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

111–120 of 192 posts

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

#111

Post by TheSpiceIsLife »

ucaetano wrote: post #60
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…

"An interesting twist on free speech on the internet is that almost all speech on the internet is being done on private companies' websites." This photo was taken by a photographer employed by a private company, then published by a private company, awarded a prize by a private organization. Not much has changed.

The alternative is something like socialism or communism. No thanks.

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

#112

Post by skissane »

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_...

Three if you count Perth's local daily, The West Australian, which is owned by Seven West Media. That doesn't really change your point though. But, Australia is a small country (in population terms), and it only has six or so major cities, so I don't think we could expect vastly wider media ownership than we've currently got.

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

#113

Post by dublinben »

idrios wrote: post #104
ciupicri wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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

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

#115

Post by mei0Iesh »

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.

Why don't people talk about https://wire.com/? It's encrypted and mostly open source. It has the most features I've seen including multiple devices, group chat, audio, desktop app.

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

#116

Post by PhasmaFelis »

TheSpiceIsLife wrote: post #111
ucaetano wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"An interesting twist on free speech on the internet is that almost all speech on the internet is being done on private companies' websites." This photo was taken by a photographer employed by a private company, then published by a private company, awarded a prize by a private organization. Not much has changed.

The alternative is something like socialism or communism. No thanks.

Most forms of socialism are entirely compatible with private enterprise. Totalitarian media and production control like the Soviets used, yeah, that's different.

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

#117

Post by barry-cotter »

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 removed. It's like how Americans don't understand that people from other Anglophone countries don't have a taboo reaction to people saying nigger. Facebook assumes American culture is the universal culture and act to make that true.

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

#118

Post by adiM »

idrios wrote: post #84
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…

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?

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

#119

Post by xapata »

dragonwriter wrote: post #42
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.

> The girl had removed her burning clothes before the photograph was taken. Removing clothes after the napalm had burned through them (which was manifestly the case here) certainly may reduce the degree to which you are being burned by napalm, but does not mean you are no longer be burned by napalm. > If I were to recreate the image by hiring actors, that would probably be considered child pornography. Be considered…

She may be burning during the photograph, but that is not obvious without the extra commentary.

> Pornography requires more than simple nudity.

Perhaps, but I can understand Facebook removing that photograph, just in case a judge thinks differently. Child pornography does not appear to be something the FBI takes lightly.

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

#120

Post by wyager »

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…

Weird American nudity taboos. They don't make a lot of sense.
Post reply on HN