19 ms·

Facebook deletes Norway PM's post as 'napalm girl' row escalates

488 points by 0x10c0fe11ce 10y ago

maxxxxx 10y ago
I always find it interesting that no level of violence is deemed inappropriate in the US but nudity has to be avoided at any cost.
- kyriakos 10y ago
  Also the censorship of a few spoken words on TV while showing gore and other violent scenes are not a problem. I find it weird also cause when the word is censored as a viewer you already know that's what the character was meant to say.
  - kough 10y ago
    But the kids don't! Think of the kids!
  - jasonkostempski 10y ago
    "I find it weird also cause when the word is censored as a viewer you already know that's what the character was meant to say." A feature that can be utilized to make boring dialog really funny https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rhJNwKpS6OU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rhJNwKpS6OU Edit: This just made me realize you can bump G rated content up to PG-13 just by adding beeps and blurs. I bet that's how most reality TV content is generated.
    - joshmarlow 10y ago
      > Edit: This just made me realize you can bump G rated content up to PG-13 just by adding beeps and blurs I can't believe I'm posting this on Hackernews but it actually is relevant - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6AXPnH0C9UA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6AXPnH0C9UA
      - jasonkostempski 10y ago
        I'm always late to the party but I get there eventually :) I'm curious though, if this were officially release on TV in the modified form would it actually get different rating? If so, it would mean the beeps and blurs themselves are viewed as a form of suggestive dialog.
  - bigp3t3 10y ago
    violence in their movies... violence in their cinemas
  - Noos 10y ago
    Gore is a problem, yeesh. The whole "americans love violence" is overrated. The love of violence is a worldwide thing. Not like John Woo, Dario Argento, or Takashi Miike are american.
    - rangibaby 10y ago
      The amount of clean, bloodless violence against faceless enemies (watch any Hollywood movie) is a kind of soft propaganda IMO
    - kyriakos 10y ago
      i didnt say Americans love violence. my point is that if your tv show is targeted to adults (due to its violent nature for example) then how is allowing those words uncensored a problem?
- seren 10y ago
  What I find interesting is that, de facto, global services like Facebook, are following and imposing to the rest of world the American cultural norms. It could have been a worse country, but that is a new twist on soft power (or at least in a new medium and in a new form).
  - ythl 10y ago
    Yeah because all of Europe sucks at making good web tech for some reason. Seriously - look at the top 100 websites in the world; not a single one produced by Europe[1]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most_popular_websites https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most_popular_websites Edit: Downvote all you want. I'll redact my statement if someone can show me that Europe does not suck at making web tech. But you can't, because Europe is not competitive in the web tech scene. I don't know why, but that's the way it currently is.
    - arethuza 10y ago
      Apart from the Web itself being invented by a European at a European research center?
      - deleted 10y ago
        [deleted]
      - ythl 10y ago
        Debatable. Everyone loves to take credit for the invention of any revolutionary innovation. And indeed, credit can be spread all around. It's like Europe claiming sole credit for the invention of the PC because Alan Turing was British even though Americans invented the integrated circuit and actually built the first viable PCs.
        splawn 10y ago
        First you make an absurd statement as absolute fact, but now its "debatable". It looks to me like you are backtracking. HTTP came out of CERN... what exactly is it you want to debate about?
- Noos 10y ago
  Um, plenty of violence is deemed inappropriate. I doubt much of USA broadcast TV even comes close to a hard R rating. I'd also point out that Italy in particular has had little problem with making hyper-violent content like giallo movies, in addition to showing copious nudity, and Norway has quite a few violent horror films under their belt. It's more broadcast standards originally prevented anything, nudity or extreme violence, from being shown, and mature content was exiled to cable.
  - Cyph0n 10y ago
    You'd be amazed what some shows can pass through the censors. Watch NBC's Hannibal to see what I'm talking about. But nudity is a huge no-no.
    - bbatsell 10y ago
      (Kinda gross Hannibal spoilers below) There's an episode where a man's skin is flayed off his back and turned into metaphorical wings, which are then used to hang him from the ceiling. In depicting this from behind, you could originally see the man's buttocks. NBC censors objected, so the "fix" was to digitally add a massive amount of dripping blood to cover them up. The absurdity of that has always stuck with me.
  - maxxxxx 10y ago
    You may be right. It's just interesting that on Sunday afternoon they have no problem showing movies where the hero kills dozens of people with pleasure but even the slightest hint of nudity or swear words is not OK.
- tdb7893 10y ago
  To be fair it is child nudity in this case, which has different legal ramifications in some situations. Also the views on nudity vary a lot from person to person in the US.
  - falcolas 10y ago
    Only if deemed to be pornographic. I think it's fair to say this picture doesn't meet any of the requirements to be deemed as obscene (at least in a sexual sense; using napalm on people is another matter entirely).
    - arprocter 10y ago
      Very applicable Apocalypse Now quote: "We train young men to drop fire on people, but their commanders won't allow them to write 'fuck' on their airplanes because it's obscene"
  - TheOtherHobbes 10y ago
    Actually it's child violence. The nudity is incidental.
    - DanBC 10y ago
      All the messages from Facebook seem pretty clear that it's the nudity in the image that's the problem. Have you seen something else from Facebook claiming it's the violence? EDIT: Here's the orignal post, which contains an image from Facebook. http://www.aftenposten.no/meninger/kommentar/Dear-Mark-I-am-writing-this-to-inform-you-that-I-shall-not-comply-with-your-requirement-to-remove-this-picture-604156b.html http://www.aftenposten.no/meninger/kommentar/Dear-Mark-I-am-... That image says: > We place limitations on the display of nudity to limit the exposure of the different people using our platform to sensitive content. Any photographs of people displaying fully nude genitalia or buttocks, or fully nude female breasts, will be removed. Photos of women actively engaging in breast feeding or exposing reconstructed nipples for awareness are allowed. We also make allowances for digitally produced content for educational, humorous, or satirical purposes, and for photographs of real world art. We understand that these limitations will sometimes affect content shared for legitimate reasons, including awareness campaigns or artistic projects, and we apologize for the inconvenience. > Therefore I ask you to remove or pixelize this picture. That's pretty clearly about the nudity.
- GarrisonPrime 10y ago
  I find that violence doesn't really feel real to most Americans, and I think one of the main causes of this is that the US is so isolated from world events. WWII, Vietnam, etc. all happened "out there somewhere", and aren't really considered by those who didn't actively participate. Veterans of such conflicts are acknowledged as being deeply affected, but the rest of the populace effectively shrugs as if to say "sorry, I don't get it", and go about their lives. Terrorist attacks and Mexican cartel atrocities affect less than 0.00001 % of the population. (Assuming perhaps 3,200 people per year, which is quite a high estimate.) To the rest, it's just a special effect display or soap opera drama on TV. Street violence in poverty-stricken communities is the closest thing people have to experiencing violence in the US, but that only affects a relatively small portion of the country, and those with little influence. tl;dr: I think violence is acceptable in US media because most Americans have no true comprehension of violence. It's all a video game or a movie to them.
  - anexprogrammer 10y ago
    The way it's depicted, especially in more modern productions must contribute a lot too. Little wonder it seems like a game when gun battles (and often fight scenes and even car chases) now all look like parody.
  - todd8 10y ago
    I think you mean 0.001%
    - GarrisonPrime 10y ago
      Ha. So I do. So much for my maths degree. :P
  - alanwatts 10y ago
    >Television brought the brutality of war into the comfort of the living room. Vietnam was lost in the living rooms of America - not on the battlefields of Vietnam. -Marshall McLuhan The Vietnam War was the only one which was so honestly broadcast to the American public. Since then, the media has realized that real violence is not good for ratings, or the war effort.
- JabavuAdams 10y ago
  The image of nude and burning Phan Thi Kim Phuc appeared on the front page of the New York Times on June 9, 1972.
  - lloyd-christmas 10y ago
    I'd be very curious to see what would happen if NYT had posted this.
- XparXnoiAx 10y ago
  To some degree that's a compromise. There are people who want neither nudity nor violence on TV, but they've lost the violence fight (somewhat: there are still limits, see http://screencrush.com/avengers-rated-r/ http://screencrush.com/avengers-rated-r/ ), while winning the nudity fight. Often when laws don't make sense, you'll find the law was forged as a compromise, rather than a logical overmind creating it. the constitution is a clear example of this.
- cjslep 10y ago
  I remember watching Airplane! and seeing boobs go by during the freak-out scene. And that was rated PG at the time I think?
  - talmand 10y ago
    At the time there was a huge distance between PG and R since there was no PG-13. It was likely judged as not gratuitous.
    - nekopa 10y ago
      I think the Airplane scene was completely gratuitous :)
      - talmand 10y ago
        Oh, well, true. I meant sexually.
- alanwatts 10y ago
  Perhaps this phenomenon is a result of the religious imperialism which first reigned over the New World. Nudity was highly sacrilegious for los conquistadores de las americas, but the violence they used was not.
- talmand 10y ago
  Actually, in most cases they are not judging the level of violence, but the graphic nature of the outcome of that violence. Lots of bad guys that have gray dust instead of blood being shot up in your movie? PG, PG-13 at worst. Lots of bad guys with thirty gallons of blood pumping through their veins being shot up in your movie? R.
- Dirlewanger 10y ago
  Blame it on the Puritans. Their moral baggage has been carried along in tandem with our national ethos, for better or worse, over the centuries.
  - falcolas 10y ago
    I've been curious how much impact they have had on our current culture; a people who (to paraphrase Robin Williams) were so uptight they got kicked out of England. Christian mores definitely still drive our cultural mores, and while there is some easing of the restrictions there, sex is still much less acceptable than violence. As a simple example of this, attempts to reduce the violence in highschool football are as vehemently opposed as attempts to provide more than "abstinence only" sex-ed.
  - nathan_long 10y ago
    Citation? The Puritans thought sex was a wonderful thing within Christian marriage, and on at least one occasion excommunicated a man for neglecting his wife sexually, based on the Biblical command that a husband's body belongs to his wife and vice versa. Contrast this with Catholics, who still require celibacy of priests in 2016, and who imagine the Virgin Mary remaining a virgin her whole life, despite being married, because this, in their view, is part of her holiness. http://www.ligonier.org/blog/sex-in-marriage/ http://www.ligonier.org/blog/sex-in-marriage/
    - dragonwriter 10y ago
      > The Puritans thought sex was a wonderful thing within Christian marriage Ok. > Contrast this with Catholics Who also think sex is a wonderful thing within Christian marriage. > who still require celibacy of priests in 2016 "Celibacy" means "not being married", requiring priests to be celibate (which, strictly speaking, Catholics do not [0]) is orthogonal to beliefs about whether sex is wonderful within Christian marriage. [0] The Catholic Church does not permit priests to marry, but does not bar married men from ordination to the priesthood (it does bar married men from ordination to the episcopate, however.) The Latin Rite of the Catholic Church has a particular discipline which requires that only unmarried men may be ordained to the priesthood, a discipline that was adopted to deal with particular disciplinary problems that arose during the Middle Ages, but which has never been held to be theologically necessary (and which isn't applied within the Church outside of the Latin Rite.)
wonks 10y ago
I feel like this is a good argument for taking another look at projects like Diaspora and Friendica Red
- soylentcola 10y ago
  As much as I'd love to see some alternative to Facebook that provides generally the same basic features (easy sharing of original content and links/reposted media with a large group of contacts) I feel that they'll all face the same issues for the foreseeable future. Same issue with the ones you mentioned or even ones like G+ that are backed by another big player: critical mass of users combined with no standardized protocol. I've made the analogy plenty of times before but basically I compare and contrast with email, another service where you can "roll your own" but most general users just stick with a service, either paid or ad-funded, from another company. The thing with email is that it can be 2001 and you're happily using your @aol.com email account but down the line you decide to switch over to Yahoo. Then maybe later you switch to Hotmail and later still, to Gmail. All of those switches are up to the user and nothing stops you from even setting up your own email server if you have the desire. Regardless, none of the people you email need to do anything or change anything. And it's a good thing too because it would suck if in order to move off AOL or Yahoo you need to convince every one of your friends, relatives, business contacts, and potential email recipients to switch over as well. It might be feasible to get that 5% of your "techie" friends to switch services based solely on some new feature or whatever but you won't have much luck getting Aunt Mabel, your kid's 2nd grade teacher, your barber, or your potential clients to all switch over to some new UI and remember some new account address. But since email is based on a common protocol it doesn't matter. No matter how popular one provider is, you can switch to any other one and not lose the ability to email. Contrast this with centralized social media and you're basically screwed if you want to switch to another one. This really struck home when G+ came out. I found it to be a better Facebook for the most part. Faster mobile app, more granular sharing permissions, no stupid game/app spam, better media hosting, and better text/video chat. Maybe 10 of the people I generally connect with on social media felt the same way but the other couple hundred in my friends/contact list? They found it annoying to learn a new interface or they weren't already using Gmail so they'd need to sign up for another account or they just didn't like something else about it. And that's legit. Variety in services means there will be preferences. But in this case it didn't matter because the end result was the same: unless everyone moved over to G+ (or Diaspora or whatever) en masse, you'd either be cutting off contact with most of your list or you'd be maintaining multiple profiles and sharing links and pics on two sites. So G+ only got used for more specific groups and niche interests while Facebook kept more general social networking. And now Google seems tired of trying to build a better Facebook and is de-Plus-ifying most of their services. I seriously wonder how anyone will conceivably succeed at this where massive companies like Google can't pull it off. Instead, just as centralized social media replaced mass email chains for most people, I don't see Facebook going anywhere until something entirely different (not just new and improved) comes along and grabs mass user attention in the same way.
angelofm 10y ago
The article makes a reference about an open letter from the editor-in-chief - Espen Egil Hansen, the link return an internal error, you can read the open letter in the web.archive website https://web.archive.org/web/20160909061907/http://www.aftenposten.no/meninger/kommentar/Dear-Mark-I-am-writing-this-to-inform-you-that-I-shall-not-comply-with-your-requirement-to-remove-this-picture-604156b.html https://web.archive.org/web/20160909061907/http://www.aftenp...
upofadown 10y ago
Wait, Facebook censors pictures of naked children because they are afraid that some pedophile might get off on then? That's kind of twisted, isn't it?
- pior 10y ago
  Is it sarcasm?
  - gbin 10y ago
    sarcasm, the other no-no :)
- digi_owl 10y ago
  Welcome to the witch hunt of our time.
jondubois 10y ago
I think censoring the PM's complaint is a bad move by Facebook. Regarding censorship of the photo, I think it should be left to Norwegians to decide whether it's appropriate or not - I think different people might have different views on this.
planetjones 10y ago
Was the Norwegian Prime Minister's post removed because she posted the image again in that post ? This is a crucial question and not clear from the article. If Facebook censored only words then this is a much larger issue. If they censored the whole post (including photo) then while debatable this is Facebook's policy i.e. a blanket ban on such imagery, irrespective of history. Edit: I don't find it clear journalism, but the fact is there: Solberg was one of a string of Norwegian politicians who shared the iconic image after Facebook deleted a post from Tom Egeland So the post was removed because it had the image, not because she had dared to criticize FB.
- daenney 10y ago
  In the article itself the PM gives Facebook credit for at least being consistent, w.r.t removing posts that contain that photo. So yes, it seems likely it was removed because of that picture. However, you probably want to think twice before removing a post by any PM. Having done so only fuels the fire, which arguably can be a good thing in this case.
  - chris_wot 10y ago
    I rather hopes she keeps putting it back up again. Then they can suspend her.
    - vidarh 10y ago
      Yes.. I don't like her policies, but she has her good moments, and while I don't think they'll keep reposting it, as they'll have more important things to do, the Minister of Culture has also posted it and had her post taken down, and she has already indicated she very much wants to get Norwegian newspaper editors and Facebook together for a meeting. They'd not do that unless they're very displeased.
JabavuAdams 10y ago
Why are we thinking of FB as some monolithic entity? Isn't the most likely explanation that some low-wage contractor in the Philippines saw a picture of a naked girl and flagged it? That contractor may not even know the historical significance of the picture. You're in a low-wage job and have to look at horrifying shit all day, every day. Are you going to let the one image through that maybe will cost you the job that you really need?
- danso 10y ago
  Unlikely. A lot of publicity was generated when the original photo was removed. Not only was a photo removed, but the newspaper employee who submitted it, IIRC, had their account suspended. So that's at least two levels of decision making. Then (as linked to in the OP), the newspaper's editor made a public appeal that was well-read in media and tech circles. And now this, involving the Norwegian prime minister. I don't think the higher levels of Facebook are ignorant to the issue at this point.
jokoon 10y ago
Any centralized social network is subject to moderation because if it's centralized, it can be attacked, fined or shut down by a court. So facebook can't escape that rule and must decide what is acceptable or not and have to anticipate any flak they can get. In the end, moderation is a gruesome job and nobody really wants to do it, and it will be subject to how moderators anticipate public perception, so it's a PR race. So of course you will have those situations where facebook will make bad choices, but it doesn't only depends on their moderation team, it also depends on political correctness. That's why decentralized networks are better, because nobody is really responsible, and it can hardly be attacked. You can decide to either have a politically correct website and get investments, or disagree with political correctness and be like 4chan. It's not great, I'm sure people realize that, and that the internet will go back to decentralized systems.
- Rangi42 10y ago
  That's a false dichotomy, especially since they're getting more flak for deleting the controversial photo than they would have for removing it. It's pretty easy to distinguish between a historically significant photo, to keep, and 4chan-style offensive trolling, to delete. There is a gray area, but this was clearly on the right side of it.
- the_af 10y ago
  This particular picture was on the cover of the New York Times. Surely a human reviewer from Facebook must consider this as reason enough to revert the censorship?
  - pwg 10y ago
    Sadly, the human reviewer at Facebook is quite likely to not have even been alive in 1972 (or not old enough to even remember the photo) and so it is likely they are just following the "official facebook policy" without thinking, and thereby hitting the "censor" button. Note - this does not excuse their actions, but may put some context around 'why' it is happening.
    - 10y ago
mabbo 10y ago
I'm torn. Freedom of speech and freedom of expression mean that the government can't put you in prison or punish you for saying or believing what you do. Facebook aren't the government, they're a private entity and don't have to host anything they don't like- including hosting photos that they don't like. It's a walled garden, and it's their walled garden, and if you don't like it you're welcome to leave. And on the other hand: it's the only garden. If your friends are in that garden, they can't share with you, interact with you, etc, without you also being inside. Facebook's created a 'with us or not with us' distinction that has a very sharp boundary. And it's worked- they've won the social network wars. A billion people are on it. The question is, as the social network champions does Facebook have to have to public's interests in mind or just their own bottom line profit margin? As a public company, the shareholders will fire their leadership if they don't choose the bottom line. As the major social network of the world, the public will denounce them for actions like this.
- auntienomen 10y ago
  FB is controlled by Zuckerberg. He's the only shareholder that counts for determining what the company does. This is on him.
  - 2close4comfort 10y ago
    Controlled by dude that if not for this would be living in his parents basement trolling on the internet somewhere or working for Google.
- LeanderK 10y ago
  i also thought about that. But a society sets the rules businesses operate in, that ranges from environmental laws to other regulations. I think its perfectly valid to also set anti-censorship rules if the society think its valid.
  - refurb 10y ago
    Freedom of speech includes the freedom to not say something. It would require a constitutional amendment for the gov't to come in and start demanding things from Facebook.
exodust 10y ago
She should simply publish it somewhere else, such as her own blog or some other website. When she signed up to Facebook.com she ticked a box agreeing to their terms. I never signed up so couldn't care less, but aren't most people on Facebook talking about what they had for breakfast and how awesome stuff is? I'm not sure where Napalm girl fits in with that culture except maybe "awesome war photography - thumbs up!!".
- tjl 10y ago
  Facebook wants to be a place for news as well, with things like their "Instant Articles". It's a historically significant photo and was actually on the front page of the NY Times when it came out. So, would they censor a post from the NY Times if it had the same photo?
kybernetyk 10y ago
Why should the PM be treated differently than anyone else? Just because she's the PM? FB has any right to remove whatever they want from their private property.
- hga 10y ago
  I'm starting to get tired of making this point in some of the many discussions of this topic (most recently https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12457371 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12457371), so the last time for a month, I swear: You tell me when I can open a segregated lunch counter, or refuse to bake a gay wedding cake, and I'll consider your argument to have merit. Otherwise, it's only a matter of time until Facebook and company are brought to heel under that sort of "public accommodation" approach. See also mabbo's well thought out comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12462031 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12462031
  - ythl 10y ago
    I still don't understand the gay wedding cake argument. If I'm a baker, why can't I refuse to make certain cakes? I mean, I would never turn away a customer, but if the customer asked me to write obscene things on the cake, don't I have the right to refuse their request? "I'd like to have a rainbow cake" "ok" "with little penises sticking out of it for my gay wedding" "no, sorry." What's wrong with that? It's no different from refusing a straight man's request to have a cake with the outline of a nude woman on it.
    - talmand 10y ago
      The difference is whether you belong to a protected class of people as dictated by the government. Strangely, often the difference in those cases is also how you respond. "I want a cake for my gay wedding." "Sorry, I'm too busy to fulfill your request." Likely nothing comes of it. "I want a cake for my gay wedding." "No, I don't support your lifestyle and I'll pray for your soul." Lawsuit. Granted, extreme example of a response there. Lesson is, just say no but don't say why.
    - 10y ago
cannonpr 10y ago
I suspect a large part of this isn't so much an attempt by facebook to impose US cultural norms to the rest of the world, as much as an attempt to avoid financial burden by simply applying the ban stick as bluntly as possible. After all, being multicultural, providing good editing suitable for several countries acceptable norms, while trying to advance/modify them... Well that might be viewed as admirable work or cultural imperialism. The point is it's not work that they want to do, nor do I think is it work that they feel they can get paid for.
samfisher83 10y ago
Maybe the censorship team was too young know the significance of the picture. I am guessing average Facebook employee is under 30. Probably younger than that. Vietnam war is over 40 years old, most American students learned about it and knew that picture, but I don't know how much Vietnam war is taught in other countries. It might have been a combination of age and where the person grew up that contributed to deleting the picture?
- zelos 10y ago
  I doubt it: "A Facebook spokeswoman said: “While we recognise 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. "
  - samfisher83 10y ago
    This is probably after the fact. Did the initial team know.
  - r_smart 10y ago
    >it’s difficult to create a distinction between allowing a photograph of a nude child in one instance and not others. I'm assuming this is just PR, but if not, what a dumb statement. I'm sure there are cases where this might be true, but given the photograph we're talking about, give me a break. You really can't create a distinction between this and most other nude photos? Unless she meant algorithmically. I could see that being a problem.
    - lloyd-christmas 10y ago
      > Unless she meant algorithmically. I could see that being a problem. "The posts would have been reported by a user to Facebook’s community standards team, who would then have made the decision to remove them, rather than being removed automatically by algorithm."
    - vidarh 10y ago
      And that justifies the initial removals. It does not justify not having an effective appeals method to someone who isn't just blindly applying their rules, and a means of white-listing things that have been approved once. This is not a new problem that they've never been exposed to before.
RodgerTheGreat 10y ago
If you're a Facebook user and you are unhappy with the way the company strongarms, censors and manipulates its audience, the most effective way for you to express this dissatisfaction is to close your account, block social media bugs and encourage your friends and family to do the same. Facebook doesn't care how you feel when you use their service; their bottom line simply depends on your contribution to the statistics they use to sell ads. Apathy, or even outrage, are perfectly acceptable provided you express it through channels they control and profit from. As far as I'm concerned, as long as this conversation is couched in trying to appeal to Mark Zuckerberg's imagined sense of ethical responsibility it will lead nowhere.
- hughperkins 10y ago
  Thats not really true. I dont use facebook (i use wechat, never had anything censored, and the privacy controls are awesome), but i dont think facebook wakes up in the morning and thinks "why doesnt Hugh use facebook? We should make it more like wechat". If you want change, the most effective way to get it is to ask for it.
  - ljk 10y ago
    > but i dont think facebook wakes up in the morning and thinks "why doesnt Hugh use facebook? If enough people stop using it then they might. It's all about profit for corporations.
- red_admiral 10y ago
  No. It's more effective to lobby your local member of parliament/congress to pass laws restricting what media organisations can or cannot do. Granted, by "more effective" I mean something like 0.1% instead of 0.01%, but it's worth a try.
  - awinder 10y ago
    Why is Facebook a media outlet as opposed to, say, a private gathering place like a mall or movie theatre?
fil_a_del_fee_a 10y ago
I honestly think it was an algorithm that flagged it.
- pi-rat 10y ago
  Pretty sure you would have a manual step for important verified people. Imagine the PR disaster if an algorithm removed a post by Obama.
  - GavinMcG 10y ago
    Now I'm curious what would happen if Obama posted a similar response, including the photo.
    - reitanqild 10y ago
      Anyone here knows him or some of his close friends and want to ask? I might be wrong but I'm pretty sure someone here is at least friend-of-a-friend to him.
- lloyd-christmas 10y ago
  It states at the bottom of the article that it must have been flagged by a user, and reviewed by an employee.
the_af 10y ago
This iconic picture was not only a Pulitzer Prize winner, but was also on the cover of the New York Times. Surely this will help the anonymous "Facebook spokeswoman" determine on which side it lies of the thin red line of "censor" / "do not censor"?
yobaby1235 10y ago
I seriously think that it was an algorithm that flagged it.
794CD01 10y ago
Just because that is theoretically more effective doesn't mean you should do it. Assassinating Mark Zuckerberg might even approach a whole 1%, it's still not something we should be encouraging.
- red_admiral 10y ago
  I can see a difference between encouraging you to petition your member of parliament, and encouraging you to assassinate someone. To start with, one of the two options is legal.
  - 794CD01 10y ago
    Encouraging your MP to violate human rights is only vacuously legal if it is at all.
    - untog 10y ago
      What human rights are being violated in this scenario, exactly?
      - lucisferre 10y ago
        The ones afforded to us by our libertarian utopia obviously. How could anyone could possibly consider lobbying to take away Facebook's rights as a person to do as it pleases?
      - 794CD01 10y ago
        The comment I initially replied to asked for >pass laws restricting what media organisations can or cannot do in the context of mandating that they publish speech they disagree with.
        throwanem 10y ago
        Facebook is human?
andrewclunn 10y ago
Dear Norway, The US governments make us legally complicit in child pornography if we don't have automated processes to take this stuff down. People keep blaming corporations for censorship of porn-like (but not porn) content, song lyrics that get mistaken for terrorist threats, and overly zealous take downs of anything that might infringe on IP. Do you think we want our users to get angry at us over this shit? Look at the US child porn laws, the numerous governments spying under the banner of the war on terror, and laws like the DMCA. Our hands are tied and you are blaming the wrong people. - Facebook
thomasfl 10y ago
Let's create a walled garden that embraces facebook's walled garden. A new social network that displays your facebook timeline and other items. BTW. I'm Norwegian.
pi-rat 10y ago
The prime minister's original post: http://snpy.in/5Nv92c http://snpy.in/5Nv92c
- pritambaral 10y ago
  "Sorry, no image found"
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
roadman 10y ago
I'm not on fb. I read in the comment from the spokeswoman that the distinction cannot be made by their robotic rules. So I believe this illustrates a limitation of their AI. And they don't care so much about the people than their algorithms. Just an opinion.
- ClashTheBunny 10y ago
  The article states that it was flagged by users and moderated by people. This has nothing to do with AI.
  - roadman 10y ago
    Do you mean the last paragraph? I am not native English, so I thought the "would", "would" sounded highly hypothetical.
kajecounterhack 10y ago
At Google certain images are considered EDSA (Educational, Documentary, Scientific or Artistic). I wonder if this would have been considered EDSA vs Facebook's decision to say it's against ToS. That said, it totally makes sense that they have a consistent policy. Whether you find their overall abuse ToS objectionable should be the main consideration here. It's OK to me that they seem to have decided that imagery containing nude children should be hard-banned. It's a decision couched in the desire to protect children, not some heavy-handed censorship.
thr0waway1239 10y ago
If you want something from FB: its reach, you need to play by its rules, however arbitrary they may be. If you wish to change the laws of physics, go and get yourself your own planet. It is much easier in this case: just choose a different forum. Having said that, this incident should teach Norwegians (and the countrymen of any country) a thing or two about where they stand on the totem pole of power. Facebook > Every other country on the planet Facebook is a country because it is acts as an independent sovereign state which is not answerable to anyone at this point. Apparently, it already makes up its own taxation laws[1]. I expect them to release their own flag, maybe a national anthem? [1] http://www.forbes.com/sites/kellyphillipserb/2016/07/29/facebook-ignores-another-irs-summons-reveals-it-could-owe-billions-in-taxes/#71ea3ae30bfc http://www.forbes.com/sites/kellyphillipserb/2016/07/29/face... But of the many truly troubling things I see with FB's policies - their alarming intrusiveness and ruthless exploitation of our need for being social, choosing its own censorship policy is not one of them, especially if it is consistent. I would rather see them made answerable to privacy violations.
cx1000 10y ago
Ironically, Facebook is not censoring the news articles covering this story. The unedited photo is now shown all over Facebook.
codingmyway 10y ago
I can accept why they need to draw a line on naked child images and be done with it. Like most silicon valley companies they want everything automating with as little human customer service as possible. However if they aren't going to do that job of editorial then they need to stop trying to be a news source while abdicating any responsibility that entails by saying they are a tech company.
EdSharkey 10y ago
It would be neat to have a decentralized social network simply to avoid the editorial demands of the walled garden. I think we'd have a lot more unsavory content making its way to people's eyes though. There'd need to be more sophisticated ways of filtering information than just "unfriend", I suppose. And people would need to have tougher skins for it to work.
- macintux 10y ago
  We had a decentralized social network called the web (or I suppose blogs if you want to think of it at a more granular level). Facebook won.
Raphmedia 10y ago
It is kind of scary to see how countries are powerless when it comes to Facebook. I know that this article and the whole discussion here is not about that but I get a eery feeling reading about it.
- jfoster 10y ago
  Theoretically, the PM could find herself having trouble with her social media reach in the lead-up to the next election. The primary criticism that gets leveled toward Facebook is about privacy, but I think the degree of control they can exercise over communication is the more worrying issue.
  - palerdot 10y ago
    In a way, both privacy and control issues of FB are related. Privacy => how FB chooses to share your data with others, Control => how FB allows you to share your data with others Ultimately it is the data about you that is funneled through FB.
return0 10y ago
The bigger problem is that the new media is US controlled,and youre going to have some culture conflicts. Maybe legislative action could force facebook to federate the users content
newscracker 10y ago
Facebook is very arbitrary in its censoring and account deactivation decisions. Many cases I have read about are instances where Facebook is in the wrong and does not provide users a way to get things resolved (perhaps these instances surface online more often or more prominently). Every time I read about Facebook's decisions, I feel extremely frustrated and downright angry. Humans need an alternative to Facebook that's not as evil and can get better traction (no, this does not mean everyone closing their FB accounts and switching to email or text messaging). I'm waiting for that to happen.
cmdrfred 10y ago
This is a place where I do not agree with Facebook's decision but I agree they have a right to decide who and what can be on their platform. Freedom of speech does not give me the right to come into your home and say whatever I like without being asked to leave. I'm free to do so in the public park across the street though. Your property rights trump my free speech.
dajohnson89 10y ago
What was the PM's motivation to make the post in the first place?
- jbmorgado 10y ago
  "Yes, your honor, but I believe the jury should know what the victim was wearing that night."
  - dajohnson89 10y ago
    Oh please. I am honestly curious. Why is the PM of Norway posting a graphic photograph of the Vietnam War?
    - jbmorgado 10y ago
      You just have to read the Article. It's stated in the 2nd paragraph why. Basic defense of liberty of speech was why. "Erna Solberg, the Conservative prime minister, called on Facebook to “review its editing policy” after it deleted her post voicing support for a Norwegian newspaper that had fallen foul of the social media giant’s guidelines."
    - DanBC 10y ago
      A Norwegian newspaper made a post about 7 photos that changed the course of war. http://www.aftenposten.no/meninger/kommentar/Dear-Mark-I-am-writing-this-to-inform-you-that-I-shall-not-comply-with-your-requirement-to-remove-this-picture-604156b.html http://www.aftenposten.no/meninger/kommentar/Dear-Mark-I-am-... > First some background. A few weeks ago the Norwegian author Tom Egeland posted an entry on Facebook about, and including, seven photographs that changed the history of warfare. You in turn removed the picture of a naked Kim Phuc, fleeing from the napalm bombs – one of the world’s most famous war photographs. > Tom then rendered Kim Phuc’s criticism against Facebook for banning her picture. Facebook reacted by excluding Tom and prevented him from posting a new entry.
tamana 10y ago
Guardian is pretty trashy for tossing that picture up twice in one article. The article isn't even about napalm or the war, the picture is being used as snuff shock. Show some respect for human dignity.
- ntaenta 10y ago
  The first is a video still, and the second is part of the link to another article about Kim Phuc. This article is not about napalm or the war, it's about the photo itself! Of course it will be featured...
- DanBC 10y ago
  > snuff shock Snuff normally refers to dead people. She's not dead. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phan_Thi_Kim_Phuc https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phan_Thi_Kim_Phuc She uses the picture in her work around child victims of war: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/8678478.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/8678478.stm > However, the realisation came to her she did not have to remain an unwilling victim. The photo was, in fact, a powerful gift that she could use to help promote peace. > "I realised that now that I have freedom and am in a free country, I can take control of that picture," she says.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
TrevorJ 10y ago
It's particularly troubling because facebook is primarily about communicating with your own friends and acquaintances. Censoring public content is troubling, but removing content that is private and only available to people who took the step to friend you on Facebook is really really crappy.
dazhbog 10y ago
Why doesn't fb just blur the content that users find disturbing like "Viewer discretion.., flagged by our users". Then you can click to view or adjust the sensitivity in your account settings.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
dmckeon 10y ago
Posters may find it informative to review Tom Egeland's response (in Norwegian, so a translation site may be helpful). https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=1203560296352340&id=185679154807131 https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=1203560296... Is the collection of the other 6 or 7 photos still available? - my google-fu has not found them.
golemotron 10y ago
Facebook needs to be broken up like Ma Bell was. It's too big to manage well and network effects are preventing alternatives from gaining ground. The world needs more diversity in policy than it has with this mediated communications juggernaut.
- reitanqild 10y ago
  I tend to agree. Microsoft needed to be punished by authorities and they do better now as a result, all while behaving better.
oneloop 10y ago
That moment when government officials start realising their biggest publishers are American companies.
norea-armozel 10y ago
This is what you get out from centralizing your communications medium. Sure, we all can easily talk to each other but now you have to assume the host will find something you do or say a liability thus remove it as quickly as you post it. To say that Facebook shouldn't do this comes into conflict in protecting share holder value (which means also avoiding illegal content per local laws). So, you can't have it both ways. Either you have a corporate defend it's share holder value or you have it all nationalized and get NPR. I just wish people would realize that corporations aren't our friends, they're here to make a profit. And profit isn't always what's ethical. I think the better solution to the problem as it stands is to force people to start hosting their own content (which is why I support net neutrality and anti-metering laws). That way, you're in charge of your content and responsible for getting people to view it. We shouldn't have to return to the days of AOL (which we have largely done) to get eye balls. People still go to websites, so why depend on Facebook to distribute your content?
- lotyrin 10y ago
  Yep, it's not a public utility, it's not governed by a neutral third party, it's not open, transparent or free. What did you expect? It's a surveillance and marketing platform that you subjected yourselves to out of convenience, operated for its own benefit and indirectly to the benefit of its customers, certainly not its users. I've never really understood social media in this form, nor understood its takeover as primary communication channel and I'm not going to go full RMS or expect anyone else to have the same values as myself, but if people do share those values, and do want better than facetwitsnapagramblr (without any judgement on if they should) then they should have participated in building and using something better instead of deluding themselves.
  - aidenn0 10y ago
    > Yep, it's not a public utility, it's not governed by a neutral third party, it's not open, transparent or free. What did you expect? It's a surveillance and marketing platform that you subjected yourselves to out of convenience, operated for its own benefit and indirectly to the benefit of its customers, certainly not its users. With the possible exception of "surveillance" everything you just said is also true of newspapers.
mary_fortran 10y ago
I wonder if it was an IP issue? That photo was bu Nick Ut, a person who makes his living taking photographs, and can be licensed for use by its owner, the Associated Press http://www.apimages.com/Collection/Landing/Photographer-Nick-Ut-The-Napalm-Girl-/ebfc0a860aa946ba9e77eb786d46207e http://www.apimages.com/Collection/Landing/Photographer-Nick... Even the Wikipedia only shows a thumbnail of it, and they received express permission to use it.
niccaluim 10y ago
On the subject of whether speech protections apply to the government only: it's all well and good to apply a legal analysis to free speech issues, but if you're looking to the law to tell you what's right and wrong, you're trying to buy milk at a hardware store.
Demoneeri 10y ago
A picture of a naked child was removed from FB because of the law. No story there. Are we going to allow child porn on FB because it is artistic ?
- GavinMcG 10y ago
  Which law? Depending on the legal system involved, "child porn" and "artistic" are mutually exclusive.
tromp 10y ago
Facebook has reversed its stance and is reinstating posts featuring 1972's "The Terror of War" picture, according to http://www.theverge.com/2016/9/9/12865670/facebook-censorship-napalm-girl-aftenposten-reversal http://www.theverge.com/2016/9/9/12865670/facebook-censorshi... "Because of its status as an iconic image of historical importance, the value of permitting sharing outweighs the value of protecting the community by removal, so we have decided to reinstate the image on Facebook where we are aware it has been removed"
- the8472 10y ago
  Not really a good sign if it takes a country's PM to complain before they reverse their position.
ycombinatorMan 10y ago
facebook is really an infrastructural service.
aikah 10y ago
This outrage is ridiculous. Of course, the Guardian is pimping it, they are outrage professionals.
zouhair 10y ago
We really need a real public safe space on the Internet.
sweepchildsing 10y ago
Get thousands of webcamshow for free. Sign up there http://u.to/ceg3Dw http://u.to/ceg3Dw

488 points by 0x10c0fe11ce 10y ago

I always find it interesting that no level of violence is deemed inappropriate in the US but nudity has to be avoided at any cost.

kyriakos 10y ago
Also the censorship of a few spoken words on TV while showing gore and other violent scenes are not a problem. I find it weird also cause when the word is censored as a viewer you already know that's what the character was meant to say.
- kough 10y ago
  But the kids don't! Think of the kids!
- jasonkostempski 10y ago
  "I find it weird also cause when the word is censored as a viewer you already know that's what the character was meant to say." A feature that can be utilized to make boring dialog really funny https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rhJNwKpS6OU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rhJNwKpS6OU Edit: This just made me realize you can bump G rated content up to PG-13 just by adding beeps and blurs. I bet that's how most reality TV content is generated.
  - joshmarlow 10y ago
    > Edit: This just made me realize you can bump G rated content up to PG-13 just by adding beeps and blurs I can't believe I'm posting this on Hackernews but it actually is relevant - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6AXPnH0C9UA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6AXPnH0C9UA
    - jasonkostempski 10y ago
      I'm always late to the party but I get there eventually :) I'm curious though, if this were officially release on TV in the modified form would it actually get different rating? If so, it would mean the beeps and blurs themselves are viewed as a form of suggestive dialog.
- bigp3t3 10y ago
  violence in their movies... violence in their cinemas
- Noos 10y ago
  Gore is a problem, yeesh. The whole "americans love violence" is overrated. The love of violence is a worldwide thing. Not like John Woo, Dario Argento, or Takashi Miike are american.
  - rangibaby 10y ago
    The amount of clean, bloodless violence against faceless enemies (watch any Hollywood movie) is a kind of soft propaganda IMO
  - kyriakos 10y ago
    i didnt say Americans love violence. my point is that if your tv show is targeted to adults (due to its violent nature for example) then how is allowing those words uncensored a problem?
seren 10y ago
What I find interesting is that, de facto, global services like Facebook, are following and imposing to the rest of world the American cultural norms. It could have been a worse country, but that is a new twist on soft power (or at least in a new medium and in a new form).
- ythl 10y ago
  Yeah because all of Europe sucks at making good web tech for some reason. Seriously - look at the top 100 websites in the world; not a single one produced by Europe[1]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most_popular_websites https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most_popular_websites Edit: Downvote all you want. I'll redact my statement if someone can show me that Europe does not suck at making web tech. But you can't, because Europe is not competitive in the web tech scene. I don't know why, but that's the way it currently is.
  - arethuza 10y ago
    Apart from the Web itself being invented by a European at a European research center?
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
    - ythl 10y ago
      Debatable. Everyone loves to take credit for the invention of any revolutionary innovation. And indeed, credit can be spread all around. It's like Europe claiming sole credit for the invention of the PC because Alan Turing was British even though Americans invented the integrated circuit and actually built the first viable PCs.
      - splawn 10y ago
        First you make an absurd statement as absolute fact, but now its "debatable". It looks to me like you are backtracking. HTTP came out of CERN... what exactly is it you want to debate about?
Noos 10y ago
Um, plenty of violence is deemed inappropriate. I doubt much of USA broadcast TV even comes close to a hard R rating. I'd also point out that Italy in particular has had little problem with making hyper-violent content like giallo movies, in addition to showing copious nudity, and Norway has quite a few violent horror films under their belt. It's more broadcast standards originally prevented anything, nudity or extreme violence, from being shown, and mature content was exiled to cable.
- Cyph0n 10y ago
  You'd be amazed what some shows can pass through the censors. Watch NBC's Hannibal to see what I'm talking about. But nudity is a huge no-no.
  - bbatsell 10y ago
    (Kinda gross Hannibal spoilers below) There's an episode where a man's skin is flayed off his back and turned into metaphorical wings, which are then used to hang him from the ceiling. In depicting this from behind, you could originally see the man's buttocks. NBC censors objected, so the "fix" was to digitally add a massive amount of dripping blood to cover them up. The absurdity of that has always stuck with me.
- maxxxxx 10y ago
  You may be right. It's just interesting that on Sunday afternoon they have no problem showing movies where the hero kills dozens of people with pleasure but even the slightest hint of nudity or swear words is not OK.
tdb7893 10y ago
To be fair it is child nudity in this case, which has different legal ramifications in some situations. Also the views on nudity vary a lot from person to person in the US.
- falcolas 10y ago
  Only if deemed to be pornographic. I think it's fair to say this picture doesn't meet any of the requirements to be deemed as obscene (at least in a sexual sense; using napalm on people is another matter entirely).
  - arprocter 10y ago
    Very applicable Apocalypse Now quote: "We train young men to drop fire on people, but their commanders won't allow them to write 'fuck' on their airplanes because it's obscene"
- TheOtherHobbes 10y ago
  Actually it's child violence. The nudity is incidental.
  - DanBC 10y ago
    All the messages from Facebook seem pretty clear that it's the nudity in the image that's the problem. Have you seen something else from Facebook claiming it's the violence? EDIT: Here's the orignal post, which contains an image from Facebook. http://www.aftenposten.no/meninger/kommentar/Dear-Mark-I-am-writing-this-to-inform-you-that-I-shall-not-comply-with-your-requirement-to-remove-this-picture-604156b.html http://www.aftenposten.no/meninger/kommentar/Dear-Mark-I-am-... That image says: > We place limitations on the display of nudity to limit the exposure of the different people using our platform to sensitive content. Any photographs of people displaying fully nude genitalia or buttocks, or fully nude female breasts, will be removed. Photos of women actively engaging in breast feeding or exposing reconstructed nipples for awareness are allowed. We also make allowances for digitally produced content for educational, humorous, or satirical purposes, and for photographs of real world art. We understand that these limitations will sometimes affect content shared for legitimate reasons, including awareness campaigns or artistic projects, and we apologize for the inconvenience. > Therefore I ask you to remove or pixelize this picture. That's pretty clearly about the nudity.
GarrisonPrime 10y ago
I find that violence doesn't really feel real to most Americans, and I think one of the main causes of this is that the US is so isolated from world events. WWII, Vietnam, etc. all happened "out there somewhere", and aren't really considered by those who didn't actively participate. Veterans of such conflicts are acknowledged as being deeply affected, but the rest of the populace effectively shrugs as if to say "sorry, I don't get it", and go about their lives. Terrorist attacks and Mexican cartel atrocities affect less than 0.00001 % of the population. (Assuming perhaps 3,200 people per year, which is quite a high estimate.) To the rest, it's just a special effect display or soap opera drama on TV. Street violence in poverty-stricken communities is the closest thing people have to experiencing violence in the US, but that only affects a relatively small portion of the country, and those with little influence. tl;dr: I think violence is acceptable in US media because most Americans have no true comprehension of violence. It's all a video game or a movie to them.
- anexprogrammer 10y ago
  The way it's depicted, especially in more modern productions must contribute a lot too. Little wonder it seems like a game when gun battles (and often fight scenes and even car chases) now all look like parody.
- todd8 10y ago
  I think you mean 0.001%
  - GarrisonPrime 10y ago
    Ha. So I do. So much for my maths degree. :P
- alanwatts 10y ago
  >Television brought the brutality of war into the comfort of the living room. Vietnam was lost in the living rooms of America - not on the battlefields of Vietnam. -Marshall McLuhan The Vietnam War was the only one which was so honestly broadcast to the American public. Since then, the media has realized that real violence is not good for ratings, or the war effort.
JabavuAdams 10y ago
The image of nude and burning Phan Thi Kim Phuc appeared on the front page of the New York Times on June 9, 1972.
- lloyd-christmas 10y ago
  I'd be very curious to see what would happen if NYT had posted this.
XparXnoiAx 10y ago
To some degree that's a compromise. There are people who want neither nudity nor violence on TV, but they've lost the violence fight (somewhat: there are still limits, see http://screencrush.com/avengers-rated-r/ http://screencrush.com/avengers-rated-r/ ), while winning the nudity fight. Often when laws don't make sense, you'll find the law was forged as a compromise, rather than a logical overmind creating it. the constitution is a clear example of this.
cjslep 10y ago
I remember watching Airplane! and seeing boobs go by during the freak-out scene. And that was rated PG at the time I think?
- talmand 10y ago
  At the time there was a huge distance between PG and R since there was no PG-13. It was likely judged as not gratuitous.
  - nekopa 10y ago
    I think the Airplane scene was completely gratuitous :)
    - talmand 10y ago
      Oh, well, true. I meant sexually.
alanwatts 10y ago
Perhaps this phenomenon is a result of the religious imperialism which first reigned over the New World. Nudity was highly sacrilegious for los conquistadores de las americas, but the violence they used was not.
talmand 10y ago
Actually, in most cases they are not judging the level of violence, but the graphic nature of the outcome of that violence. Lots of bad guys that have gray dust instead of blood being shot up in your movie? PG, PG-13 at worst. Lots of bad guys with thirty gallons of blood pumping through their veins being shot up in your movie? R.
Dirlewanger 10y ago
Blame it on the Puritans. Their moral baggage has been carried along in tandem with our national ethos, for better or worse, over the centuries.
- falcolas 10y ago
  I've been curious how much impact they have had on our current culture; a people who (to paraphrase Robin Williams) were so uptight they got kicked out of England. Christian mores definitely still drive our cultural mores, and while there is some easing of the restrictions there, sex is still much less acceptable than violence. As a simple example of this, attempts to reduce the violence in highschool football are as vehemently opposed as attempts to provide more than "abstinence only" sex-ed.
- nathan_long 10y ago
  Citation? The Puritans thought sex was a wonderful thing within Christian marriage, and on at least one occasion excommunicated a man for neglecting his wife sexually, based on the Biblical command that a husband's body belongs to his wife and vice versa. Contrast this with Catholics, who still require celibacy of priests in 2016, and who imagine the Virgin Mary remaining a virgin her whole life, despite being married, because this, in their view, is part of her holiness. http://www.ligonier.org/blog/sex-in-marriage/ http://www.ligonier.org/blog/sex-in-marriage/
  - dragonwriter 10y ago
    > The Puritans thought sex was a wonderful thing within Christian marriage Ok. > Contrast this with Catholics Who also think sex is a wonderful thing within Christian marriage. > who still require celibacy of priests in 2016 "Celibacy" means "not being married", requiring priests to be celibate (which, strictly speaking, Catholics do not [0]) is orthogonal to beliefs about whether sex is wonderful within Christian marriage. [0] The Catholic Church does not permit priests to marry, but does not bar married men from ordination to the priesthood (it does bar married men from ordination to the episcopate, however.) The Latin Rite of the Catholic Church has a particular discipline which requires that only unmarried men may be ordained to the priesthood, a discipline that was adopted to deal with particular disciplinary problems that arose during the Middle Ages, but which has never been held to be theologically necessary (and which isn't applied within the Church outside of the Latin Rite.)

wonks 10y ago

I feel like this is a good argument for taking another look at projects like Diaspora and Friendica Red

soylentcola 10y ago
As much as I'd love to see some alternative to Facebook that provides generally the same basic features (easy sharing of original content and links/reposted media with a large group of contacts) I feel that they'll all face the same issues for the foreseeable future. Same issue with the ones you mentioned or even ones like G+ that are backed by another big player: critical mass of users combined with no standardized protocol. I've made the analogy plenty of times before but basically I compare and contrast with email, another service where you can "roll your own" but most general users just stick with a service, either paid or ad-funded, from another company. The thing with email is that it can be 2001 and you're happily using your @aol.com email account but down the line you decide to switch over to Yahoo. Then maybe later you switch to Hotmail and later still, to Gmail. All of those switches are up to the user and nothing stops you from even setting up your own email server if you have the desire. Regardless, none of the people you email need to do anything or change anything. And it's a good thing too because it would suck if in order to move off AOL or Yahoo you need to convince every one of your friends, relatives, business contacts, and potential email recipients to switch over as well. It might be feasible to get that 5% of your "techie" friends to switch services based solely on some new feature or whatever but you won't have much luck getting Aunt Mabel, your kid's 2nd grade teacher, your barber, or your potential clients to all switch over to some new UI and remember some new account address. But since email is based on a common protocol it doesn't matter. No matter how popular one provider is, you can switch to any other one and not lose the ability to email. Contrast this with centralized social media and you're basically screwed if you want to switch to another one. This really struck home when G+ came out. I found it to be a better Facebook for the most part. Faster mobile app, more granular sharing permissions, no stupid game/app spam, better media hosting, and better text/video chat. Maybe 10 of the people I generally connect with on social media felt the same way but the other couple hundred in my friends/contact list? They found it annoying to learn a new interface or they weren't already using Gmail so they'd need to sign up for another account or they just didn't like something else about it. And that's legit. Variety in services means there will be preferences. But in this case it didn't matter because the end result was the same: unless everyone moved over to G+ (or Diaspora or whatever) en masse, you'd either be cutting off contact with most of your list or you'd be maintaining multiple profiles and sharing links and pics on two sites. So G+ only got used for more specific groups and niche interests while Facebook kept more general social networking. And now Google seems tired of trying to build a better Facebook and is de-Plus-ifying most of their services. I seriously wonder how anyone will conceivably succeed at this where massive companies like Google can't pull it off. Instead, just as centralized social media replaced mass email chains for most people, I don't see Facebook going anywhere until something entirely different (not just new and improved) comes along and grabs mass user attention in the same way.

angelofm 10y ago

The article makes a reference about an open letter from the editor-in-chief - Espen Egil Hansen, the link return an internal error, you can read the open letter in the web.archive website https://web.archive.org/web/20160909061907/http://www.aftenposten.no/meninger/kommentar/Dear-Mark-I-am-writing-this-to-inform-you-that-I-shall-not-comply-with-your-requirement-to-remove-this-picture-604156b.html https://web.archive.org/web/20160909061907/http://www.aftenp...

upofadown 10y ago

Wait, Facebook censors pictures of naked children because they are afraid that some pedophile might get off on then? That's kind of twisted, isn't it?

pior 10y ago
Is it sarcasm?
- gbin 10y ago
  sarcasm, the other no-no :)
digi_owl 10y ago
Welcome to the witch hunt of our time.

jondubois 10y ago

I think censoring the PM's complaint is a bad move by Facebook. Regarding censorship of the photo, I think it should be left to Norwegians to decide whether it's appropriate or not - I think different people might have different views on this.

planetjones 10y ago

Was the Norwegian Prime Minister's post removed because she posted the image again in that post ? This is a crucial question and not clear from the article. If Facebook censored only words then this is a much larger issue. If they censored the whole post (including photo) then while debatable this is Facebook's policy i.e. a blanket ban on such imagery, irrespective of history. Edit: I don't find it clear journalism, but the fact is there: Solberg was one of a string of Norwegian politicians who shared the iconic image after Facebook deleted a post from Tom Egeland So the post was removed because it had the image, not because she had dared to criticize FB.

daenney 10y ago
In the article itself the PM gives Facebook credit for at least being consistent, w.r.t removing posts that contain that photo. So yes, it seems likely it was removed because of that picture. However, you probably want to think twice before removing a post by any PM. Having done so only fuels the fire, which arguably can be a good thing in this case.
- chris_wot 10y ago
  I rather hopes she keeps putting it back up again. Then they can suspend her.
  - vidarh 10y ago
    Yes.. I don't like her policies, but she has her good moments, and while I don't think they'll keep reposting it, as they'll have more important things to do, the Minister of Culture has also posted it and had her post taken down, and she has already indicated she very much wants to get Norwegian newspaper editors and Facebook together for a meeting. They'd not do that unless they're very displeased.

JabavuAdams 10y ago

Why are we thinking of FB as some monolithic entity? Isn't the most likely explanation that some low-wage contractor in the Philippines saw a picture of a naked girl and flagged it? That contractor may not even know the historical significance of the picture. You're in a low-wage job and have to look at horrifying shit all day, every day. Are you going to let the one image through that maybe will cost you the job that you really need?

danso 10y ago
Unlikely. A lot of publicity was generated when the original photo was removed. Not only was a photo removed, but the newspaper employee who submitted it, IIRC, had their account suspended. So that's at least two levels of decision making. Then (as linked to in the OP), the newspaper's editor made a public appeal that was well-read in media and tech circles. And now this, involving the Norwegian prime minister. I don't think the higher levels of Facebook are ignorant to the issue at this point.

jokoon 10y ago

Any centralized social network is subject to moderation because if it's centralized, it can be attacked, fined or shut down by a court. So facebook can't escape that rule and must decide what is acceptable or not and have to anticipate any flak they can get. In the end, moderation is a gruesome job and nobody really wants to do it, and it will be subject to how moderators anticipate public perception, so it's a PR race. So of course you will have those situations where facebook will make bad choices, but it doesn't only depends on their moderation team, it also depends on political correctness. That's why decentralized networks are better, because nobody is really responsible, and it can hardly be attacked. You can decide to either have a politically correct website and get investments, or disagree with political correctness and be like 4chan. It's not great, I'm sure people realize that, and that the internet will go back to decentralized systems.

Rangi42 10y ago
That's a false dichotomy, especially since they're getting more flak for deleting the controversial photo than they would have for removing it. It's pretty easy to distinguish between a historically significant photo, to keep, and 4chan-style offensive trolling, to delete. There is a gray area, but this was clearly on the right side of it.
the_af 10y ago
This particular picture was on the cover of the New York Times. Surely a human reviewer from Facebook must consider this as reason enough to revert the censorship?
- pwg 10y ago
  Sadly, the human reviewer at Facebook is quite likely to not have even been alive in 1972 (or not old enough to even remember the photo) and so it is likely they are just following the "official facebook policy" without thinking, and thereby hitting the "censor" button. Note - this does not excuse their actions, but may put some context around 'why' it is happening.
  - 10y ago

mabbo 10y ago

I'm torn. Freedom of speech and freedom of expression mean that the government can't put you in prison or punish you for saying or believing what you do. Facebook aren't the government, they're a private entity and don't have to host anything they don't like- including hosting photos that they don't like. It's a walled garden, and it's their walled garden, and if you don't like it you're welcome to leave. And on the other hand: it's the only garden. If your friends are in that garden, they can't share with you, interact with you, etc, without you also being inside. Facebook's created a 'with us or not with us' distinction that has a very sharp boundary. And it's worked- they've won the social network wars. A billion people are on it. The question is, as the social network champions does Facebook have to have to public's interests in mind or just their own bottom line profit margin? As a public company, the shareholders will fire their leadership if they don't choose the bottom line. As the major social network of the world, the public will denounce them for actions like this.

auntienomen 10y ago
FB is controlled by Zuckerberg. He's the only shareholder that counts for determining what the company does. This is on him.
- 2close4comfort 10y ago
  Controlled by dude that if not for this would be living in his parents basement trolling on the internet somewhere or working for Google.
LeanderK 10y ago
i also thought about that. But a society sets the rules businesses operate in, that ranges from environmental laws to other regulations. I think its perfectly valid to also set anti-censorship rules if the society think its valid.
- refurb 10y ago
  Freedom of speech includes the freedom to not say something. It would require a constitutional amendment for the gov't to come in and start demanding things from Facebook.

exodust 10y ago

She should simply publish it somewhere else, such as her own blog or some other website. When she signed up to Facebook.com she ticked a box agreeing to their terms. I never signed up so couldn't care less, but aren't most people on Facebook talking about what they had for breakfast and how awesome stuff is? I'm not sure where Napalm girl fits in with that culture except maybe "awesome war photography - thumbs up!!".

tjl 10y ago
Facebook wants to be a place for news as well, with things like their "Instant Articles". It's a historically significant photo and was actually on the front page of the NY Times when it came out. So, would they censor a post from the NY Times if it had the same photo?

kybernetyk 10y ago

Why should the PM be treated differently than anyone else? Just because she's the PM? FB has any right to remove whatever they want from their private property.

hga 10y ago
I'm starting to get tired of making this point in some of the many discussions of this topic (most recently https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12457371 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12457371), so the last time for a month, I swear: You tell me when I can open a segregated lunch counter, or refuse to bake a gay wedding cake, and I'll consider your argument to have merit. Otherwise, it's only a matter of time until Facebook and company are brought to heel under that sort of "public accommodation" approach. See also mabbo's well thought out comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12462031 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12462031
- ythl 10y ago
  I still don't understand the gay wedding cake argument. If I'm a baker, why can't I refuse to make certain cakes? I mean, I would never turn away a customer, but if the customer asked me to write obscene things on the cake, don't I have the right to refuse their request? "I'd like to have a rainbow cake" "ok" "with little penises sticking out of it for my gay wedding" "no, sorry." What's wrong with that? It's no different from refusing a straight man's request to have a cake with the outline of a nude woman on it.
  - talmand 10y ago
    The difference is whether you belong to a protected class of people as dictated by the government. Strangely, often the difference in those cases is also how you respond. "I want a cake for my gay wedding." "Sorry, I'm too busy to fulfill your request." Likely nothing comes of it. "I want a cake for my gay wedding." "No, I don't support your lifestyle and I'll pray for your soul." Lawsuit. Granted, extreme example of a response there. Lesson is, just say no but don't say why.
  - 10y ago

cannonpr 10y ago

I suspect a large part of this isn't so much an attempt by facebook to impose US cultural norms to the rest of the world, as much as an attempt to avoid financial burden by simply applying the ban stick as bluntly as possible. After all, being multicultural, providing good editing suitable for several countries acceptable norms, while trying to advance/modify them... Well that might be viewed as admirable work or cultural imperialism. The point is it's not work that they want to do, nor do I think is it work that they feel they can get paid for.

samfisher83 10y ago

Maybe the censorship team was too young know the significance of the picture. I am guessing average Facebook employee is under 30. Probably younger than that. Vietnam war is over 40 years old, most American students learned about it and knew that picture, but I don't know how much Vietnam war is taught in other countries. It might have been a combination of age and where the person grew up that contributed to deleting the picture?

zelos 10y ago
I doubt it: "A Facebook spokeswoman said: “While we recognise 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. "
- samfisher83 10y ago
  This is probably after the fact. Did the initial team know.
- r_smart 10y ago
  >it’s difficult to create a distinction between allowing a photograph of a nude child in one instance and not others. I'm assuming this is just PR, but if not, what a dumb statement. I'm sure there are cases where this might be true, but given the photograph we're talking about, give me a break. You really can't create a distinction between this and most other nude photos? Unless she meant algorithmically. I could see that being a problem.
  - lloyd-christmas 10y ago
    > Unless she meant algorithmically. I could see that being a problem. "The posts would have been reported by a user to Facebook’s community standards team, who would then have made the decision to remove them, rather than being removed automatically by algorithm."
  - vidarh 10y ago
    And that justifies the initial removals. It does not justify not having an effective appeals method to someone who isn't just blindly applying their rules, and a means of white-listing things that have been approved once. This is not a new problem that they've never been exposed to before.

RodgerTheGreat 10y ago

If you're a Facebook user and you are unhappy with the way the company strongarms, censors and manipulates its audience, the most effective way for you to express this dissatisfaction is to close your account, block social media bugs and encourage your friends and family to do the same. Facebook doesn't care how you feel when you use their service; their bottom line simply depends on your contribution to the statistics they use to sell ads. Apathy, or even outrage, are perfectly acceptable provided you express it through channels they control and profit from. As far as I'm concerned, as long as this conversation is couched in trying to appeal to Mark Zuckerberg's imagined sense of ethical responsibility it will lead nowhere.

hughperkins 10y ago
Thats not really true. I dont use facebook (i use wechat, never had anything censored, and the privacy controls are awesome), but i dont think facebook wakes up in the morning and thinks "why doesnt Hugh use facebook? We should make it more like wechat". If you want change, the most effective way to get it is to ask for it.
- ljk 10y ago
  > but i dont think facebook wakes up in the morning and thinks "why doesnt Hugh use facebook? If enough people stop using it then they might. It's all about profit for corporations.
red_admiral 10y ago
No. It's more effective to lobby your local member of parliament/congress to pass laws restricting what media organisations can or cannot do. Granted, by "more effective" I mean something like 0.1% instead of 0.01%, but it's worth a try.
- awinder 10y ago
  Why is Facebook a media outlet as opposed to, say, a private gathering place like a mall or movie theatre?

fil_a_del_fee_a 10y ago

I honestly think it was an algorithm that flagged it.

pi-rat 10y ago
Pretty sure you would have a manual step for important verified people. Imagine the PR disaster if an algorithm removed a post by Obama.
- GavinMcG 10y ago
  Now I'm curious what would happen if Obama posted a similar response, including the photo.
  - reitanqild 10y ago
    Anyone here knows him or some of his close friends and want to ask? I might be wrong but I'm pretty sure someone here is at least friend-of-a-friend to him.
lloyd-christmas 10y ago
It states at the bottom of the article that it must have been flagged by a user, and reviewed by an employee.

the_af 10y ago

This iconic picture was not only a Pulitzer Prize winner, but was also on the cover of the New York Times. Surely this will help the anonymous "Facebook spokeswoman" determine on which side it lies of the thin red line of "censor" / "do not censor"?

yobaby1235 10y ago

I seriously think that it was an algorithm that flagged it.

794CD01 10y ago

Just because that is theoretically more effective doesn't mean you should do it. Assassinating Mark Zuckerberg might even approach a whole 1%, it's still not something we should be encouraging.

red_admiral 10y ago
I can see a difference between encouraging you to petition your member of parliament, and encouraging you to assassinate someone. To start with, one of the two options is legal.
- 794CD01 10y ago
  Encouraging your MP to violate human rights is only vacuously legal if it is at all.
  - untog 10y ago
    What human rights are being violated in this scenario, exactly?
    - lucisferre 10y ago
      The ones afforded to us by our libertarian utopia obviously. How could anyone could possibly consider lobbying to take away Facebook's rights as a person to do as it pleases?
    - 794CD01 10y ago
      The comment I initially replied to asked for >pass laws restricting what media organisations can or cannot do in the context of mandating that they publish speech they disagree with.
      - throwanem 10y ago
        Facebook is human?

andrewclunn 10y ago

Dear Norway, The US governments make us legally complicit in child pornography if we don't have automated processes to take this stuff down. People keep blaming corporations for censorship of porn-like (but not porn) content, song lyrics that get mistaken for terrorist threats, and overly zealous take downs of anything that might infringe on IP. Do you think we want our users to get angry at us over this shit? Look at the US child porn laws, the numerous governments spying under the banner of the war on terror, and laws like the DMCA. Our hands are tied and you are blaming the wrong people. - Facebook

thomasfl 10y ago

Let's create a walled garden that embraces facebook's walled garden. A new social network that displays your facebook timeline and other items. BTW. I'm Norwegian.

pi-rat 10y ago

The prime minister's original post: http://snpy.in/5Nv92c http://snpy.in/5Nv92c

pritambaral 10y ago
"Sorry, no image found"

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

roadman 10y ago

I'm not on fb. I read in the comment from the spokeswoman that the distinction cannot be made by their robotic rules. So I believe this illustrates a limitation of their AI. And they don't care so much about the people than their algorithms. Just an opinion.

ClashTheBunny 10y ago
The article states that it was flagged by users and moderated by people. This has nothing to do with AI.
- roadman 10y ago
  Do you mean the last paragraph? I am not native English, so I thought the "would", "would" sounded highly hypothetical.

kajecounterhack 10y ago

At Google certain images are considered EDSA (Educational, Documentary, Scientific or Artistic). I wonder if this would have been considered EDSA vs Facebook's decision to say it's against ToS. That said, it totally makes sense that they have a consistent policy. Whether you find their overall abuse ToS objectionable should be the main consideration here. It's OK to me that they seem to have decided that imagery containing nude children should be hard-banned. It's a decision couched in the desire to protect children, not some heavy-handed censorship.

thr0waway1239 10y ago

If you want something from FB: its reach, you need to play by its rules, however arbitrary they may be. If you wish to change the laws of physics, go and get yourself your own planet. It is much easier in this case: just choose a different forum. Having said that, this incident should teach Norwegians (and the countrymen of any country) a thing or two about where they stand on the totem pole of power. Facebook > Every other country on the planet Facebook is a country because it is acts as an independent sovereign state which is not answerable to anyone at this point. Apparently, it already makes up its own taxation laws[1]. I expect them to release their own flag, maybe a national anthem? [1] http://www.forbes.com/sites/kellyphillipserb/2016/07/29/facebook-ignores-another-irs-summons-reveals-it-could-owe-billions-in-taxes/#71ea3ae30bfc http://www.forbes.com/sites/kellyphillipserb/2016/07/29/face... But of the many truly troubling things I see with FB's policies - their alarming intrusiveness and ruthless exploitation of our need for being social, choosing its own censorship policy is not one of them, especially if it is consistent. I would rather see them made answerable to privacy violations.

cx1000 10y ago

Ironically, Facebook is not censoring the news articles covering this story. The unedited photo is now shown all over Facebook.

codingmyway 10y ago

I can accept why they need to draw a line on naked child images and be done with it. Like most silicon valley companies they want everything automating with as little human customer service as possible. However if they aren't going to do that job of editorial then they need to stop trying to be a news source while abdicating any responsibility that entails by saying they are a tech company.

EdSharkey 10y ago

It would be neat to have a decentralized social network simply to avoid the editorial demands of the walled garden. I think we'd have a lot more unsavory content making its way to people's eyes though. There'd need to be more sophisticated ways of filtering information than just "unfriend", I suppose. And people would need to have tougher skins for it to work.

macintux 10y ago
We had a decentralized social network called the web (or I suppose blogs if you want to think of it at a more granular level). Facebook won.

Raphmedia 10y ago

It is kind of scary to see how countries are powerless when it comes to Facebook. I know that this article and the whole discussion here is not about that but I get a eery feeling reading about it.

jfoster 10y ago
Theoretically, the PM could find herself having trouble with her social media reach in the lead-up to the next election. The primary criticism that gets leveled toward Facebook is about privacy, but I think the degree of control they can exercise over communication is the more worrying issue.
- palerdot 10y ago
  In a way, both privacy and control issues of FB are related. Privacy => how FB chooses to share your data with others, Control => how FB allows you to share your data with others Ultimately it is the data about you that is funneled through FB.

return0 10y ago

The bigger problem is that the new media is US controlled,and youre going to have some culture conflicts. Maybe legislative action could force facebook to federate the users content

newscracker 10y ago

Facebook is very arbitrary in its censoring and account deactivation decisions. Many cases I have read about are instances where Facebook is in the wrong and does not provide users a way to get things resolved (perhaps these instances surface online more often or more prominently). Every time I read about Facebook's decisions, I feel extremely frustrated and downright angry. Humans need an alternative to Facebook that's not as evil and can get better traction (no, this does not mean everyone closing their FB accounts and switching to email or text messaging). I'm waiting for that to happen.

cmdrfred 10y ago

This is a place where I do not agree with Facebook's decision but I agree they have a right to decide who and what can be on their platform. Freedom of speech does not give me the right to come into your home and say whatever I like without being asked to leave. I'm free to do so in the public park across the street though. Your property rights trump my free speech.

dajohnson89 10y ago

What was the PM's motivation to make the post in the first place?

jbmorgado 10y ago
"Yes, your honor, but I believe the jury should know what the victim was wearing that night."
- dajohnson89 10y ago
  Oh please. I am honestly curious. Why is the PM of Norway posting a graphic photograph of the Vietnam War?
  - jbmorgado 10y ago
    You just have to read the Article. It's stated in the 2nd paragraph why. Basic defense of liberty of speech was why. "Erna Solberg, the Conservative prime minister, called on Facebook to “review its editing policy” after it deleted her post voicing support for a Norwegian newspaper that had fallen foul of the social media giant’s guidelines."
  - DanBC 10y ago
    A Norwegian newspaper made a post about 7 photos that changed the course of war. http://www.aftenposten.no/meninger/kommentar/Dear-Mark-I-am-writing-this-to-inform-you-that-I-shall-not-comply-with-your-requirement-to-remove-this-picture-604156b.html http://www.aftenposten.no/meninger/kommentar/Dear-Mark-I-am-... > First some background. A few weeks ago the Norwegian author Tom Egeland posted an entry on Facebook about, and including, seven photographs that changed the history of warfare. You in turn removed the picture of a naked Kim Phuc, fleeing from the napalm bombs – one of the world’s most famous war photographs. > Tom then rendered Kim Phuc’s criticism against Facebook for banning her picture. Facebook reacted by excluding Tom and prevented him from posting a new entry.

tamana 10y ago

Guardian is pretty trashy for tossing that picture up twice in one article. The article isn't even about napalm or the war, the picture is being used as snuff shock. Show some respect for human dignity.

ntaenta 10y ago
The first is a video still, and the second is part of the link to another article about Kim Phuc. This article is not about napalm or the war, it's about the photo itself! Of course it will be featured...
DanBC 10y ago
> snuff shock Snuff normally refers to dead people. She's not dead. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phan_Thi_Kim_Phuc https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phan_Thi_Kim_Phuc She uses the picture in her work around child victims of war: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/8678478.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/8678478.stm > However, the realisation came to her she did not have to remain an unwilling victim. The photo was, in fact, a powerful gift that she could use to help promote peace. > "I realised that now that I have freedom and am in a free country, I can take control of that picture," she says.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

TrevorJ 10y ago

It's particularly troubling because facebook is primarily about communicating with your own friends and acquaintances. Censoring public content is troubling, but removing content that is private and only available to people who took the step to friend you on Facebook is really really crappy.

dazhbog 10y ago

Why doesn't fb just blur the content that users find disturbing like "Viewer discretion.., flagged by our users". Then you can click to view or adjust the sensitivity in your account settings.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

dmckeon 10y ago

Posters may find it informative to review Tom Egeland's response (in Norwegian, so a translation site may be helpful). https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=1203560296352340&id=185679154807131 https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=1203560296... Is the collection of the other 6 or 7 photos still available? - my google-fu has not found them.

golemotron 10y ago

Facebook needs to be broken up like Ma Bell was. It's too big to manage well and network effects are preventing alternatives from gaining ground. The world needs more diversity in policy than it has with this mediated communications juggernaut.

reitanqild 10y ago
I tend to agree. Microsoft needed to be punished by authorities and they do better now as a result, all while behaving better.

oneloop 10y ago

That moment when government officials start realising their biggest publishers are American companies.

norea-armozel 10y ago

This is what you get out from centralizing your communications medium. Sure, we all can easily talk to each other but now you have to assume the host will find something you do or say a liability thus remove it as quickly as you post it. To say that Facebook shouldn't do this comes into conflict in protecting share holder value (which means also avoiding illegal content per local laws). So, you can't have it both ways. Either you have a corporate defend it's share holder value or you have it all nationalized and get NPR. I just wish people would realize that corporations aren't our friends, they're here to make a profit. And profit isn't always what's ethical. I think the better solution to the problem as it stands is to force people to start hosting their own content (which is why I support net neutrality and anti-metering laws). That way, you're in charge of your content and responsible for getting people to view it. We shouldn't have to return to the days of AOL (which we have largely done) to get eye balls. People still go to websites, so why depend on Facebook to distribute your content?

lotyrin 10y ago
Yep, it's not a public utility, it's not governed by a neutral third party, it's not open, transparent or free. What did you expect? It's a surveillance and marketing platform that you subjected yourselves to out of convenience, operated for its own benefit and indirectly to the benefit of its customers, certainly not its users. I've never really understood social media in this form, nor understood its takeover as primary communication channel and I'm not going to go full RMS or expect anyone else to have the same values as myself, but if people do share those values, and do want better than facetwitsnapagramblr (without any judgement on if they should) then they should have participated in building and using something better instead of deluding themselves.
- aidenn0 10y ago
  > Yep, it's not a public utility, it's not governed by a neutral third party, it's not open, transparent or free. What did you expect? It's a surveillance and marketing platform that you subjected yourselves to out of convenience, operated for its own benefit and indirectly to the benefit of its customers, certainly not its users. With the possible exception of "surveillance" everything you just said is also true of newspapers.

mary_fortran 10y ago

I wonder if it was an IP issue? That photo was bu Nick Ut, a person who makes his living taking photographs, and can be licensed for use by its owner, the Associated Press http://www.apimages.com/Collection/Landing/Photographer-Nick-Ut-The-Napalm-Girl-/ebfc0a860aa946ba9e77eb786d46207e http://www.apimages.com/Collection/Landing/Photographer-Nick... Even the Wikipedia only shows a thumbnail of it, and they received express permission to use it.

niccaluim 10y ago

On the subject of whether speech protections apply to the government only: it's all well and good to apply a legal analysis to free speech issues, but if you're looking to the law to tell you what's right and wrong, you're trying to buy milk at a hardware store.

Demoneeri 10y ago

A picture of a naked child was removed from FB because of the law. No story there. Are we going to allow child porn on FB because it is artistic ?

GavinMcG 10y ago
Which law? Depending on the legal system involved, "child porn" and "artistic" are mutually exclusive.

tromp 10y ago

Facebook has reversed its stance and is reinstating posts featuring 1972's "The Terror of War" picture, according to http://www.theverge.com/2016/9/9/12865670/facebook-censorship-napalm-girl-aftenposten-reversal http://www.theverge.com/2016/9/9/12865670/facebook-censorshi... "Because of its status as an iconic image of historical importance, the value of permitting sharing outweighs the value of protecting the community by removal, so we have decided to reinstate the image on Facebook where we are aware it has been removed"

the8472 10y ago
Not really a good sign if it takes a country's PM to complain before they reverse their position.

ycombinatorMan 10y ago

facebook is really an infrastructural service.

aikah 10y ago

This outrage is ridiculous. Of course, the Guardian is pimping it, they are outrage professionals.

zouhair 10y ago

We really need a real public safe space on the Internet.

sweepchildsing 10y ago

Get thousands of webcamshow for free. Sign up there http://u.to/ceg3Dw http://u.to/ceg3Dw