7 ms·

The PM didn't post the photo. Someone else did. The PM posted a criticism saying Facebook should "review its editing policy". And then Facebook deleted that.

• nekopa 10y ago
  I believe the fine article states that she reposted the image.
  • EnFinlay 10y ago
    It was unclear to me if the criticism post and the reposting of the image were separate or together.
• greggyb 10y ago
  The PM's post included the photo. > 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. > Solberg was one of a string of Norwegian politicians who shared the iconic image after Facebook deleted a post from Tom Egeland...,
  • pritambaral 10y ago
    That doesn't say the post included the photo.
    • greggyb 10y ago
      > > Solberg was one of a string of Norwegian politicians who shared the iconic image after Facebook deleted a post from Tom Egeland..., > > > shared the iconic image ....
      • deleted 10y ago
        [deleted]
      • totalcrepe 10y ago
        I find these quotes very confusing, did they delete any words of criticism&support as well as the repost of the photo, and if so were they posted separately or together with the photo? It seems like purely reposting a photo without comment could now be being called a post of support. While fb users can use whatever slang they like, I expect a media that assumes we don't know about these behaviors in the walled gardens and tells us what specifically was censored. (Perhaps this seems like splitting hairs to FB users, but as a non-user of a communication network, I would tolerate a network that bans pictures of blue but not a network that bans criticism of its ban of pictures of blue. The latter requires government intervention.)
      • pritambaral 10y ago
        Shared the image? yes. Shared the image in the same post? Not clear. That's all I was trying to say. The way the two cited sentences are written — and "her post" os on a different sentence from "who shared the iconic image" — does not say the image share was in the same post as the one being talked about.
        • ycombinatorMan 10y ago
          So, youre nitpicking?
          • pritambaral 10y ago
            What's the opposite of 'drawing from incomplete evidence'? I hate the power Facebook as a behemoth and a monolith holds and abuses. But when accusing, we should be fair. The statements cited as evidence are from a publication, not an offhand comment by a random person on Facebook with no regard to correctness or clarity. And even in that, there isn't clarity for what was being accused. So, if pointing out a lack of clarity in an accusation is called nitpicking, so be it.
• deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
• jMyles 10y ago
  > I can concede that there could be good reasons to pull the photo. Yeah?
  • jlmorton 10y ago
    Sure. Facebook is not a history book. It's a social network with kids on it. Napalm girl is a powerful photo. So are photos of Aushwitz. So too are photos of trench warfare. Saddam Hussein's hanging is historically important, as are all the images of children killed in Aleppo, or drowned families washing up on shores in Italy. That doesn't mean we need all these things on Facebook. I'm sensitive to censorship, and Facebook is a powerful and important platform for sharing, but I'm not prepared to say every photo of historical significance must necessarily be allowed.
    • falcolas 10y ago
      What is wrong with a kid seeing that particular photo? The only truly troubling things are the expressions on the people's faces (something which would take a parent about 30 seconds to explain), and the context (which is hard to infer from the photo directly).
    • ivan_gammel 10y ago
      Good news is that you can filter what you see in your feed. Why do you think you or Facebook have a say in conversations between people you have no connection with? Why are you ok with taking down that conversation because there's a disturbing image that you don't even see, because it is not in your feed?
    • FireBeyond 10y ago
      If your friend (on Facebook or in person) is showing you photos, saying things you find offensive, isn't your issue with your friend, not the mechanism by which they chose to do this? Isn't that the same argument we use for things like BitTorrent?
    • jMyles 10y ago
      > It's a social network with kids on it. What is this supposed to mean? There are adults too. You seem to be falling into the fallacy of protecting kids by prohibiting adults from engaging in adult behavior.
• TheSpiceIsLife 10y ago
  > I can concede that there could be good reasons to pull the photo. Such as................................................................................? It could offend some peoples sensibilities? Fuck them. Let's try to remember the costs of war eh.
  • harigov 10y ago
    Automated system that detected it as child porn and deleted it. And this system didn't have any ways to manually override it.
    • grb423 10y ago
      Is using human common sense out of the question? Too many images? Too hard? Who would decide?
    • TheSpiceIsLife 10y ago
      Good?