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

61–70 of 192 posts

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

#61

Post by aetherson »

inputcoffee wrote: post #53

Would we say: 1. The process worked. Facebook looked it over, reasoned about it, and changed their minds. Kudos to them for admitting a mistake. 2. It took a media uproar to make a change like this. The process is broken. There has to be a better way to make these changes. 3. There was no right objective answer in the first place, so the process is inherently political. I am leaning towards #3. Want to know what the…

When "the process" that "worked" involved a head of state of a top 30 GDP country getting their post in support deleted before ending up coming up in your favor, then you definitely do not have any evidence that there is a real process that can work.

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

#63

Post by pessimizer »

nck4222 wrote: post #27
pessimizer wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's not like they can review every picture individually It's exactly like that. They could not allow pictures at all, not censor at all, or close down the business, too. Every option is open to them.

Uhhh, right, but those options aren't really options since it would damage them far more than a policy that needs to be tweaked occasionally. "Shut facebook down" is a bit ridiculous. Congrats, you're technically correct that it's an option open to them.

So correct, then.

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

#64

Post by larsiusprime »

manachar wrote: post #51

An interesting twist on free speech on the internet is that almost all speech on the internet is being done on private companies' websites. No private company is considered required to promote or protect free speech. Each forum is able to say "don't like our policies, then go somewhere else". This even seems quite reasonable. Why should any particular forum be forced to allow any particular kind of speech? Should Fac…

relevant: http://www.jonas-kyratzes.net/2014/04/26/free-speech-and-the...

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

#65

Post by NotOscarWilde »

tbirdz wrote: post #55
untog wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

On the positive side, if you don't know anyone on the network, then it's a great opportunity to make some new friends!

Making new acquaintances is useless if nobody from your 30km radius is on the network or if it is hard to meet people inside this radius. Friendships decay really fast with distance, especially when there is no real strong bond.

As much as I am disgusted by Facebook right now, they do one thing right -- they make it fairly easy to connect to friends of friends and people that are in your social circles but you don't know them yet. (A large part is the amount of data they have, along with a good friend suggestion system.)

I'm pretty much invisible on Diaspora -- there is no way I can meet new friends from my area unless I start posting a lot with tags like #cityname and #countryname, and even then it all hinges on at least somebody being on the same server -- if they are on a different one, the tagged posts will not get there.

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

#66

Post by nerfhammer »

Alex3917 wrote: post #52

> In this case, we recognize the history and global importance of this image in documenting a particular moment in time. Translation: if you document any of the numerous real human rights atrocities that are happening today then expect to get banned. If anything, the fact that this photo is already 'historic' and 'iconic' means that it's less important than what's being captured today.

Algorithms can't tell the difference between porn/gore and historically significant graphic images

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

#67

Post by pdkl95 »

untog wrote: post #50
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.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metcalfe%27s_law

It's hard to get your n(n − 1)/2 friends and family to also switch.

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

#69

Post by eva1984 »

manachar wrote: post #51

An interesting twist on free speech on the internet is that almost all speech on the internet is being done on private companies' websites. No private company is considered required to promote or protect free speech. Each forum is able to say "don't like our policies, then go somewhere else". This even seems quite reasonable. Why should any particular forum be forced to allow any particular kind of speech? Should Fac…

Prior to internet, speeches are controlled by newspapers and televisions. They won't even publish your speech if they don't like it. In that sense, Internet is still a huge step forward.

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

#70

Post by npiazza83 »

swampthinker wrote: post #46
npiazza83 wrote: post #45

why?

Says it right in the article. They made the wrong decision to censor a historically relevant photograph. So they backed down.

Who made the decision within the company? That's way more important than the fact the decision was made. Do they have a new position we were previously unaware of that handles requests for heads of state? What if the request is for the opposite? Who censors things explicitly? Who handles media relations? When? Why? Over what threshold do they consider it to be an issue?

Why?

Post reply on HN