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

131–140 of 192 posts

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

#131

Post by adiM »

idrios wrote: post #122
adiM wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Thanks for your reply. I have an account on LinkedIn but don't login often. LinkedIn keeps bombarding me with reminders about people work anniversaries, reminders of waiting invitations, etc. It gets annoying very quickly. Whenever I do login, I see stories that my friends have shared, who they have endorsed, etc. It does appear as irrelevant as Facebook

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

#132

Post by chaostheory »

idrios wrote: post #122
adiM wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> easy to ignore... I don't get notified when it's my friend's birthday

LinkedIn is a lot noisier than Facebook. The notifications that I get from it are even more useless: people who you've never worked with who want to connect, people who LinkedIn feels you want to connect to but again you've never met them, ... the list goes on. Back then they also used dark patterns to make it hard to unsubscribe to their email notifications. Facebook isn't the best corporate citizen, but it's still better than LinkedIn

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

#133

Post by Synaesthesia »

TheSpiceIsLife wrote: post #110
bobcostas55 wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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_...

The US used to have a vibrant newspaper scene with all kinds of papers ranging the spectrum. This was in the 29th century. Since then a handful of giant corporations have dominated the media industry.

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

#134

Post by Synaesthesia »

eva1984 wrote: post #86
bobcostas55 wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Internet also offers you large audience instantly. If you really wants your speech to been seen and not censored, you can setup your own website for it.

Right in theory but the internet is dominated in practice by a handful of giant companies.

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

#135

Post by kome »

barry-cotter wrote: post #117
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…

I'm under the impression that it's exporting the American civil religion worldwide. The idea that people genuinely are different, with radically different cultures and alien values is not one most people get. Witness the Iraq war or the Libya debacle and the assumption that everyone, everywhere really, really wants to have a Western democracy and that it will happen automatically if the Big Bad (Saddam, Qaddafi) is r…

That's so true. Americanisation worldwide is furthered by projecting US norms and lifestyle as a cultura nullius for all.

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

#136

Post by vacri »

gwright wrote: post #127
vacri wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Yeah, I know the wire services are private companies, but news shows don't advertise "And now we turn to Reuters" as part of their show, and the wire service articles go through an editorial process.

I'd disagree with the amount of unrelated opinion on the wire services, though - new shows never did anything like Twitter-level opinion with their Associated Press feed, for example.

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

#137

Post by JoshTriplett »

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…

> Additionally, is it really speech if you're just doing the internet equivalent of talking to yourself on an island in the middle of nowhere?

Yes, absolutely. You have the right to speak. You do not have the right to an audience.

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

#139

Post by xapata »

jMyles wrote: post #99
xapata wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> being burned by napalm I didn't see any napalm in the image. The girl had removed her burning clothes before the photograph was taken. The reason this particular image is considered acceptable is the historical context. If I were to recreate the image by hiring actors, that would probably be considered child pornography.

> that would probably be considered child pornography. What on earth are you talking about? Is there anything even vaguely sexual about this photograph? Did I miss something?

I was not talking about the photograph in the article, but a hypothetical recreation. Even if a photographer were to explain such a recreation were a satire or had some artistic value, I think many people would feel uncomfortable with it. Certainly most would not want their children to pose for such a photograph.

From that thought experiment, I'm deducing that it's the historical context which makes the original photograph acceptable to distribute, and not anything intrinsic to the image.

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

#140

Post by posterboy »

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…

> No private company is considered required to promote or protect free speech

They are liable to offer the service in good faith. If their service to the user is communication, then I don't see how that promises any less than free speech. Publication of pornography to minors is an offense, so it's not covered by free speech to begin with. The picture in question is not pornography.

Post reply on HN