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

41–50 of 192 posts

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

#41

Post by mikeash »

legitster wrote: post #40
mikeash wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

My point is that you equate outrage to "they're not allowed to," when that's not the case at all. They are absolutely allowed to. If you want to talk about the merits of outrage, you can't start with a false description of what it implies.

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

#42

Post by dragonwriter »

xapata wrote: post #37
pessimizer wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> The girl had removed her burning clothes before the photograph was taken.

Removing clothes after the napalm had burned through them (which was manifestly the case here) certainly may reduce the degree to which you are being burned by napalm, but does not mean you are no longer be burned by napalm.

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

Be considered by whom? Pornography requires more than simple nudity.

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

#43

Post by [deleted] »

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?

[deleted]

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

#44

Post by whamlastxmas »

betolink wrote: post #23

Can Facebook be held accountable under monopoly laws? They are too big and too influential for our own good.

This generally applies when they do something that prevents competition. If Facebook made it difficult or impossible for you to use other social media websites, then maybe.

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

#48

Post by untog »

I wonder, do these restrictions also apply to Instant Articles? Because as much as Facebook wants to deny being a media company, if it is providing (and censoring) a platform news organizations publish through it most definitely is one. And it's worth stopping to think about what that means when compared to the open web.

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

#50

Post by untog »

kinkdr wrote: post #47

One thing that I don't understand is why all these people that complain about Facebook don't just switch to an open source, distributed Social Network platform. It's not like anybody is forcing them to use FB or that there are no alternatives.

Quite literally, network effects. There is no point using an open source, distributed social network if you have no friends on it.

In many ways you don't really have a choice about what social network you use, just whether you use one at all.

Post reply on HN