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

Post by throwaway199283 » Fri, Sep 09, 2016, 9:19 PM UTC

aidenn0 wrote: post #382

lotyrin wrote: post #332

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yep, it's not a public utility, it's not governed by a neutral third party, it's not open, transparent or free. What did you expect? It's a surveillance and marketing platform that you subjected yourselves to out of convenience, operated for its own benefit and indirectly to the benefit of its customers, certainly not its users. I've never really understood social media in this form, nor understood its takeover as pr…

> Yep, it's not a public utility, it's not governed by a neutral third party, it's not open, transparent or free. What did you expect? It's a surveillance and marketing platform that you subjected yourselves to out of convenience, operated for its own benefit and indirectly to the benefit of its customers, certainly not its users. With the possible exception of "surveillance" everything you just said is also true of…

Post by cookiecaper » Fri, Sep 09, 2016, 9:28 PM UTC

rndgermandude wrote: post #341

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, the…

Post by clifanatic » Fri, Sep 09, 2016, 9:31 PM UTC

jMyles wrote: post #311

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…

> it’s difficult to create a distinction between allowing a photograph of a nude child in one instance and not others No it's not. 99% of photos of nude children are fine. Children are born nude. Most very young children play nude for many hours a day. They don't have, or at least the ones I know don't have, any matching sense of self-consciousness or modesty for the misguided cultural copy-paste being applied here.…

Post by ycombinatorMan » Fri, Sep 09, 2016, 9:38 PM UTC

pritambaral wrote: post #380

greggyb wrote: post #297

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> > 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 ....

Shared the image? yes. Shared the image in the same post? Not clear. 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.

Post by the8472 » Fri, Sep 09, 2016, 9:42 PM UTC

throwaway199283 wrote: post #391

aidenn0 wrote: post #382

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Yep, it's not a public utility, it's not governed by a neutral third party, it's not open, transparent or free. What did you expect? It's a surveillance and marketing platform that you subjected yourselves to out of convenience, operated for its own benefit and indirectly to the benefit of its customers, certainly not its users. With the possible exception of "surveillance" everything you just said is also true of…

Facebook is also the town square where people are selling the newspapers, Facebook is the streets that newspaper delivery trucks drive down, and Facebook is the sidewalks on which employees at the newspaper walk to work. There is no public space on the internet, just a network of private residences. Facebook has positioned itself as the public square. The freedoms of the press, speech and protest are predicated on eq…