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

71–80 of 192 posts

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

#71

Post by bobcostas55 »

eva1984 wrote: post #69
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.

The difference is network effects. There are tons and tons of newspapers (over 1000 in the US alone), and one can plausibly start their own. There's a tiny number of social networks and it's extremely difficult to break into that market.

Low barriers + large numbers is at least a nudge in the direction of intellectual diversity.

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

#72

Post by muglug »

nerfhammer wrote: post #66
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

They can if you train them on the right data – a corpus of historically significant photos would be relatively small.

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

#73

Post by NotOscarWilde »

lutorm wrote: post #59
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.

One thing that I don't understand is why all these people that complain about Facebook don't just ... stop using it. Just seems like a gigantic waste of time to me... ;-)

Here are two examples:

* My group of friends and acquaintances who play badminton coordinate on Facebook; we do not work at the same place or have each other's phone numbers. People use the number of "Going" people to figure out whether there are still slots to play or not.

* The local university feminist organization is organized 100% through Facebook. We send one email a month or so to our mailing list, but if you want to participate (help out, for instance), you do this through the closed Facebook group.

It may be easy to leave Facebook and stay in contact with your closest friends; it's hard to replace larger social groups like those above.

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

#74

Post by panic »

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…

"Objective" and "political" are not opposites. Whether I like chocolate or vanilla ice cream is both completely subjective and completely apolitical, and I'm sure there are plenty of politics involved in math and physics research (the most "objective" things I can think of).

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

#75

Post by throwanem »

forgottenpass wrote: post #13
nyreed wrote: post #6

Too little too late? They've set the tone when they deleted a post made by the democratically elected leader of a country. That must surely be a tipping point?

Too little too late? You and I wish that was the case. This is a minor concession made by Facebook that they and their apologists be able to use for years to trumpet about how their content polices are oh-so reasonable, and that they're super duper flexible and thoughtful. That those very few rare cases where they overstep are reconsidered and rolled back. If they fix all the high-publicity cases, then it's easy to s…

You're not wrong. But your analysis excludes one salient point: This only works if we permit it. We need not do so.

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

#76

Post by throwanem »

NotOscarWilde wrote: post #73
lutorm wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One thing that I don't understand is why all these people that complain about Facebook don't just ... stop using it. Just seems like a gigantic waste of time to me... ;-)

Here are two examples: * My group of friends and acquaintances who play badminton coordinate on Facebook; we do not work at the same place or have each other's phone numbers. People use the number of "Going" people to figure out whether there are still slots to play or not. * The local university feminist organization is organized 100% through Facebook. We send one email a month or so to our mailing list, but if you…

> It may be easy to leave Facebook and stay in contact with your closest friends

Often it is not, because Facebook has so successfully inveigled itself into and through people's social interactions that a lot of folks just don't think about keeping in touch any other way.

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

#77

Post by Retra »

ourmandave wrote: post #5
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.

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...

All you really need is a filter that recognizes a few select images and allow them through. And adding something to that list shouldn't take much time, effort, or controversy.

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

#78

Post by Joeboy »

larsiusprime wrote: post #64
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...

The idea that Freedom of Speech is just a thing from the US constitution is particularly odd if you're not from the US. Freedom of Speech is, surely, a measure of how free you are to communicate your message to other people.

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

#79

Post by forgottenpass »

throwanem wrote: post #75
forgottenpass wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Too little too late? You and I wish that was the case. This is a minor concession made by Facebook that they and their apologists be able to use for years to trumpet about how their content polices are oh-so reasonable, and that they're super duper flexible and thoughtful. That those very few rare cases where they overstep are reconsidered and rolled back. If they fix all the high-publicity cases, then it's easy to s…

You're not wrong. But your analysis excludes one salient point: This only works if we permit it. We need not do so.

I'm in agreement, but generally pessimistic that there will ever be a sufficient number of "we."

Voicing my dissatisfaction outside of a news cycle where they're in the mud gets me labeled a hater, neckbeard, out of touch, a hardliner, or any of the dozens of bog standard reasons to dismiss criticism.

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

#80

Post by vacri »

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.

This photo and ones like it are a large part of why people were saying "No, US, please don't go and invade Iraq on a whim". Just because the event has passed does not mean that the information is relatively meaningless.

If more people had've paid attention to this photo and its ilk, perhaps the US wouldn't have destroyed Iraq, and ISIS wouldn't be doing those atrocities of which you speak.

Post reply on HN