3 ms·

> > 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

by 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.

by 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.