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

401–410 of 454 posts

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

#401

Post by ghaff »

optforfon wrote: post #381
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…

I don't want to see those things either. I don't go on Facebook for some historical reality check, or to be reminded of the horrors that are happening around the world. Every news media organization sensors itself and doesn't show the full extent of the horrors it reports on b/c it counterproductive. It's upsetting and it ultimately just desensitizes you. I think that this photo has already been overused and turns in…

I don't fully agree but you're making a rational argument and didn't deserve the downvotes.

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

#402

Post by a_throwaway3838 »

norea-armozel wrote: post #388
forgetsusername wrote: post #352

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Corporations are institutions and like all institutions there are legal and social norms which regulate them. In terms of private corporations (for profit) they have only one norm that trumps all others: profit motive. As this is their primary function, with all else being secondary, you should expect them to act in terms of that. All the appeals to Zuckerberg and the board of director's own consciences is not going…

I'm having a tough time understanding what you're saying. You're saying that the decisions of a company are made due to cultural norms, and not individual consciences? And that Zuckerberg doesn't actually have any power, because the shareholders would out-vote them? And the shareholders make their decisions based on cultural norms? Then where do those norms come from? What leads those cultural norms?

I legitimately don't understand what you're saying.

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

#403

Post by krapp »

optforfon wrote: post #381
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…

I don't want to see those things either. I don't go on Facebook for some historical reality check, or to be reminded of the horrors that are happening around the world. Every news media organization sensors itself and doesn't show the full extent of the horrors it reports on b/c it counterproductive. It's upsetting and it ultimately just desensitizes you. I think that this photo has already been overused and turns in…

>You have to draw a line somewhere. No naked children or gore seems reasonable.

You, as a user, can try to draw the line by controlling your feed, that's your responsibility. But you agreed to be exposed to other people's content when you joined the site - that's the entire point of it.

We, as a society, have no responsibility at all to "draw a line" anywhere to cater to you, and neither does Facebook (nor should it, in my opinion, except where the law forces it to.) Freedom of expression is a right, but freedom from offense in a public space isn't.

"No naked children or gore" is not at all reasonable, on a site with over a billion users, and a billion different use cases.

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

#404

Post by dredmorbius »

Broken_Hippo wrote: post #48
samfisher83 wrote: post #27

Maybe the censorship team was too young know the significance of the picture. I am guessing average Facebook employee is under 30. Probably younger than that. Vietnam war is over 40 years old, most American students learned about it and knew that picture, but I don't know how much Vietnam war is taught in other countries. It might have been a combination of age and where the person grew up that contributed to deletin…

"Most American students learned about it and knew that picture..." I'm 38: We didn't learn much about the Vietnam war, honestly. The sections on everything from the 50's onward were very short, and sometimes glossed over due to time constraints. I think we had one teacher tell us that it was simply because not enough time had passed since it happened, which always seemed ridiculous to me. It is kinda like we knew it…

If your only real exposure to history was through primary and secondary school, you really owe it to yourself to explore the space yourself.

It's not just late 20th century history that's elided, I'm finding (despite some exposre) that my knowledge of Greek and Roman history, of the post-Enlightenment era in Europe, much of English history, the late 19th century, 20th century issues of labour, race, drugs, culture, immigration, women's rights, and more, was tremendously elided.

* James Loewen, Lies my Teacher Told Me: Everything your American History textbook got wrong is a good start. http://www.worldcat.org/title/lies-my-teacher-told-me-everyt...

* Howard Zinn's A People's History has its own biases, but they're a strong antidote to the traditional view. http://www.worldcat.org/title/peoples-history-of-the-united-...

* Will and Ariel Durant's Lessons from History is a short (115 pages) overview of major themes from history. It's a wonderful introduction to the Durants' broader works. http://www.worldcat.org/title/lessons-of-history/oclc/336824...

* James Burke's Connections and The Day the Universe Changed are good introductions to histories of technology and philosophy. From these, continuing the PBS series mode, I'd recommend Kenneth Clark's Civilisation and Jacob Bronowski's The Ascent of Man. These are truly excellent productions.

* Daniel Yergin, The Prize, whacked me over the head with just how tremndously momentous the discovery of petroleum in Western Pennsylvia was, and the impacts across the last quarter of the 19th century and all of the 20th. Follow this with a more technical exploration in Vaclav Smil's Energy in World History and Manfred Weissenbacher's Sources of Power.

And that's only the barest start.

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

#405

Post by a_throwaway3838 »

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…

??? You absolutely have the right and ability to host your own content on your own page. Facebook is incredibly popular, but it's not the "centralized" communication medium. If you want to make a political statement or whatever, you absolutely can-- presuming you can get people to actually come see what you have to say.

People use Facebook or other social media because it's significantly more convenient to do so. And distributing content on Facebook/Twitter/etc. is much more effective than trying to get people to go to your own personal website.

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

#406

Post by the8472 »

tromp wrote: post #386

Facebook has reversed its stance and is reinstating posts featuring 1972's "The Terror of War" picture, according to http://www.theverge.com/2016/9/9/12865670/facebook-censorshi... "Because of its status as an iconic image of historical importance, the value of permitting sharing outweighs the value of protecting the community by removal, so we have decided to reinstate the image on Facebook where we are aware it has…

Not really a good sign if it takes a country's PM to complain before they reverse their position.

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

#407

Post by PavlovsCat »

PavlovsCat wrote: post #329
mabbo wrote: post #126

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?

There isn't a line, there are poles. Even laws are interpreted by judges who have moods, and what not. Why quibble about imaginary lines in an instance where it's not anywhere close? Could such a line even exist? What is the precise length of the coast of any island? Depends on the resolution, and if you have high enough resolution it also depends on the precise moment you measure. Can you name any "line", at all, in…

> Can you name any "line", at all, in any sort of dilemma?

So? You know, maybe at least try to answer that, as a thought experiment and learning experience for yourself.

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

#408

Post by pritambaral »

ycombinatorMan wrote: post #397
pritambaral wrote: post #380

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

So, youre nitpicking?

What's the opposite of 'drawing from incomplete evidence'?

I hate the power Facebook as a behemoth and a monolith holds and abuses. But when accusing, we should be fair. The statements cited as evidence are from a publication, not an offhand comment by a random person on Facebook with no regard to correctness or clarity. And even in that, there isn't clarity for what was being accused.

So, if pointing out a lack of clarity in an accusation is called nitpicking, so be it.

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

#409

Post by jayess »

red_admiral wrote: post #45
RodgerTheGreat wrote: post #28

If you're a Facebook user and you are unhappy with the way the company strongarms, censors and manipulates its audience, the most effective way for you to express this dissatisfaction is to close your account, block social media bugs and encourage your friends and family to do the same. Facebook doesn't care how you feel when you use their service; their bottom line simply depends on your contribution to the statisti…

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.

For sure. A few dozen bureaucrats should be dictating what is and what isn't acceptable content and the punishment for not adhering to their sense of appropriateness.
Post reply on HN