Facebook Backs Down on Censoring ‘Napalm Girl’ Photo • Hacker News Board

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

#101

Post by idrios » Sat, Sep 10, 2016, 1:47 AM UTC

serge2k wrote: post #94

idrios wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree with you. To continue your internet-as-a-physical-place analogue, Facebook is basically a mall where you are encouraged to hang out and intermittently enticed to buy things. -No porn on Facebook is the equivalent to no nudity allowed at the mall. -Banning users is the equivalent of kicking a person out of the mall. -Censoring messages is the equivalent of... uh.. gagging a person just before they can say some…

> Hacker News for news with uncensored commentary Except not really. Rules and moderation are censorship. Why would you not recommend whatsapp or another encrypted system?

Would also recommend Whatsapp. But I like the transient nature of Snapchat.

Hacker News is moderated but not censored in any sense that I worry about. With zero moderation you get pretty much just spambots. With bare minimum moderation you get trolls, schills, and harassers, so cohesive conversations don't happen because points can't be made in full. Hacker News is the best source I know of for news + discussion because the rules and moderation censor the noisy, unsubstantive comments that would otherwise derail an important conversation.

That said, I wish there were more forums like HN because I would like to follow the same quality of conversation that I see here on subjects besides computer science and tech companies.

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

#102

Post by scrollaway » Sat, Sep 10, 2016, 1:56 AM UTC

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…

> YouTube recently started changing their policies that has started to create problems for people using their platforms.

Not at all recently. But youtube's policies and the community's reactions to them are very much a case of "First they came for the x". Happens very regularly, and only the affected ones speak up, which is just not enough when we're talking about a web giant like google/youtube.

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

#103

Post by [deleted] » Sat, Sep 10, 2016, 1:57 AM UTC

vacri wrote: post #80

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.

[deleted]

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

#104

Post by idrios » Sat, Sep 10, 2016, 2:03 AM UTC

ciupicri wrote: post #96

idrios wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree with you. To continue your internet-as-a-physical-place analogue, Facebook is basically a mall where you are encouraged to hang out and intermittently enticed to buy things. -No porn on Facebook is the equivalent to no nudity allowed at the mall. -Banning users is the equivalent of kicking a person out of the mall. -Censoring messages is the equivalent of... uh.. gagging a person just before they can say some…

Both Snapchat and Whatsapp are a joke when it comes to privacy because the client software is closed source.

I know that to some extent, Facebook saves data on me using private messages I've sent to friends. I know that Google Hangouts does too. Snapchat tells me that nobody has access to messages I've sent to friends except for me and my friend, and that the message is deleted after the message is viewed. I have no evidence to show that they don't, and thus far no precedence not to trust them.

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

#105

Post by awqrre » Sat, Sep 10, 2016, 2:12 AM UTC

They backed down because they figured out who they were censoring?

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

#106

Post by Broken_Hippo » Sat, Sep 10, 2016, 2:13 AM UTC

kinkdr wrote: post #88

throwanem wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Should we be trying to educate them on merits and benefits on an open source alternative?

I mentioned something similar in one of the other threads on the same subject, but here it goes:

Right now, using facebook isn't like choosing an email account or cellular provider.

It is more like one of the old telecoms. And unfortunately, if you move to one of the 'others', it isn't compatable with facebook. It is truly more akin to a phone company that won't connect to other companies.

Which means that switching definitely has its costs if friends, family, etc are already on the network. This is a huge advantage in Facebook's favor, and part of what makes entry into the social media realm somewhat difficult. Folks have attempted, but none have taken hold well enough to be worth the time.

Not a hopeless situation, just has challenges. I'm not sure what the answer is to solve the stuff outside of passing some sort of regulations, either protecting speech to a point and/or demanding cross-communication so choice seems reasonable.

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

#107

Post by force_reboot » Sat, Sep 10, 2016, 2:17 AM UTC

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…

you've just expressed a great counterpoint to https://xkcd.com/1357/.

Furthermore, it's not just a matter of ISPs. Because of its refusal to censor various kinds of content, sites like 8chan have been refused service from various sites that process donations.

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

#108

Post by aikah » Sat, Sep 10, 2016, 2:19 AM UTC

Good, are we done with fake outrage ?

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

#109

Post by FireBeyond » Sat, Sep 10, 2016, 2:25 AM UTC

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...

Except in both instances they acknowledged that it was the result of a 'Report' and then a human review, and not an algorithmic decision.

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

#110

Post by TheSpiceIsLife » Sat, Sep 10, 2016, 2:31 AM UTC

bobcostas55 wrote: post #71

eva1984 wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Tons and tons of newspapers? Not really. Here in Australia there are precisely two.

All major newspapers are owned either by News Limited, a subsidiary of News Corporation, or Fairfax Media.[1]

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_of_Australia#Newspapers_...