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

121–130 of 192 posts

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

#121

Post by gwright »

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?

Once upon a time 'censorship' referred to restrictions imposed by governments. Newspapers, magazines, and publishers curating the content of their publications was considered editorial discretion (rules and moderation) and distinctly different than government censorship.

Unfortunately all these activities are now simply tossed together into the general category of 'censorship' and as such we've lost the ability to clearly communicate some important distinctions in the process. I would also argue that this loss of clarity has resulted in the negative connotations of government censorship being attributed to private editorial activities with the deleterious effect that private entities are vilified for completely reasonable editorial policies.

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

#122

Post by idrios »

adiM wrote: post #118
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…

Wait, how is LinkedIn any better than Facebook?

Low maintenance, easy to ignore, clear purpose. I can use it to stay connected with colleagues without seeing photos of their wedding or baby pictures. There's no wall where people can publicly write to me, I don't get notified when it's my friend's birthday, my friends can't tag me in photos. I don't like the LinkedIn newsfeed very much but at least on mine I mostly only see people who have changed jobs or see jobs that are hiring.

I guess in general that being connected with your friends is a really useful tool, but Facebook does so much to try to keep you engaged that it becomes draining.

And yes, the more that LinkedIn tries to mirror Facebook or force engagement, the more I resent LinkedIn

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

#124

Post by gwright »

Joeboy wrote: post #78
larsiusprime wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The two ideas are certainly related but they are also different in very significant ways. Conflating the two makes discussion of these concepts imprecise and muddled.

The notion that the government should have limited power to restrict communication is quite different from the notion that private entities have some legal obligation to publish content (i.e. that individuals can assert the right to publish via platforms that they don't own).

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

#126

Post by gwright »

throwanem wrote: post #76
NotOscarWilde wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Up vote for the use of 'inveigled'. Great word for this context.

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

#127

Post by gwright »

vacri wrote: post #82
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 of the several things that bothers me about Twitter is that news agencies now use it as a source of react quotes. A private company showing the opinions of people unrelated to the event is now a 'news source'.

News agencies are generally private companies and often mix 'news' with punditry which often includes opinions of people unrelated to the event.

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

#128

Post by tn13 »

It would have made much more sense to say "no nude children" no matter what and consistently apply it. Naplam girl's photo could have been blurred a little and still be shown to convey the exact same message.

This sort of exception based polciies would lead facebook into same trouble as the way they were censoring conservative news.

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

#129

Post by matt4077 »

gwright wrote: post #121
serge2k wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

Once upon a time 'censorship' referred to restrictions imposed by governments. Newspapers, magazines, and publishers curating the content of their publications was considered editorial discretion (rules and moderation) and distinctly different than government censorship. Unfortunately all these activities are now simply tossed together into the general category of 'censorship' and as such we've lost the ability to cl…

Counterexample: zuccotti Park. It's privately owned, but the place for Occupy Wall Street.

It used to be that life happened on the streets, i. e. public property. If you get a hundred people to walk down Main Street at noon, 2/3 of the city will see it.

Over the last 50 years, life has moved (a) indoors, (b) onto private commercial property (mall, airport...) and (C) online, while some properties that used to be public are now private (parks, even the mayor's office is now often a lease-back arrangement.

That's why the rules need to be updated. Otherwise we'll be left with a Free Speech Zone(tm)(sponsored by McDonalds) on some empty parking lot for each city.

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

#130

Post by pjscott »

jMyles wrote: post #100

I'm not a facebook user, so I've never run head-long into this policy, but why doesn't facebook allow photos of nude children? It seems awkward and creepy to consider all photos of nude children to be pornographic. The vast, overwhelming majority (surely more than 99.9%, maybe more than two nines) of photos of nude children have no plausible sexual tone whatsoever. And, similarly, I presume that many images that are…

It's all about what someone could plausibly imagine someone else finding arousing. Never mind intent, and never mind content; is there someone, hypothetical or real, who could get off on it? Can pedophiles enjoy it?

This policy is not about protecting anyone. It's about keeping up appearances. The same can be said about most policies.

Post reply on HN