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

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

#161

Post by reitanqild » Sat, Sep 10, 2016, 11:55 AM UTC

Freak_NL wrote: post #154

mei0Iesh wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I understand that feeling, but it's too idealistic to be practical right now. We have to accept that convenience has won. These types of social networks depend on a critical mass of users. If the choice is to hold onto principles and lose, or compromise for now closer to the direction we want, then I think we should use Wire. It is the best chance we have for a service that could become popular enough, with people be…

Even if we disregard its flaws, why would the masses migrate to Wire? Or Telegram, or Signal for that matter. I don't deny that it's a lot better than WhatsApp, but it still faces the same problem as any other alternative; the masses aren't using it.

Short answer: to encourage diversity.

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

#162

Post by jMyles » Sat, Sep 10, 2016, 12:40 PM UTC

xapata wrote: post #139

jMyles wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 phot…

I think this is actually an interesting art experiment. I wonder if anyone will try.

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

#163

Post by ComodoHacker » Sat, Sep 10, 2016, 1:47 PM UTC

Synaesthesia wrote: post #134

eva1984 wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The same way you can say internet is dominated by a handful of carriers. I see Facebook as a medium, a higher level one.

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

#164

Post by reeiwhatu » Sat, Sep 10, 2016, 2:00 PM UTC

Get webcamshow for free. Sign up there http://u.to/hOg3Dw

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

#165

Post by sp332 » Sat, Sep 10, 2016, 2:02 PM UTC

panic wrote: post #85

nerfhammer wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Yes, which is why algorithms aren't an adequate solution to the problem of screening Facebook posts.

No one says they're adequate. But they're all we've got.

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

#166

Post by reitanqild » Sat, Sep 10, 2016, 2:24 PM UTC

reitanqild wrote: post #161

Freak_NL wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even if we disregard its flaws, why would the masses migrate to Wire? Or Telegram, or Signal for that matter. I don't deny that it's a lot better than WhatsApp, but it still faces the same problem as any other alternative; the masses aren't using it.

Short answer: to encourage diversity.

Slightly longer answer now that I have time:

We don't need the masses to migrate now, it doesn't need to be either

- "everyone away from Facebook, Whatsapp, Google, everybody use only GPL and nothing for NSA, ФСБ etc to see"

or

- otherwise utter fail.

Getting people to try alternatives goes a long way. We have seen Microsoft changing massively over the last few years after Apple started eating away at the high end prosumer market for phones and laptops.

Facebook just caved after one head of a nation and a couple of newspapers, one of them in a tiny tiny country, stood up and said NO.

I, and many with me, also think the majority of the police force in most western countries is good hardworking people, (I'm personally in no position to judge eastern or African countries and even my opinion on western police is to be taken with a grain of salt) what we object to is just the warrantless dragnets etc.

And the reason why we are objecing them often isn't necessarily because we distrust our police, but as an insurance against future police and politicians, against future hackers who might get access to a raw dump, against unstable neighbouring countries and the occasional bad apple we see. Oh, and as a matter of solidarity to people like the Turkish who now seems to have reason for worry if they ever said or did anything that might have offended their (somewhat easily offended it seems) president:-|

(BTW: If you have spare time and/or cash consider supporting EFF. They seem to be very focused and reasonable to the point where they are taken seriously by politicians.)

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

#167

Post by overcast » Sat, Sep 10, 2016, 2:45 PM UTC

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…

When was the last time you've used LinkedIn? It's essentially become Facebook for adults. It's full of garbage posts unrelated to business.

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

#168

Post by tairighthel » Sat, Sep 10, 2016, 2:46 PM UTC

Here lonely girl looking for fun with the guys http://u.to/bug3Dw

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

#169

Post by e12e » Sat, Sep 10, 2016, 2:48 PM UTC

dublinben wrote: post #113

idrios wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You have no evidence that they do either, so you can't trust them.

One could argue that trust is only relevant when evidence is absent.

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

#170

Post by sgc » Sat, Sep 10, 2016, 2:51 PM UTC

dublinben wrote: post #113

idrios wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You have no evidence that they do either, so you can't trust them.

Trust by definition is not evidence-based. Even if it were "open source", you would have no proof that the actual production code was the open source version. I understand and even subscribe to the default attitude of lack of trust, but it is not an actionable attitude when it comes to the web and saas.