told (since junior high school) that it is a picture of a burning child. What's up with that? Common sense tells me that the child's clothing was on fire, and she took those clothes off and ran away, and that's what we see a photo of. Fine. But then... why is this photo described as a picture that contains flames? Not ju…

She is surely burning. A napalm bomb was dropped on her village. The photo documents people fleeing. Look at her arms; you can see the skin peeling away.

Here's a photo of her back: https://i.ytimg.com/vi/KZZvVl11PvU/maxresdefault.jpg. This is the life-long damage: http://img2.timeinc.net/people/i/2015/news/151109/napalm-gir....

Re: Facebook Backs Down on Censoring ‘Napalm Girl’ Photo

#34

Post by dragonwriter »

daveloyall wrote: post #29
ibejoeb wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can't believe you're catching flak for this. It is absolutely not difficult to distinguish between a photo of burning children and a photo of a sex act. In fact, it's pretty ridiculous to characterize this photo as that "of a nude child."

I don't see any flames in that picture. I've never seen any flames in that picture, but I've been told (since junior high school) that it is a picture of a burning child. What's up with that? Common sense tells me that the child's clothing was on fire, and she took those clothes off and ran away, and that's what we see a photo of. Fine. But then... why is this photo described as a picture that contains flames? Not ju…

> I don't see any flames in that picture.

The flame and smoke from the napalm attack that all the people in the picture are running from is pretty much the whole background of the picture, though the fact that its black and white and the cloud is fairly thick may make that less immediately recognizable.

> but I've been told (since junior high school) that it is a picture of a burning child.

Its not a picture of a child in flames [0], though its picture of a child experiencing burning as a result of the napalm drop (according to her, her recollection is that she was screaming "too hot, too hot" at the time the photo was taken), and the absence of visible flame isn't the same thing as the absence of continued burning.

[0] Well, not the child that's the central feature of the photograph. There are children burning in that sense as well in the picture, I suppose, if you consider the background and what is actually burning there.

Re: Facebook Backs Down on Censoring ‘Napalm Girl’ Photo

#35

Post by dragonwriter »

legitster wrote: post #17

Devil's advocate: I don't see why Facebook isn't allowed to choose what is or isn't displayed on their site. The only reason Facebook is a platform people choose to use is because of the editorial decisions they have been making. And the problem was that the policy was too consistent? That they were not making enough exceptions to the rule for important people?

> Devil's advocate: I don't see why Facebook isn't allowed to choose what is or isn't displayed on their site.

They are allowed to. If they weren't allowed to, this wouldn't have happened at all.

OTOH, everyone else is allowed to criticize their particular choices, even while recognizing that they have the right to make choices.

> The only reason Facebook is a platform people choose to use is because of the editorial decisions they have been making.

I disagree that this is the only reason, but even if this was true that wouldn't be an argument against public commentary and criticism regarding Facebook's editorial decisions.

> And the problem was that the policy was too consistent?

No, the problem that has been suggested is that the policy is too simplistic, not too consistent.

Re: Facebook Backs Down on Censoring ‘Napalm Girl’ Photo

#36

Post by Raphmedia »

joesmo wrote: post #11
ourmandave wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

Meaning FB is too fucking stupid to hire a person who knows the difference between child porn and iconic war images. It's not that rare to find people with common sense who can discern the two, even in the US. From what I understand, all these decisions get made by actual humans at FB and therefore have nothing to do with algorithms. The algorithm may flag the initial image, but it's the stupid human that approves th…

Honestly, that person probably had a form that went:

[x] Children

[x] Naked

And the system did the rest.

I doubt they also have

[ ] Socially acceptable photo of naked children

on the form.

Re: Facebook Backs Down on Censoring ‘Napalm Girl’ Photo

#37

Post by xapata »

pessimizer wrote: post #18
joesmo wrote: post #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.

They could start by rejecting the default assumption that nudity should be considered sexual by default. And maybe the default assumption that sexuality is bad - I don't want them to shift to trying to detect if an image is arousing or not; but I do want whatever censorship system they feel they need to have in place to be able to distinguish between child pornography and a photograph of a child being burned by napal…

> being burned by napalm

I didn't see any napalm in the image. The girl had removed her burning clothes before the photograph was taken. The reason this particular image is considered acceptable is the historical context.

If I were to recreate the image by hiring actors, that would probably be considered child pornography.

Re: Facebook Backs Down on Censoring ‘Napalm Girl’ Photo

#38

Post by legitster »

dragonwriter wrote: post #35
legitster wrote: post #17

Devil's advocate: I don't see why Facebook isn't allowed to choose what is or isn't displayed on their site. The only reason Facebook is a platform people choose to use is because of the editorial decisions they have been making. And the problem was that the policy was too consistent? That they were not making enough exceptions to the rule for important people?

> Devil's advocate: I don't see why Facebook isn't allowed to choose what is or isn't displayed on their site. They are allowed to. If they weren't allowed to, this wouldn't have happened at all. OTOH, everyone else is allowed to criticize their particular choices, even while recognizing that they have the right to make choices. > The only reason Facebook is a platform people choose to use is because of the editorial…

"We don't keep pictures of naked children on our site." That doesn't seem too simplistic. Especially since censorship for Facebook requires an international staff of thousands to go through every single photo looking for child pornography or gore. How do you train contractors in the Philippines the subtleties between a photo that has historic merit and one that is lewd?

The only reason FB is the "safe" place it is is because they have done an incredibly good and consistent job of getting this type of stuff done. And I don't see any way they run around policies like this without just giving special privileges to ignore the posts of more influential people.

Re: Facebook Backs Down on Censoring ‘Napalm Girl’ Photo

#39

Post by dragonwriter »

legitster wrote: post #38
dragonwriter wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Devil's advocate: I don't see why Facebook isn't allowed to choose what is or isn't displayed on their site. They are allowed to. If they weren't allowed to, this wouldn't have happened at all. OTOH, everyone else is allowed to criticize their particular choices, even while recognizing that they have the right to make choices. > The only reason Facebook is a platform people choose to use is because of the editorial…

"We don't keep pictures of naked children on our site." That doesn't seem too simplistic. Especially since censorship for Facebook requires an international staff of thousands to go through every single photo looking for child pornography or gore. How do you train contractors in the Philippines the subtleties between a photo that has historic merit and one that is lewd? The only reason FB is the "safe" place it is is…

> "We don't keep pictures of naked children on our site." That doesn't seem too simplistic.

The argument over whether it is too simplistic is already all over all the other subthreads, feel free to engage in it there; I don't feel the need to repeat what's been said elsewhere here. In GP, I was just correcting you on what the nature of the complaint is.

Re: Facebook Backs Down on Censoring ‘Napalm Girl’ Photo

#40

Post by legitster »

mikeash wrote: post #19
legitster wrote: post #17

Devil's advocate: I don't see why Facebook isn't allowed to choose what is or isn't displayed on their site. The only reason Facebook is a platform people choose to use is because of the editorial decisions they have been making. And the problem was that the policy was too consistent? That they were not making enough exceptions to the rule for important people?

Of course they're allowed to choose. And we're allowed to choose to criticize them in public for those choices. And they're allowed to choose to change their actions based on that criticism. Everybody is acting on the basis of their freedoms.

I'm reading this as a non-statement. Like I'm saying that no one should be outraged about this, and you are saying there is no such thing as outrage, just people acting in their own interests. Fine, that's very true, but then that takes the steam out of all arguments everywhere.
Post reply on HN