22 ms·

Facebook is imposing American censorship on the rest of the world

343 points by mudil 10y ago

snorrah 10y ago
Facebooks' an american canc^^^^company, so naturally it acts only in its own thinking. I mean what do you expect? It's facebook. It was founded on dubious merit, the company will operate in the most grey it possibly can. (Not wanting to anger the tech nerds here: various FB employees have released super interesting stuff back into the tech community such as the recent SSH CA auth article) But c'mon. When you see anyone accused of foul play, facebook should be the least surprising of them all.
shiftpgdn 10y ago
If you don't like Facebook's actions then don't use it. Having open speech on Facebook's platform is not an inalienable right. I don't agree with Facebook's privacy policies and thus have deleted my account and use other platforms. This isn't difficult. This article is tantamount to saying "Woe is me, NYT won't publish my op-ed." and expecting anyone to take you seriously.
- sp332 10y ago
  I don't think this is a given. When Facebook is many people's main communications platform and source of news, censoring Facebook is, effectively, censoring communication and news. Since they have such power to affect our societies, they should have some obligations.
  - electic 10y ago
    Disagree. It is the main platform because those folks agree with the terms of use and privacy policy. As suggested, you can use something else that lines up with what you believe and frankly, if a lot more people do that, there will be another viable rival to Facebook. Vote with your clicks.
    - fsloth 10y ago
      "It is the main platform because those folks agree with the terms of use and privacy policy" I disagree. Do you know how many general users have the vaguest ideas what those things are? People en masse use Facebook because other people do - they have very limited of awareness of anything how Facebook skews their view of reality and what limits their communication on the said platform has - until they hit those limits. They just know all of their friends are on the platform, so they must be there too.
      - electic 10y ago
        I think you nailed it right there. People have not hit those "limits" and are okay with what they see on the platform. Since there is no decent, the people are OK with Facebook's handling of cleaning content.
        sp332 10y ago
        [Assuming you mean "dissent".] I see plenty of complaining about what Facebook doesn't allow... like the article we're referring to for example. I even see some on Facebook, especially about the breastfeeding policy. See also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Facebook#Censorship https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Facebook#Censorsh...
    - sp332 10y ago
      There are consumer protection laws that prevent companies from abusing their customers even through "agreements". http://fortune.com/2016/03/02/facebook-germany-antitrust/ http://fortune.com/2016/03/02/facebook-germany-antitrust/
      - electic 10y ago
        This has nothing to do with what the OP said. The discussion is about what is allowed on FB and what is not allowed on FB. The article you linked to is talking about data collection policies.
  - shiftpgdn 10y ago
    Exactly! The more people that leave the platform for somewhere else the less control that Facebook has over communications. Facebook has no more obligation to allow you to write whatever you want on their site than the New York Times has to publish your op-ed piece.
  - az0xff 10y ago
    It will be interesting to see how this fact will come up in legislative discussions. Has it happened before -- that so many people ended up relying on a single corporations that the corporation needed to take on special obligations?
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
  - jimmytidey 10y ago
    I completely agree with the above. The idea that society should accept that it has no control over the design of a major artery of communication is not sensible. With print media, TV, phone and post, all developed countries have special regulations that ensure these (often privately run) services align with values of democracy (with varying effectiveness). I think the ideal solution would be to compel Facebook to make its architecture more open. For it to have real APIs, which, among other things, would allow other companies to transition users from Facebook effectively and seamlessly. This is analogous to the reasoning that says that banks cannot make it unreasonably difficult to switch to another bank by creating admin around direct debits and the like (rules currently being implemented in the UK). Facebook can engage in whatever kind of censorship it likes as long as the barriers to leaving it are sufficiently low that we can realistically imagine users doing so. (Unfortunately FB is not a formal monopoly because it's free to users.. so we absolutely do need new legislation).
    - austinheap 10y ago
      You can download an archive of your Facebook data already. What "real APIs" would you like the government to "compel" this private corporation to add?
      - sp332 10y ago
        You can't download most of the data facebook collects about you. This guy tried, and it was a legal battle. http://www.wired.co.uk/article/privacy-versus-facebook http://www.wired.co.uk/article/privacy-versus-facebook "The concept of access [to your data] was just alien to them. In the US consent is just a privacy policy and a tick-box approach." "They break democratically decided laws in the EU and get away with it. Instead of putting money into compliance, they expect NGOs and authorities to do that work for them."
      - jimmytidey 10y ago
        By real APIs I mean ones with sufficient durability and access to data to allow third parties to provide innovative products based on them. The bundle download that Facebook offers (which I have used) doesn't meet those criteria, we can see this because no one has built a business off it. At the moment Tinder is the only company I'm aware of that really does this, and it's not exactly a corner stone of democracy. I've no idea why you've written the word compel in speech marks? If it is because you think it is unacceptable to ever compel a private corporation to anything, I'd point out that Facebook and all other corporations are already bound by all kinds of laws, many of which are very widely accepted. Especially relevant here are the laws (and social norms) TV and print organisations adhere to.
- flurdy 10y ago
  Facebook are free to do as they please within the law. And people are free to complain about it within the law. Advise to simple "not use it" is harsh as it has a near monopoly as a communication tool for many communities. Without it I certainly would have no idea what happens with my relatives and friends, apart from my absolute nearest (which is another discussion). And for many places it is the only tool used for near all community communication. Once another or more tools has enough market share (among non techies) you have an actual choice, but atm not really.
  - msl09 10y ago
    >Advise to simple "not use it" is harsh as it has a near monopoly as a communication tool for many communities. Without it I certainly would have no idea what happens with my relatives and friends, apart from my absolute nearest (which is another discussion). I don't think there is any shortage of facebook alternatives out there, both in the messaging business or if you are taking about social networks(diaspora is my favorite btw). Sure it's hard and annoying to move your friends away from facebook, but honestly is it really worth to bother to keep them friended on facebook. I honestly don't give a crap about knowing what's happening with my most distant relatives, except when I'm meeting then in person and I don't think they feel any different about me, that might just be my personal experience though. Either way, I think that facebook's selective post display and the fact that you might be away(or busy) when something important to you is displayed on your stream make it an extremely unreliable way to know what's going on unless if you want to see useless news about celebrities. If I really care, I call.
- karma_vaccum123 10y ago
  Lacking a "public" internet, users are always going to have their expression beholden to the standards of some private entity. Even if you self-host, your ISP reserves the right to define their own idea of "abuse". Where on the internet can I be assured of protection against censorship? I can't think of anywhere. The public continues to fund the internet in a variety of ways (not just the original ARPANET, but rights-of-way to fiber etc etc) yet has no guarantees of power of expression.
- z4chj 10y ago
  > If you don't like Facebook's actions then don't use it That is akin to if you don't like it, then leave, which is just a way of avoiding potential solutions to the problem. See ergo decedo https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ergo_decedo https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ergo_decedo
  - karma_vaccum123 10y ago
    Why not just tell users that Facebook does not endorse or condone any specific user content? No one blames Verizon if someone uses a racist insult on the phone...there is precedent for users grasping how a common carrier works. Of course this is all about advertising. Advertisers want to be associated only with dull, bland speech. This is also why network TV is so bland.
- TaylorAlexander 10y ago
  I see this comment a lot. Sure, yes, I believe people should leave the platform too. But how do you get a billion people to decide to leave? By talking about problems with the platform. I believe that's what this article does. It seems like you're suggesting that the article has no purpose (with your "woe is me" characterization). I would disagree with that. And if anyone is reading this: HN readers, we are the people with the skills to set up a diaspora instance. Yes, your friends aren't using it. Fine. You use it first, and perhaps they will follow. One of my next projects is to set up GNU Social with a feed on my personal website, so I can "tweet" whatever I'd like and know that it will be permanently under my control. There's even Android apps for GNU Social. If you don't like what Facebook is doing, perhaps help support the alternatives?
  - MBCook 10y ago
    > But how do you get a billion people to decide to leave? The same way they left MySpace and other services. People get annoyed enough (or something better comes along) and the network effects start to diminish and the tide flows out.
    - raarts 10y ago
      People did not leave MySpace because they were annoyed, but because something better came along that didn't annoy them as much.
      - MBCook 10y ago
        I know some people were annoyed at how bad the usability/design was as people customized things. But people have left other services because they didn't like the changes that the site decided to make. Digg is a very obvious example.
- ashwinaj 10y ago
  Totally agree! I fail to understand why is this a 'problem'. FB can do as they please (fail or succeed as a consequence), they aren't a tax payer funded institution answerable to the public at large. In effect, people are dictating how FB should 'run their business'.
  - RandomOpinion 10y ago
    >I fail to understand why is this a 'problem'. FB can do as they please (fail or succeed as a consequence), they aren't a tax payer funded institution answerable to the public at large. In effect, people are dictating how FB should 'run their business'. Much like the Microsoft anti-trust suits of the early '00s? There was nothing then (just as there is now) that forced people to use Microsoft products; numerous OS and software alternatives existed. Facebook is currently large enough to distort industries and markets, just as Microsoft once was.
    - AndrewKemendo 10y ago
      Much like the Microsoft anti-trust suits of the early '00s? Which were equally bullshit.
- danjoc 10y ago
  >If you don't like Facebook's actions then don't use it. In other words, "You're free to speak, as long as no one can hear you." Nice bait. Look at all your replies. >Having open speech on Facebook's platform is not an inalienable right. So long as the government ensures that Facebook is the only platform via patent/copyright/trademark enforcement, I beg to differ. When I can build a Facebook clone of my own and not be sued out of existence for it [1], then you have a valid point. Until then, Facebook isn't greatly different from VKontakte or Renren. [1]http://www.cnet.com/news/facebook-sues-german-rival/ http://www.cnet.com/news/facebook-sues-german-rival/
  - briandear 10y ago
    Trademark? Why would you need to violate trademarks? MySpace got crushed by FB -- IP and trademarks had nothing to do with it, unless you want to fool people into thinking that you were Facebook. Build your own system or come up with your own great idea. You don't need to copy Facebook any more than they had to copy MySpace. You just need to put in some original hard work and make it happen. It isn't Facebook's fault you can't come up with something better that people want to use. There's no patent on social networking. How would it be fair if you invested a billion dollars in code and marketing only to have someone come along and steal your code? You might not like patents, but they will help protect you and your great idea if you every execute on one. Facebook isn't stopping you from doing anything.
    - danjoc 10y ago
      >Trademark? Why would you need to violate trademarks? This is a straw man argument. I didn't say violate trademarks. I said trademark enforcement. A small competitor can be wiped out easily with legal costs associated with an extended trademark battle in court. >Build your own system or come up with your own great idea. Same straw man. I don't have to violate patents to be sued out of existence. >There's no patent on social networking. This statement is categorically false. http://lmgtfy.com/?q=social+network+patent http://lmgtfy.com/?q=social+network+patent
      - Dylan16807 10y ago
- UweSchmidt 10y ago
  Disagree. Fundamental rights and values must/should be upheld by everyone, and if something like Facebook emerges to be a major public forum the relevant rules should apply. I've deleted my FB account too, but whatever happens on there still affects society and thus everyone.
- soufron 10y ago
  You could say the same for TV or Newspaper. Still, they have obligations. People are not completely free to use or not use Facebook. The idea that people are autonomous in their choices is erroneous. Thus, the reason why it's fair to apply additional obligations to companies like Facebook.
firasd 10y ago
It's true that Facebook (and Twitter, Youtube, etc.) are expressing the point of view of the platform creators as to 'acceptable content' and it's worth pointing out. On the other hand, if I made a product that hosted user generated content I would probably have pretty similar guidelines to them. e.g. Yes the "nipple double standards" can be criticized but given current cultural norms, when this limit doesn't exist, you end up hosting a lot of explicit images like Tumblr or MySpace. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
- dkuntz2 10y ago
  Why not let people have that if they want it? They could enact some level of content control so underage users are limited on what pages they can see or something, and tag explicit pages, but the existing ability to hide/block pages and posts related to them seem like a good enough place to start building on to.
- mgleason_3 10y ago
  But, thats exactly the point. Americans are so bought into the idea that "explicit" images are bad that they can't see another viewpoint. Its become "natural". And, as the author pointed out, Americans are so blind to it that you don't even see the problem with censoring nipples but not beheadings. You literally cant see that noone should be injured by seeing a womans breast, but seeing a beheaded body could. Its interesting to see this story come out so soon after the LA times story about libel and the fight against court ordered take-down of posts critical of companies (think Yelp, etc.). Maybe the point is that censorship shouldn't be allowed?
  - firasd 10y ago
    A few things. I'm not American (I'm from India) and I think that fact, plus your point about Yelp, gets to the flipside: that American social media giants' standards are actually more relaxed than the media of many countries, especially non-European countries, when it comes to sexuality, political speech, defamation, etc. As far as beheadings, I'm not sure but I'd assume Facebook is not trying to be a 'gore' destination either. It's the same problem, whether it comes to limits on sex or violence, if you allow any type of media you create havens for that type of content and then it changes the contours of your product. It's all subjective of course, and different companies set different limits--Apple's app store is well known to be more restrictive than Google play, Facebook more restrictive than Twitter, etc.
joshuaheard 10y ago
Maybe it's time to consider Facebook, Twitter, et al, as common carriers, which, under the new net neutrality law, would disallow them from censoring content. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_carrier#Telecommunications https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_carrier#Telecommunicati...
- stephenr 10y ago
  Maybe it's time to treat Facebook as the cancerous turd on society that it is.
  - dominotw 10y ago
    I think you might have cause and effect reversed. Turd of a society created facebook.
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
    - throwanem 10y ago
      I think you're both being somewhat overheated in your rhetoric, in a way that's likely to be less helpful than otherwise. Perhaps a bit more restraint might be of value? But of course that's your decision to make.
- kakarot 10y ago
  Whoa buddy, that's some pretty heavy socialism. Anyone can make a forum. Mandating moderation rules creates a restrictive barrier for entry and actually harms free speech that falls out of acceptable range
  - skrebbel 10y ago
    Whoa buddy, that's some pretty limited free market regulation thinking. There's plenty of laws that only apply on certain companies, after n employees or x revenue. Should be pretty feasible to devise a law that applies to sites with more than n active users such as Facebook and twitter and the likes and not to your neighborhood forum.
jackmaney 10y ago
Complete FUD. The rest of the world is not forced to use Facebook. Neither is anyone in the US. There is no such thing as free speech on a social network, nor should there be.
helthanatos 10y ago
Facebook can do what they want, but they do censor everything. I don't care about FB, as I have an account that just sits and does nothing. When some organization censors something, they should say a reason, though... Some sites like to delete things and act like they never happened.
dbg31415 10y ago
If you don't like it, don't use it. It's really that simple. I stopped using Facebook about five years ago, no complaints. Wish I had deleted my account sooner.
mark_l_watson 10y ago
The FSF has a lot of good material to read on why we don't want centralized control of our data. Applies to Facebook, Google, etc. As a card carrying FSF member (and supporter of EFF, ACLU, Software Conservancy) it embarrases me a little that I probably spend 30 minutes a day using Facebook, Google +, and Twitter; but I enjoy them, I keep the material I produce largely on my own infrastructure, and I work to prevent these actors from tracking me except for when I am actually using their services. I use GNU Social a lot, but there is not as much interesting material to read there. Last week I wished that Facebook screened violent pictures better: someone I know posted a picture of someone receiving 200 lashes, in way too much detail. That picture still disturbs me, just remembering it.
- dmix 10y ago
  Why can't your friend be responsible for not posting violent pictures? Otherwise a) you confront the person politely telling them why you think it was inappropriate or b) unfriend/mute them. Reddit uses a NSFW filter over videos that you have to click through to see the video first... that would also be up to the user to mark as NSFW... or you unfriend them. Or even a downvote button is community-based. The reason heavy-handed centralized control systems get put in place is because of statements like that "I wished that Facebook screened x better". The consequence of wishing for minimalist centralized control is depending more on community/social-based control systems aka not having your cake and eating it too (being friends with someone while expecting a 3rd party to filter their content to your tastes).
  - mark_l_watson 10y ago
    I agree with you. Best to ask people I know to not post shit like that, and minimize censorship at the platform level.
  - DanBC 10y ago
    > Why can't your friend be responsible for not posting violent pictures? Because Facebook have already said that some content is not allowed on their platform. For a while women who'd had breast cancer and had reconstructive surgery were posting images of their new breasts, or of their now nipple-less breast with tattoos. Or breast-feeding mothers were posting images of their feeding children. Facebook said that those images were not allowed, and removed a bunch of them. But at the same time Facebook was doing nothing about beheading videos. It was weird to see a mother being banned for posting a photo of a feeding child, and someone else not get banned for posting terrorist propaganda. If facebook is saying "anything goes, as long as it's legal" that's one thing, but as soon as they start to control what's allowed it's reasonable for users to say what content should be more tightly controlled.
equalarrow 10y ago
I don't get why this is such an issue. I understand the sheer numbers of people that use fb and get their 'news' from it, but it amazes me that people are shocked that fb censors the content. Facebook never claimed to be a news organization nor part of the 5th estate (which, pretty much doesn't exist). So that being the case, I would never expect fb to be a partner for democracy. Just because some recent revolutions were helped by fb and twitter doesn't mean that these for profit corporations are for freedom of expression and 1st amendment rights. People need to remember this whenever they post something on these sites. Especially since they outright claim to own the content (last time I checked).
- cloudjacker 10y ago
  > Just because some recent revolutions were helped by fb and twitter doesn't mean that these for profit corporations are for freedom of expression and 1st amendment rights. They aren't illogically petitioning the government to force them to stop censoring, they are making the public service announcement at other private corporations and may actually be successful in getting the private corporation to stop censoring. It was successful a few days ago with Napalm girl, so why stop there.
- sp332 10y ago
  They were pretty loud about being a source of news. Don't forget the Paper app they cancelled. They even encourage news sources to host their articles on Facebook. https://media.fb.com/2015/05/12/instantarticles/ https://media.fb.com/2015/05/12/instantarticles/
- dmix 10y ago
  Free speech rights are limited to government intervention, for good reason. The only question from a free-market perspective is whether or not Facebook has provided the tools to self-censor the content you get in your social network, much like HN where you can downvote/flag content that is inappropriate or of questionable quality [1]. That would downplay the monopolistic side effects of not having a competitor to go to if you're not happy with Facebook's strict censoring rules. [1] I should note Facebook already does provide lots of ways to filter people from your feed without unfriending them if you don't like what they post.
20yrs_no_equity 10y ago
I'm not a fan of Facebook so this is great news. The more they manipulate the platform and undermine its objectivity and freedom, the less people will trust it. And while the reasons they shouldn't trust it - namely privacy- are not directly related to these actions, Facebooks attempts to control people like this will make them aware of its untrustworthiness. TBH this is an area very prime for disruption, the "next Facebook" is right around the corner, but it will bear less relationship to The Facebook than The Facebook did to Myspace.
tehwalrus 10y ago
It hurts my brain when people describe censorship as "liberalism". Especially fellow Brits.
- chippy 10y ago
  Agreed. It's not Liberalism at all - if anything, from the article, thinking about this on a global scale - it's a cross between a Silicon Valley tech mindset, American puritanism, and the current flavour of rich, white, university educated politically correct behaviour. In short it means an odd mixture of whats allowed and not which the article talks about, but it's nothing to do with liberalism. edits: I think it's cultural privilege. Americans have the privilege as being the most powerful western culture and literally cannot see others that with less power should have some of that influence.
  - tehwalrus 10y ago
    Sorry, I can't allow the context to make it seem as if I approve of being deliberately thoughtless. I generally try hard myself not to be incorrect (politically) since it would break one of Bill and Ted's two commandments. I just dislike it when Liberalism, which I believe in whole-heartedly pretty much exactly as I think Mill intended, is dragged into this debate about censorship, when it was about what should be illegal not what was moral or immoral. (Indeed, it is a way for people who disagree with each other about what is immoral to live in the same country under the same law and feel safe.)
- rhino369 10y ago
  Censorship often comes from different sides of the political spectrum. In the USA, sexual censorship comes from mostly the right, but increasing from the left as well--exploiting women, perpetuating rape culture, etc. Violence censorship often comes from the left. Democrats used to lead the way on banning violent video games, etc. "Hate speech" censorship comes from the left too. Whoever is in power tends to seek to bad seditious speech. And the right usually wants to censor blasphemous speech. It's a mixed bag.
  - 10y ago
20yrs_no_equity 10y ago
I'm not a fan of Facebook so this is great news. The more they manipulate the platform and undermine its objectivity and freedom, the less people will trust it. And while the reasons they shouldn't trust it - namely privacy- are not directly related to these actions, Facebooks attempts to control people like this will make them aware of its untrustworthiness. TBH this is an area very prime for disruption, the "next Facebook" is right around the corner, but it will bear less relationship to The Facebook than The Facebook did to Myspace.
antirez 10y ago
The United States are a great country, but in the topic of censorship, balanced politically correctness and easy to speak about all the topics, I believe that the old Europe has very interesting things to say, so I'm also a bit worried that the technological leadership of US may have an effect on what is believed to be sensible to discuss / post in Europe too. I hope is the other way, that is, we european can in some way mitigate certain extreme positions I see in the US regarding what is appropriate or not.
- dmix 10y ago
  France in the 18-19th century had many smart people who spoke against this type of stuff (everyone loves to quote Voltaire). But modern France has become the absolute counter-point for wishing to have less censorship and centralized social control. So this problem isn't limited to the United States. This is an issue in all modern liberal societies. Big government and centralized control has exploded over the last century, nation-states have become bigger than they've been in any time in history. The first half of the book "Fourth Revolution" has a really great history of how the state has massively grown, largely starting after WW2, to the point it becomes embedded in every parts of our lives (whether it's explicit or not). This type of thing always happens through small slivers and cuts, largely promoted via community complaints calling for government to solve issues - much like what Facebook has experienced. This is the side-effect of a society where the hair-trigger response to every small problem is to look to government to solve it - not just economic but social issues too. Instead of resolving them internally or via community, or just moving on because the solution is sometimes worse than the problem (see: terrorism). [1] https://www.amazon.com/Fourth-Revolution-Global-Reinvent-State/dp/0143127608/ https://www.amazon.com/Fourth-Revolution-Global-Reinvent-Sta...
  - ubernostrum 10y ago
    Admittedly I have not read this book you recommend. However, my experience with such arguments is that they never persuade me "big government" is suddenly intruding into places it didn't previously, since the truth is more often that government was suddenly being deployed in support of people it was traditionally deployed against, and against people it was traditionally deployed in support of.
mgleason_3 10y ago
Americans are so bought into the idea that "explicit" images are bad that they can't see another viewpoint. Its become "natural". And, as the author pointed out, Americans are so blind to it that you don't even see the problem with censoring nipples but not beheadings. We literally cant see that noone should be injured by seeing a womans breast, but seeing a beheaded body - thats OK? Its interesting to see this story come out so soon after the LA times story about libel and the fight against court ordered take-down of posts critical of companies (think Yelp, etc.). Maybe the point is that censorship shouldn't be allowed?
- lawless123 10y ago
  Thought this the other day, was watching that Hannibal TV series. Didn't see one nipple but a few people torn to pieces. Intestines hanging out and person cut into slices and displayed in glass are ok.
  - jedberg 10y ago
    "The way to have a fully naked woman in a PG-13 movie is to fill her with bullet holes." I don't know who said it, if anyone, but it's true.
    - Houshalter 10y ago
      PG-13 is a lot more restricted than it used to be. You can't have much blood or gore or say more than one bad word. So I don't think that really supports your point.
      - jedberg 10y ago
        I believe it applied more in the past, but the point still stands. At some time in recent history, a naked woman was considered worse than a naked woman with holes from being shot, which is just wrong.
      - pessimizer 10y ago
        Prime time television isn't, though. You may only get only two "shits" a season, but never a nipple. Beheadings, rapes and disembowelings are common, though.
dexterdog 10y ago
So is Google: https://sputniknews.com/us/20160912/1045214398/google-clinton-manipulation-election.html https://sputniknews.com/us/20160912/1045214398/google-clinto...
mtgx 10y ago
Twitter is just as bad, if not worse. Take yesterday for instance. The Hillary health issue EXPLODED on Reddit and other places within 2h. And I saw single tweets with multiple thousand retweets on Twitter as well. But not single trending topic on Twitter about the incident the whole day. There's NO WAY none of those hashtags weren't eligible for trending. Twitter has been caught doing it before, but I think yesterday was far worse than anything they've done before. They've must've told everyone to be on the lookout of any Hillary-related topic becoming a trend, or just automatically banning anything that may be been about it from trending. Only today you see the body double thing trending, which I'm sure has far fewer tweets and at a much lower speed than yesterday's incident had. I know Trump looks to be a terrible human being and likely an even worse president, but it really scares me to see that not only the mainstream media actively try to side with Hillary, but now also tech/social platforms like Twitter, Facebook, Youtube, Google, etc. I think if Hillary is president, you'll see the US succumb to the same media censorship and self-censorship that you see in Russia.
- k-mcgrady 10y ago
  As someone standing on the outside looking in you're definitely letting conspiracy theories get the best of you. BBC had an article up while she was still in her daughters house and had a video of her fainting not long after. As did most 'main stream media' sources. I can't speak for Twitter's trending system but mainstream media had the facts up very quickly.
sp332 10y ago
Aw, let's be fair now. After all they also ban religious material at the request of the Pakistani government http://tribune.com.pk/story/855030/facebook-censored-54-posts-for-blasphemy-in-pakistan-in-second-half-of-2014/ http://tribune.com.pk/story/855030/facebook-censored-54-post... and political content for Hong Kong too! http://hk.apple.nextmedia.com/news/art/20100205/13699972 http://hk.apple.nextmedia.com/news/art/20100205/13699972 (translation https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fhk.apple.nextmedia.com%2Fnews%2Fart%2F20100205%2F13699972&edit-text= https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=y&pr... )
- r_smart 10y ago
  There's actually probably an interesting bigger point here. Why is this image the content that sparked so much outrage? As you point out, they ban a lot of things on behalf of other countries. There's been complaints of conservatives getting censored (who knows how accurate those are). And of course, the hot mic gaff of Zuckerberg talking with Angela Merkel about censoring migrant crisis criticism on Facebook. So is this just the event that caused sentiment to hit critical mass? Or did it touch a deeper nerve that's got people stirred up?
  - sp332 10y ago
    Well, it doesn't usually happen to prime ministers. And I'm not convinced that this outcry over the weekend is going to change anything.
    - r_smart 10y ago
      Both good points. The second one makes me sad though. I sometimes wonder what, if anything will be the tipping point.
  - sliverstorm 10y ago
    The photo is held to be historical documentary of war, like tank man & saigon execution. Those kinds of photos are valued & defended, and it's probably totally unthinkable to a great many people that they should be censored.
merraksh 10y ago
Facebook ploughed on – before performing an embarrassing 360 and claiming that it was imposing this policy out of concern for victims. A 360 would be embarrassing as it places you back to the same road. Perhaps it was an "embarrassing 180" instead.
- JayJee 10y ago
  This entire writing style of this article is embarrassing not to mention the ads EVERYWHERE. I had to open this in links to be able to read it.
- MattConfluence 10y ago
  I was puzzled by that sentence too, but I figured it could be interpreted as "going in the same direction, for a different reason".
- rm999 10y ago
  It's actually is one of the rare instances I've seen "do a 360" used appropriately. Facebook revamped their policy around the issue while ending up at exactly the same place: you have to use your real name.
  - calvins 10y ago
    But doing a 360 doesn't mean doing a 180, and then sometime much later, doing another 180.
    - kbenson 10y ago
      I think it's a matter of context and time-frame. If the end up pointing the same way they started, that's 360 degrees. That might entail two 180 flips at different points, and if talking about one of those specifically, it would be appropriate to say they did a 180 when referring to that specific situation.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- 10y ago
soufron 10y ago
1. This won't last as people will want their own cultural and legal rules to apply on Facebook. 2. Facebook is not just a private company anymore. It's cool to have success, but that comes with bigger public scrutiny, and possibly a lot more obligations than a normal startup who would have only a few users. 3. Don't think this is minor. Facebook will need to evolve, even in the US. This is a matter of Free Speech and Freedom of Thought.
- AndrewKemendo 10y ago
  Facebook is not just a private company anymore. In what sense? Legally they are, they act like one so I am not sure in practice what makes that distinct. Perhaps you mean that user expectations makes them not "just a private company." In which case I see no reason why that doesn't also extend to pretty much any other much smaller platform in which users complain about moderation or opaque governance (reddit, twitter, linkedin, tumblr etc...). There are numerous examples of change.org petitions asking for kickstarter or some other platform to change how they do business.
  - khedoros 10y ago
    > In what sense? Legally they are, they act like one so I am not sure in practice what makes that distinct. Facebook, Inc. is a publicly traded company. An example of a private company would be Dell Technologies.
    - AndrewKemendo 10y ago
      Sorry I interpreted the idea of "private" in this sense in comparison to governmental - not publicly traded - given the context of "censorship" and other comparisons to government type services.
      - khedoros 10y ago
        You could be right. Reading the original comment again, they might have meant that Facebook has a level of influence that is exceptional for a private-sphere entity, rather than that they aren't privately-held.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
kinkdr 10y ago
Lots and lots of people seem to forget: Facebook is an American COMPANY. It is not a utility, it is not a non-profit organization. People choose to use it, and hence they have to put up with their rules. If they don't like it, they should stop using it and start using the open alternatives.
- larsiusprime 10y ago
  The problem with this view of free speech is that the means of communication are privately owned: http://www.jonas-kyratzes.net/2014/04/26/free-speech-and-the-means-of-communication/ http://www.jonas-kyratzes.net/2014/04/26/free-speech-and-the...
  - pixl97 10y ago
    In the past when talking about free speech, it commonly meant talking on the street corners. Since the roads were public property the government could not censor you there. What we have occurring in the modern world would be the same if a city sold all of it's roads to a private company and told its citizens their are no longer public spaces.
    - kinkdr 10y ago
      It is more like people wanting to live in that city because it is hip. They moved there although they knew it is privately owned and they had to put up with the owners rules(which includes in spying on them for his own profit). I cannot feel any sympathy for them.
      - pixl97 10y ago
        People are more apt to move to a city because there are jobs there. Much like facebook, before its time it was very difficult to communicate with a wide range of people reliably. Facebook gave a way for people to talk, and now they take it away and the peasants grow irritable.
        10y ago
fit2rule 10y ago
"You need to subscribe to read this article". Well, then, I guess there are forces more powerful than censorship that can be applied to this problem ..
rwoodley 10y ago
I don't go to hacker news to read recycled UK tabloid journalism. Who cares what some hack in London who is paid to provoke outrage thinks.
chippy 10y ago
In writing some replies to a couple of comments, I think that the article is referring to cultural privilege. Americans have the privilege as being the most powerful western culture, Facebook comes from an educated, technological, rich, American, culture and cannot see others that with less power should have some of influence in how a global culture can be. Also, as with most forms of privilege it's not common at all that those at the top need to compromise with those below and characteristic is that those with the most priviledge cannot see their own position at the top and inability to acknowledge their issues of others. What the article is showing is the privilege of American culture interacting with other cultures and peoples. edits: I think it's actually a great time for the Internet - I am seeing this as the growing pains of a new global culture - a new global way of looking at the world. We are seeing the makers and police of the rich west seeing that the world is more complex and diverse than they are comfortable with, and the result will be interesting to say the least, and glorious and rich if all cultures can be supported in a global way.
bartkappenburg 10y ago
Not sure how the 'flag' system works but based on the two examples (famous news photo and famous work of art), you could easily circumvent wrong flagging (wrong = deleting famous and important photos) by generating a 'similar photo search' in the system and giving context. That would help the over-ambitious flagger to recognize this.
nihonde 10y ago
If you are fighting for your rights on Facebook, you are going to be disappointed and you are very, painfully niave about how walled gardens operate.
sfifs 10y ago
Facebook pays its bills by primarily being a mass reach advertising platform just like any mainstream TV channel. They are not some public communications service. Therefore they will curate their content in such a way that preserves and expands the mass reach as much as possible (eg. by following country specific content guidelines) and keeps them out of legal hot water (in this case, the risk of child porn) and negative imagery contexts to keep them an attractive source for advertising. For instance, mainstream advertisers (with the exception of the Bennetons of the world) don't necessarily want their brands to appear in possibly negative contexts. Given these economic interests, any content process they have will necessarily lean towards extra caution. It's not so much "censorship" really as economic self interest. In these things, follow the money.
jedberg 10y ago
I feel bad for Facebook here. Having been responsible for managing this same problem for another (albeit smaller) multinational user generated website, it's a tough problem. Everyone around the world, and even within the United States, have a vastly different sense of morality and taste. Which do you cater to? Not to mention the legal issues, where some content is legal in one place and illegal in another.
smsm42 10y ago
American censorship is bad, but wait until you meet Russian, Chinese or Pakistani one... If Facebook limits itself only to American censorship that won't be as bad, a bigger concern would be it will apply censorship rules of any country that has enough market pull to influence Facebook's monetary interests. As soon as you start on this road, Russia would say if you censor what's bad in America, why don't you censor what's bad in Russia? At least cat pictures aren't banned anywhere that I know of, so 99% of facebook content is safe ;)
- oneloop 10y ago
  Tell us more about this Russian censorship, you seem to know a lot about the subject.
  - smsm42 10y ago
    How many weeks you're willing to spend on it? :) Yes, I know a bunch about the subject, but most of it hardly relevant to the topic at hand.
    - rahkiin 10y ago
      Please enlighten us anyways. Now your argument is empty, or fuelled by fear of the Russians. Not with any sources.
      - smsm42 10y ago
        Enlighten you about what? Existence of censorship in Russia? Really, you didn't know about it despite all the extensive research you performed on the subject (like googling "censorship in Russia")? Or you have specific questions - if so, which ones? Or you're just hoping to bog down the argument by demanding excessive proof to known and widely covered things and hoping I'd eventually give up and you could say "well, I knew it, no proof, all lies!"?
superice 10y ago
This issue is quite easily fixable if Facebook would have set up their censoring policy in a different way: allow everything by default, detect or let users flag illegal posts or images (e.g. child pornography) Make the post invisible for others from that point on, but do not remove it nor notify the author. Alert the authorities when child porn is uploaded, and let them figure out whether they'd want to pursue it or not. If authorities decide not to pursue, make it visible again. If authorities do decide to pursue the author should've abided the law. That way Facebook moves the entire censorship discussion to law enforcement, which is pretty much the best place for it to be. Furthermore, because this may yield some shocking images into ones timeline, Facebook should try to use machine learning to invisibly tag posts by their content. For nudity there are already algorithms, and I'm sure other shocking content could be tagged in a similar way as well. Last step: give everybody a settings panel with what they want to see, except for kids, they can't see anything that isn't according to the PG-[age] regulations. That makes it completely PC :)
kybernetyk 10y ago
It's facebook's platform. They can do with it whatever they want. And if they prefer to remove certain content it's their good right. If you don't like their policies don't use their platform. (No, "all my friends are there" is not an excuse. At some time you have to decide what's more important - your morals or whatever your peers pressure you into).
sebringj 10y ago
I love the stackoverflow model of up and down voting and how it is moderated so well. It is apples and oranges to a large degree but I wonder if there was a way to introduce up and down voting, then having things show up based on that, rather than having some moral authority taking things down. For example, if enough people down vote something, it has the effect of disappearing from the public stream but of course you can still see your friends posts. Maybe this is just a software problem given the right setup.
Mendenhall 10y ago
I think people are conflating real violence with pretend violence in many of these comments. Real violence is way more restricted than nudity in US.
fapjacks 10y ago
Interesting, considering I've been reporting the same photo for years, which is constantly not deleted by these people. The photo itself shows the naked, bloody, mutilated corpse of a woman who was raped and murdered, then had a crucifix shoved down her throat. For what it's worth, the image is absolutely real, a crime scene photo. Every single time I report it, I get "We reviewed the photo you reported ... and found it doesn't violate our Community Standards." Humans are definitely reviewing that photo. I would post a link (in hopes that others here could help me report it) but it's extremely graphic and I'm sure HN would implode. Facebook is pretty much 100% terrible and 0% great. I don't think it does anything positive for anybody except Mark Zuckerberg.
JustSomeNobody 10y ago
I cannot wait until the post-Facebook era. Hopefully whatever comes along next will learn from this mistake.
lmm 10y ago
And yet for all their pretty words, the Telegraph don't show the actual image at the centre of this furore? Too scared of upsetting their own advertisers perhaps?
aikah 10y ago
lol, here we go again, like Facebook is an public institution that owes anybody anything ... But outrage sells so let's trigger a few people that have nothing better to talk about than censorship on Facebook, when their own government is restricting their speech everyday, this is especially true in UK. The biggest hypocrites, ever.
torkable 10y ago
I always get a kick at how people that use facebook seem to have this idea that EVERYONE uses facebook ALL THE TIME. I haven't used facebook in probably 10 years and I just have to chuckle at this "facebook is editing our history" and "facebook is imposing American ideals on the whole world" crap. Is it really? Is there another option? Is there any other place to get your world fucking news other than fucking facebook? lol If you don't like having "American ideals" "imposed" on you, stop fucking using an American social media site to consume world news you tits. OMG an American social media company is acting like its run by a bunch of Americans!?!?! RABBLE RABBLE! IT HAS TO STOP Oh and get a real fucking history book, jesus.

343 points by mudil 10y ago

Facebooks' an american canc^^^^company, so naturally it acts only in its own thinking. I mean what do you expect? It's facebook. It was founded on dubious merit, the company will operate in the most grey it possibly can. (Not wanting to anger the tech nerds here: various FB employees have released super interesting stuff back into the tech community such as the recent SSH CA auth article) But c'mon. When you see anyone accused of foul play, facebook should be the least surprising of them all.

shiftpgdn 10y ago

If you don't like Facebook's actions then don't use it. Having open speech on Facebook's platform is not an inalienable right. I don't agree with Facebook's privacy policies and thus have deleted my account and use other platforms. This isn't difficult. This article is tantamount to saying "Woe is me, NYT won't publish my op-ed." and expecting anyone to take you seriously.

sp332 10y ago
I don't think this is a given. When Facebook is many people's main communications platform and source of news, censoring Facebook is, effectively, censoring communication and news. Since they have such power to affect our societies, they should have some obligations.
- electic 10y ago
  Disagree. It is the main platform because those folks agree with the terms of use and privacy policy. As suggested, you can use something else that lines up with what you believe and frankly, if a lot more people do that, there will be another viable rival to Facebook. Vote with your clicks.
  - fsloth 10y ago
    "It is the main platform because those folks agree with the terms of use and privacy policy" I disagree. Do you know how many general users have the vaguest ideas what those things are? People en masse use Facebook because other people do - they have very limited of awareness of anything how Facebook skews their view of reality and what limits their communication on the said platform has - until they hit those limits. They just know all of their friends are on the platform, so they must be there too.
    - electic 10y ago
      I think you nailed it right there. People have not hit those "limits" and are okay with what they see on the platform. Since there is no decent, the people are OK with Facebook's handling of cleaning content.
      - sp332 10y ago
        [Assuming you mean "dissent".] I see plenty of complaining about what Facebook doesn't allow... like the article we're referring to for example. I even see some on Facebook, especially about the breastfeeding policy. See also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Facebook#Censorship https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Facebook#Censorsh...
  - sp332 10y ago
    There are consumer protection laws that prevent companies from abusing their customers even through "agreements". http://fortune.com/2016/03/02/facebook-germany-antitrust/ http://fortune.com/2016/03/02/facebook-germany-antitrust/
    - electic 10y ago
      This has nothing to do with what the OP said. The discussion is about what is allowed on FB and what is not allowed on FB. The article you linked to is talking about data collection policies.
- shiftpgdn 10y ago
  Exactly! The more people that leave the platform for somewhere else the less control that Facebook has over communications. Facebook has no more obligation to allow you to write whatever you want on their site than the New York Times has to publish your op-ed piece.
- az0xff 10y ago
  It will be interesting to see how this fact will come up in legislative discussions. Has it happened before -- that so many people ended up relying on a single corporations that the corporation needed to take on special obligations?
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
- jimmytidey 10y ago
  I completely agree with the above. The idea that society should accept that it has no control over the design of a major artery of communication is not sensible. With print media, TV, phone and post, all developed countries have special regulations that ensure these (often privately run) services align with values of democracy (with varying effectiveness). I think the ideal solution would be to compel Facebook to make its architecture more open. For it to have real APIs, which, among other things, would allow other companies to transition users from Facebook effectively and seamlessly. This is analogous to the reasoning that says that banks cannot make it unreasonably difficult to switch to another bank by creating admin around direct debits and the like (rules currently being implemented in the UK). Facebook can engage in whatever kind of censorship it likes as long as the barriers to leaving it are sufficiently low that we can realistically imagine users doing so. (Unfortunately FB is not a formal monopoly because it's free to users.. so we absolutely do need new legislation).
  - austinheap 10y ago
    You can download an archive of your Facebook data already. What "real APIs" would you like the government to "compel" this private corporation to add?
    - sp332 10y ago
      You can't download most of the data facebook collects about you. This guy tried, and it was a legal battle. http://www.wired.co.uk/article/privacy-versus-facebook http://www.wired.co.uk/article/privacy-versus-facebook "The concept of access [to your data] was just alien to them. In the US consent is just a privacy policy and a tick-box approach." "They break democratically decided laws in the EU and get away with it. Instead of putting money into compliance, they expect NGOs and authorities to do that work for them."
    - jimmytidey 10y ago
      By real APIs I mean ones with sufficient durability and access to data to allow third parties to provide innovative products based on them. The bundle download that Facebook offers (which I have used) doesn't meet those criteria, we can see this because no one has built a business off it. At the moment Tinder is the only company I'm aware of that really does this, and it's not exactly a corner stone of democracy. I've no idea why you've written the word compel in speech marks? If it is because you think it is unacceptable to ever compel a private corporation to anything, I'd point out that Facebook and all other corporations are already bound by all kinds of laws, many of which are very widely accepted. Especially relevant here are the laws (and social norms) TV and print organisations adhere to.
flurdy 10y ago
Facebook are free to do as they please within the law. And people are free to complain about it within the law. Advise to simple "not use it" is harsh as it has a near monopoly as a communication tool for many communities. Without it I certainly would have no idea what happens with my relatives and friends, apart from my absolute nearest (which is another discussion). And for many places it is the only tool used for near all community communication. Once another or more tools has enough market share (among non techies) you have an actual choice, but atm not really.
- msl09 10y ago
  >Advise to simple "not use it" is harsh as it has a near monopoly as a communication tool for many communities. Without it I certainly would have no idea what happens with my relatives and friends, apart from my absolute nearest (which is another discussion). I don't think there is any shortage of facebook alternatives out there, both in the messaging business or if you are taking about social networks(diaspora is my favorite btw). Sure it's hard and annoying to move your friends away from facebook, but honestly is it really worth to bother to keep them friended on facebook. I honestly don't give a crap about knowing what's happening with my most distant relatives, except when I'm meeting then in person and I don't think they feel any different about me, that might just be my personal experience though. Either way, I think that facebook's selective post display and the fact that you might be away(or busy) when something important to you is displayed on your stream make it an extremely unreliable way to know what's going on unless if you want to see useless news about celebrities. If I really care, I call.
karma_vaccum123 10y ago
Lacking a "public" internet, users are always going to have their expression beholden to the standards of some private entity. Even if you self-host, your ISP reserves the right to define their own idea of "abuse". Where on the internet can I be assured of protection against censorship? I can't think of anywhere. The public continues to fund the internet in a variety of ways (not just the original ARPANET, but rights-of-way to fiber etc etc) yet has no guarantees of power of expression.
z4chj 10y ago
> If you don't like Facebook's actions then don't use it That is akin to if you don't like it, then leave, which is just a way of avoiding potential solutions to the problem. See ergo decedo https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ergo_decedo https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ergo_decedo
- karma_vaccum123 10y ago
  Why not just tell users that Facebook does not endorse or condone any specific user content? No one blames Verizon if someone uses a racist insult on the phone...there is precedent for users grasping how a common carrier works. Of course this is all about advertising. Advertisers want to be associated only with dull, bland speech. This is also why network TV is so bland.
TaylorAlexander 10y ago
I see this comment a lot. Sure, yes, I believe people should leave the platform too. But how do you get a billion people to decide to leave? By talking about problems with the platform. I believe that's what this article does. It seems like you're suggesting that the article has no purpose (with your "woe is me" characterization). I would disagree with that. And if anyone is reading this: HN readers, we are the people with the skills to set up a diaspora instance. Yes, your friends aren't using it. Fine. You use it first, and perhaps they will follow. One of my next projects is to set up GNU Social with a feed on my personal website, so I can "tweet" whatever I'd like and know that it will be permanently under my control. There's even Android apps for GNU Social. If you don't like what Facebook is doing, perhaps help support the alternatives?
- MBCook 10y ago
  > But how do you get a billion people to decide to leave? The same way they left MySpace and other services. People get annoyed enough (or something better comes along) and the network effects start to diminish and the tide flows out.
  - raarts 10y ago
    People did not leave MySpace because they were annoyed, but because something better came along that didn't annoy them as much.
    - MBCook 10y ago
      I know some people were annoyed at how bad the usability/design was as people customized things. But people have left other services because they didn't like the changes that the site decided to make. Digg is a very obvious example.
ashwinaj 10y ago
Totally agree! I fail to understand why is this a 'problem'. FB can do as they please (fail or succeed as a consequence), they aren't a tax payer funded institution answerable to the public at large. In effect, people are dictating how FB should 'run their business'.
- RandomOpinion 10y ago
  >I fail to understand why is this a 'problem'. FB can do as they please (fail or succeed as a consequence), they aren't a tax payer funded institution answerable to the public at large. In effect, people are dictating how FB should 'run their business'. Much like the Microsoft anti-trust suits of the early '00s? There was nothing then (just as there is now) that forced people to use Microsoft products; numerous OS and software alternatives existed. Facebook is currently large enough to distort industries and markets, just as Microsoft once was.
  - AndrewKemendo 10y ago
    Much like the Microsoft anti-trust suits of the early '00s? Which were equally bullshit.
danjoc 10y ago
>If you don't like Facebook's actions then don't use it. In other words, "You're free to speak, as long as no one can hear you." Nice bait. Look at all your replies. >Having open speech on Facebook's platform is not an inalienable right. So long as the government ensures that Facebook is the only platform via patent/copyright/trademark enforcement, I beg to differ. When I can build a Facebook clone of my own and not be sued out of existence for it [1], then you have a valid point. Until then, Facebook isn't greatly different from VKontakte or Renren. [1]http://www.cnet.com/news/facebook-sues-german-rival/ http://www.cnet.com/news/facebook-sues-german-rival/
- briandear 10y ago
  Trademark? Why would you need to violate trademarks? MySpace got crushed by FB -- IP and trademarks had nothing to do with it, unless you want to fool people into thinking that you were Facebook. Build your own system or come up with your own great idea. You don't need to copy Facebook any more than they had to copy MySpace. You just need to put in some original hard work and make it happen. It isn't Facebook's fault you can't come up with something better that people want to use. There's no patent on social networking. How would it be fair if you invested a billion dollars in code and marketing only to have someone come along and steal your code? You might not like patents, but they will help protect you and your great idea if you every execute on one. Facebook isn't stopping you from doing anything.
  - danjoc 10y ago
    >Trademark? Why would you need to violate trademarks? This is a straw man argument. I didn't say violate trademarks. I said trademark enforcement. A small competitor can be wiped out easily with legal costs associated with an extended trademark battle in court. >Build your own system or come up with your own great idea. Same straw man. I don't have to violate patents to be sued out of existence. >There's no patent on social networking. This statement is categorically false. http://lmgtfy.com/?q=social+network+patent http://lmgtfy.com/?q=social+network+patent
    - Dylan16807 10y ago
UweSchmidt 10y ago
Disagree. Fundamental rights and values must/should be upheld by everyone, and if something like Facebook emerges to be a major public forum the relevant rules should apply. I've deleted my FB account too, but whatever happens on there still affects society and thus everyone.
soufron 10y ago
You could say the same for TV or Newspaper. Still, they have obligations. People are not completely free to use or not use Facebook. The idea that people are autonomous in their choices is erroneous. Thus, the reason why it's fair to apply additional obligations to companies like Facebook.

firasd 10y ago

It's true that Facebook (and Twitter, Youtube, etc.) are expressing the point of view of the platform creators as to 'acceptable content' and it's worth pointing out. On the other hand, if I made a product that hosted user generated content I would probably have pretty similar guidelines to them. e.g. Yes the "nipple double standards" can be criticized but given current cultural norms, when this limit doesn't exist, you end up hosting a lot of explicit images like Tumblr or MySpace. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

dkuntz2 10y ago
Why not let people have that if they want it? They could enact some level of content control so underage users are limited on what pages they can see or something, and tag explicit pages, but the existing ability to hide/block pages and posts related to them seem like a good enough place to start building on to.
mgleason_3 10y ago
But, thats exactly the point. Americans are so bought into the idea that "explicit" images are bad that they can't see another viewpoint. Its become "natural". And, as the author pointed out, Americans are so blind to it that you don't even see the problem with censoring nipples but not beheadings. You literally cant see that noone should be injured by seeing a womans breast, but seeing a beheaded body could. Its interesting to see this story come out so soon after the LA times story about libel and the fight against court ordered take-down of posts critical of companies (think Yelp, etc.). Maybe the point is that censorship shouldn't be allowed?
- firasd 10y ago
  A few things. I'm not American (I'm from India) and I think that fact, plus your point about Yelp, gets to the flipside: that American social media giants' standards are actually more relaxed than the media of many countries, especially non-European countries, when it comes to sexuality, political speech, defamation, etc. As far as beheadings, I'm not sure but I'd assume Facebook is not trying to be a 'gore' destination either. It's the same problem, whether it comes to limits on sex or violence, if you allow any type of media you create havens for that type of content and then it changes the contours of your product. It's all subjective of course, and different companies set different limits--Apple's app store is well known to be more restrictive than Google play, Facebook more restrictive than Twitter, etc.

joshuaheard 10y ago

Maybe it's time to consider Facebook, Twitter, et al, as common carriers, which, under the new net neutrality law, would disallow them from censoring content. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_carrier#Telecommunications https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_carrier#Telecommunicati...

stephenr 10y ago
Maybe it's time to treat Facebook as the cancerous turd on society that it is.
- dominotw 10y ago
  I think you might have cause and effect reversed. Turd of a society created facebook.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - throwanem 10y ago
    I think you're both being somewhat overheated in your rhetoric, in a way that's likely to be less helpful than otherwise. Perhaps a bit more restraint might be of value? But of course that's your decision to make.
kakarot 10y ago
Whoa buddy, that's some pretty heavy socialism. Anyone can make a forum. Mandating moderation rules creates a restrictive barrier for entry and actually harms free speech that falls out of acceptable range
- skrebbel 10y ago
  Whoa buddy, that's some pretty limited free market regulation thinking. There's plenty of laws that only apply on certain companies, after n employees or x revenue. Should be pretty feasible to devise a law that applies to sites with more than n active users such as Facebook and twitter and the likes and not to your neighborhood forum.

jackmaney 10y ago

Complete FUD. The rest of the world is not forced to use Facebook. Neither is anyone in the US. There is no such thing as free speech on a social network, nor should there be.

helthanatos 10y ago

Facebook can do what they want, but they do censor everything. I don't care about FB, as I have an account that just sits and does nothing. When some organization censors something, they should say a reason, though... Some sites like to delete things and act like they never happened.

dbg31415 10y ago

If you don't like it, don't use it. It's really that simple. I stopped using Facebook about five years ago, no complaints. Wish I had deleted my account sooner.

mark_l_watson 10y ago

The FSF has a lot of good material to read on why we don't want centralized control of our data. Applies to Facebook, Google, etc. As a card carrying FSF member (and supporter of EFF, ACLU, Software Conservancy) it embarrases me a little that I probably spend 30 minutes a day using Facebook, Google +, and Twitter; but I enjoy them, I keep the material I produce largely on my own infrastructure, and I work to prevent these actors from tracking me except for when I am actually using their services. I use GNU Social a lot, but there is not as much interesting material to read there. Last week I wished that Facebook screened violent pictures better: someone I know posted a picture of someone receiving 200 lashes, in way too much detail. That picture still disturbs me, just remembering it.

dmix 10y ago
Why can't your friend be responsible for not posting violent pictures? Otherwise a) you confront the person politely telling them why you think it was inappropriate or b) unfriend/mute them. Reddit uses a NSFW filter over videos that you have to click through to see the video first... that would also be up to the user to mark as NSFW... or you unfriend them. Or even a downvote button is community-based. The reason heavy-handed centralized control systems get put in place is because of statements like that "I wished that Facebook screened x better". The consequence of wishing for minimalist centralized control is depending more on community/social-based control systems aka not having your cake and eating it too (being friends with someone while expecting a 3rd party to filter their content to your tastes).
- mark_l_watson 10y ago
  I agree with you. Best to ask people I know to not post shit like that, and minimize censorship at the platform level.
- DanBC 10y ago
  > Why can't your friend be responsible for not posting violent pictures? Because Facebook have already said that some content is not allowed on their platform. For a while women who'd had breast cancer and had reconstructive surgery were posting images of their new breasts, or of their now nipple-less breast with tattoos. Or breast-feeding mothers were posting images of their feeding children. Facebook said that those images were not allowed, and removed a bunch of them. But at the same time Facebook was doing nothing about beheading videos. It was weird to see a mother being banned for posting a photo of a feeding child, and someone else not get banned for posting terrorist propaganda. If facebook is saying "anything goes, as long as it's legal" that's one thing, but as soon as they start to control what's allowed it's reasonable for users to say what content should be more tightly controlled.

equalarrow 10y ago

I don't get why this is such an issue. I understand the sheer numbers of people that use fb and get their 'news' from it, but it amazes me that people are shocked that fb censors the content. Facebook never claimed to be a news organization nor part of the 5th estate (which, pretty much doesn't exist). So that being the case, I would never expect fb to be a partner for democracy. Just because some recent revolutions were helped by fb and twitter doesn't mean that these for profit corporations are for freedom of expression and 1st amendment rights. People need to remember this whenever they post something on these sites. Especially since they outright claim to own the content (last time I checked).

cloudjacker 10y ago
> Just because some recent revolutions were helped by fb and twitter doesn't mean that these for profit corporations are for freedom of expression and 1st amendment rights. They aren't illogically petitioning the government to force them to stop censoring, they are making the public service announcement at other private corporations and may actually be successful in getting the private corporation to stop censoring. It was successful a few days ago with Napalm girl, so why stop there.
sp332 10y ago
They were pretty loud about being a source of news. Don't forget the Paper app they cancelled. They even encourage news sources to host their articles on Facebook. https://media.fb.com/2015/05/12/instantarticles/ https://media.fb.com/2015/05/12/instantarticles/
dmix 10y ago
Free speech rights are limited to government intervention, for good reason. The only question from a free-market perspective is whether or not Facebook has provided the tools to self-censor the content you get in your social network, much like HN where you can downvote/flag content that is inappropriate or of questionable quality [1]. That would downplay the monopolistic side effects of not having a competitor to go to if you're not happy with Facebook's strict censoring rules. [1] I should note Facebook already does provide lots of ways to filter people from your feed without unfriending them if you don't like what they post.

20yrs_no_equity 10y ago

I'm not a fan of Facebook so this is great news. The more they manipulate the platform and undermine its objectivity and freedom, the less people will trust it. And while the reasons they shouldn't trust it - namely privacy- are not directly related to these actions, Facebooks attempts to control people like this will make them aware of its untrustworthiness. TBH this is an area very prime for disruption, the "next Facebook" is right around the corner, but it will bear less relationship to The Facebook than The Facebook did to Myspace.

tehwalrus 10y ago

It hurts my brain when people describe censorship as "liberalism". Especially fellow Brits.

chippy 10y ago
Agreed. It's not Liberalism at all - if anything, from the article, thinking about this on a global scale - it's a cross between a Silicon Valley tech mindset, American puritanism, and the current flavour of rich, white, university educated politically correct behaviour. In short it means an odd mixture of whats allowed and not which the article talks about, but it's nothing to do with liberalism. edits: I think it's cultural privilege. Americans have the privilege as being the most powerful western culture and literally cannot see others that with less power should have some of that influence.
- tehwalrus 10y ago
  Sorry, I can't allow the context to make it seem as if I approve of being deliberately thoughtless. I generally try hard myself not to be incorrect (politically) since it would break one of Bill and Ted's two commandments. I just dislike it when Liberalism, which I believe in whole-heartedly pretty much exactly as I think Mill intended, is dragged into this debate about censorship, when it was about what should be illegal not what was moral or immoral. (Indeed, it is a way for people who disagree with each other about what is immoral to live in the same country under the same law and feel safe.)
rhino369 10y ago
Censorship often comes from different sides of the political spectrum. In the USA, sexual censorship comes from mostly the right, but increasing from the left as well--exploiting women, perpetuating rape culture, etc. Violence censorship often comes from the left. Democrats used to lead the way on banning violent video games, etc. "Hate speech" censorship comes from the left too. Whoever is in power tends to seek to bad seditious speech. And the right usually wants to censor blasphemous speech. It's a mixed bag.
- 10y ago

20yrs_no_equity 10y ago

antirez 10y ago

The United States are a great country, but in the topic of censorship, balanced politically correctness and easy to speak about all the topics, I believe that the old Europe has very interesting things to say, so I'm also a bit worried that the technological leadership of US may have an effect on what is believed to be sensible to discuss / post in Europe too. I hope is the other way, that is, we european can in some way mitigate certain extreme positions I see in the US regarding what is appropriate or not.

dmix 10y ago
France in the 18-19th century had many smart people who spoke against this type of stuff (everyone loves to quote Voltaire). But modern France has become the absolute counter-point for wishing to have less censorship and centralized social control. So this problem isn't limited to the United States. This is an issue in all modern liberal societies. Big government and centralized control has exploded over the last century, nation-states have become bigger than they've been in any time in history. The first half of the book "Fourth Revolution" has a really great history of how the state has massively grown, largely starting after WW2, to the point it becomes embedded in every parts of our lives (whether it's explicit or not). This type of thing always happens through small slivers and cuts, largely promoted via community complaints calling for government to solve issues - much like what Facebook has experienced. This is the side-effect of a society where the hair-trigger response to every small problem is to look to government to solve it - not just economic but social issues too. Instead of resolving them internally or via community, or just moving on because the solution is sometimes worse than the problem (see: terrorism). [1] https://www.amazon.com/Fourth-Revolution-Global-Reinvent-State/dp/0143127608/ https://www.amazon.com/Fourth-Revolution-Global-Reinvent-Sta...
- ubernostrum 10y ago
  Admittedly I have not read this book you recommend. However, my experience with such arguments is that they never persuade me "big government" is suddenly intruding into places it didn't previously, since the truth is more often that government was suddenly being deployed in support of people it was traditionally deployed against, and against people it was traditionally deployed in support of.

mgleason_3 10y ago

Americans are so bought into the idea that "explicit" images are bad that they can't see another viewpoint. Its become "natural". And, as the author pointed out, Americans are so blind to it that you don't even see the problem with censoring nipples but not beheadings. We literally cant see that noone should be injured by seeing a womans breast, but seeing a beheaded body - thats OK? Its interesting to see this story come out so soon after the LA times story about libel and the fight against court ordered take-down of posts critical of companies (think Yelp, etc.). Maybe the point is that censorship shouldn't be allowed?

lawless123 10y ago
Thought this the other day, was watching that Hannibal TV series. Didn't see one nipple but a few people torn to pieces. Intestines hanging out and person cut into slices and displayed in glass are ok.
- jedberg 10y ago
  "The way to have a fully naked woman in a PG-13 movie is to fill her with bullet holes." I don't know who said it, if anyone, but it's true.
  - Houshalter 10y ago
    PG-13 is a lot more restricted than it used to be. You can't have much blood or gore or say more than one bad word. So I don't think that really supports your point.
    - jedberg 10y ago
      I believe it applied more in the past, but the point still stands. At some time in recent history, a naked woman was considered worse than a naked woman with holes from being shot, which is just wrong.
    - pessimizer 10y ago
      Prime time television isn't, though. You may only get only two "shits" a season, but never a nipple. Beheadings, rapes and disembowelings are common, though.

dexterdog 10y ago

So is Google: https://sputniknews.com/us/20160912/1045214398/google-clinton-manipulation-election.html https://sputniknews.com/us/20160912/1045214398/google-clinto...

mtgx 10y ago

Twitter is just as bad, if not worse. Take yesterday for instance. The Hillary health issue EXPLODED on Reddit and other places within 2h. And I saw single tweets with multiple thousand retweets on Twitter as well. But not single trending topic on Twitter about the incident the whole day. There's NO WAY none of those hashtags weren't eligible for trending. Twitter has been caught doing it before, but I think yesterday was far worse than anything they've done before. They've must've told everyone to be on the lookout of any Hillary-related topic becoming a trend, or just automatically banning anything that may be been about it from trending. Only today you see the body double thing trending, which I'm sure has far fewer tweets and at a much lower speed than yesterday's incident had. I know Trump looks to be a terrible human being and likely an even worse president, but it really scares me to see that not only the mainstream media actively try to side with Hillary, but now also tech/social platforms like Twitter, Facebook, Youtube, Google, etc. I think if Hillary is president, you'll see the US succumb to the same media censorship and self-censorship that you see in Russia.

k-mcgrady 10y ago
As someone standing on the outside looking in you're definitely letting conspiracy theories get the best of you. BBC had an article up while she was still in her daughters house and had a video of her fainting not long after. As did most 'main stream media' sources. I can't speak for Twitter's trending system but mainstream media had the facts up very quickly.

sp332 10y ago

Aw, let's be fair now. After all they also ban religious material at the request of the Pakistani government http://tribune.com.pk/story/855030/facebook-censored-54-posts-for-blasphemy-in-pakistan-in-second-half-of-2014/ http://tribune.com.pk/story/855030/facebook-censored-54-post... and political content for Hong Kong too! http://hk.apple.nextmedia.com/news/art/20100205/13699972 http://hk.apple.nextmedia.com/news/art/20100205/13699972 (translation https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fhk.apple.nextmedia.com%2Fnews%2Fart%2F20100205%2F13699972&edit-text= https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=y&pr... )

r_smart 10y ago
There's actually probably an interesting bigger point here. Why is this image the content that sparked so much outrage? As you point out, they ban a lot of things on behalf of other countries. There's been complaints of conservatives getting censored (who knows how accurate those are). And of course, the hot mic gaff of Zuckerberg talking with Angela Merkel about censoring migrant crisis criticism on Facebook. So is this just the event that caused sentiment to hit critical mass? Or did it touch a deeper nerve that's got people stirred up?
- sp332 10y ago
  Well, it doesn't usually happen to prime ministers. And I'm not convinced that this outcry over the weekend is going to change anything.
  - r_smart 10y ago
    Both good points. The second one makes me sad though. I sometimes wonder what, if anything will be the tipping point.
- sliverstorm 10y ago
  The photo is held to be historical documentary of war, like tank man & saigon execution. Those kinds of photos are valued & defended, and it's probably totally unthinkable to a great many people that they should be censored.

merraksh 10y ago

Facebook ploughed on – before performing an embarrassing 360 and claiming that it was imposing this policy out of concern for victims. A 360 would be embarrassing as it places you back to the same road. Perhaps it was an "embarrassing 180" instead.

JayJee 10y ago
This entire writing style of this article is embarrassing not to mention the ads EVERYWHERE. I had to open this in links to be able to read it.
MattConfluence 10y ago
I was puzzled by that sentence too, but I figured it could be interpreted as "going in the same direction, for a different reason".
rm999 10y ago
It's actually is one of the rare instances I've seen "do a 360" used appropriately. Facebook revamped their policy around the issue while ending up at exactly the same place: you have to use your real name.
- calvins 10y ago
  But doing a 360 doesn't mean doing a 180, and then sometime much later, doing another 180.
  - kbenson 10y ago
    I think it's a matter of context and time-frame. If the end up pointing the same way they started, that's 360 degrees. That might entail two 180 flips at different points, and if talking about one of those specifically, it would be appropriate to say they did a 180 when referring to that specific situation.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
10y ago

soufron 10y ago

1. This won't last as people will want their own cultural and legal rules to apply on Facebook. 2. Facebook is not just a private company anymore. It's cool to have success, but that comes with bigger public scrutiny, and possibly a lot more obligations than a normal startup who would have only a few users. 3. Don't think this is minor. Facebook will need to evolve, even in the US. This is a matter of Free Speech and Freedom of Thought.

AndrewKemendo 10y ago
Facebook is not just a private company anymore. In what sense? Legally they are, they act like one so I am not sure in practice what makes that distinct. Perhaps you mean that user expectations makes them not "just a private company." In which case I see no reason why that doesn't also extend to pretty much any other much smaller platform in which users complain about moderation or opaque governance (reddit, twitter, linkedin, tumblr etc...). There are numerous examples of change.org petitions asking for kickstarter or some other platform to change how they do business.
- khedoros 10y ago
  > In what sense? Legally they are, they act like one so I am not sure in practice what makes that distinct. Facebook, Inc. is a publicly traded company. An example of a private company would be Dell Technologies.
  - AndrewKemendo 10y ago
    Sorry I interpreted the idea of "private" in this sense in comparison to governmental - not publicly traded - given the context of "censorship" and other comparisons to government type services.
    - khedoros 10y ago
      You could be right. Reading the original comment again, they might have meant that Facebook has a level of influence that is exceptional for a private-sphere entity, rather than that they aren't privately-held.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

kinkdr 10y ago

Lots and lots of people seem to forget: Facebook is an American COMPANY. It is not a utility, it is not a non-profit organization. People choose to use it, and hence they have to put up with their rules. If they don't like it, they should stop using it and start using the open alternatives.

larsiusprime 10y ago
The problem with this view of free speech is that the means of communication are privately owned: http://www.jonas-kyratzes.net/2014/04/26/free-speech-and-the-means-of-communication/ http://www.jonas-kyratzes.net/2014/04/26/free-speech-and-the...
- pixl97 10y ago
  In the past when talking about free speech, it commonly meant talking on the street corners. Since the roads were public property the government could not censor you there. What we have occurring in the modern world would be the same if a city sold all of it's roads to a private company and told its citizens their are no longer public spaces.
  - kinkdr 10y ago
    It is more like people wanting to live in that city because it is hip. They moved there although they knew it is privately owned and they had to put up with the owners rules(which includes in spying on them for his own profit). I cannot feel any sympathy for them.
    - pixl97 10y ago
      People are more apt to move to a city because there are jobs there. Much like facebook, before its time it was very difficult to communicate with a wide range of people reliably. Facebook gave a way for people to talk, and now they take it away and the peasants grow irritable.
      - 10y ago

fit2rule 10y ago

"You need to subscribe to read this article". Well, then, I guess there are forces more powerful than censorship that can be applied to this problem ..

rwoodley 10y ago

I don't go to hacker news to read recycled UK tabloid journalism. Who cares what some hack in London who is paid to provoke outrage thinks.

chippy 10y ago

In writing some replies to a couple of comments, I think that the article is referring to cultural privilege. Americans have the privilege as being the most powerful western culture, Facebook comes from an educated, technological, rich, American, culture and cannot see others that with less power should have some of influence in how a global culture can be. Also, as with most forms of privilege it's not common at all that those at the top need to compromise with those below and characteristic is that those with the most priviledge cannot see their own position at the top and inability to acknowledge their issues of others. What the article is showing is the privilege of American culture interacting with other cultures and peoples. edits: I think it's actually a great time for the Internet - I am seeing this as the growing pains of a new global culture - a new global way of looking at the world. We are seeing the makers and police of the rich west seeing that the world is more complex and diverse than they are comfortable with, and the result will be interesting to say the least, and glorious and rich if all cultures can be supported in a global way.

bartkappenburg 10y ago

Not sure how the 'flag' system works but based on the two examples (famous news photo and famous work of art), you could easily circumvent wrong flagging (wrong = deleting famous and important photos) by generating a 'similar photo search' in the system and giving context. That would help the over-ambitious flagger to recognize this.

nihonde 10y ago

If you are fighting for your rights on Facebook, you are going to be disappointed and you are very, painfully niave about how walled gardens operate.

sfifs 10y ago

Facebook pays its bills by primarily being a mass reach advertising platform just like any mainstream TV channel. They are not some public communications service. Therefore they will curate their content in such a way that preserves and expands the mass reach as much as possible (eg. by following country specific content guidelines) and keeps them out of legal hot water (in this case, the risk of child porn) and negative imagery contexts to keep them an attractive source for advertising. For instance, mainstream advertisers (with the exception of the Bennetons of the world) don't necessarily want their brands to appear in possibly negative contexts. Given these economic interests, any content process they have will necessarily lean towards extra caution. It's not so much "censorship" really as economic self interest. In these things, follow the money.

jedberg 10y ago

I feel bad for Facebook here. Having been responsible for managing this same problem for another (albeit smaller) multinational user generated website, it's a tough problem. Everyone around the world, and even within the United States, have a vastly different sense of morality and taste. Which do you cater to? Not to mention the legal issues, where some content is legal in one place and illegal in another.

smsm42 10y ago

American censorship is bad, but wait until you meet Russian, Chinese or Pakistani one... If Facebook limits itself only to American censorship that won't be as bad, a bigger concern would be it will apply censorship rules of any country that has enough market pull to influence Facebook's monetary interests. As soon as you start on this road, Russia would say if you censor what's bad in America, why don't you censor what's bad in Russia? At least cat pictures aren't banned anywhere that I know of, so 99% of facebook content is safe ;)

oneloop 10y ago
Tell us more about this Russian censorship, you seem to know a lot about the subject.
- smsm42 10y ago
  How many weeks you're willing to spend on it? :) Yes, I know a bunch about the subject, but most of it hardly relevant to the topic at hand.
  - rahkiin 10y ago
    Please enlighten us anyways. Now your argument is empty, or fuelled by fear of the Russians. Not with any sources.
    - smsm42 10y ago
      Enlighten you about what? Existence of censorship in Russia? Really, you didn't know about it despite all the extensive research you performed on the subject (like googling "censorship in Russia")? Or you have specific questions - if so, which ones? Or you're just hoping to bog down the argument by demanding excessive proof to known and widely covered things and hoping I'd eventually give up and you could say "well, I knew it, no proof, all lies!"?

superice 10y ago

This issue is quite easily fixable if Facebook would have set up their censoring policy in a different way: allow everything by default, detect or let users flag illegal posts or images (e.g. child pornography) Make the post invisible for others from that point on, but do not remove it nor notify the author. Alert the authorities when child porn is uploaded, and let them figure out whether they'd want to pursue it or not. If authorities decide not to pursue, make it visible again. If authorities do decide to pursue the author should've abided the law. That way Facebook moves the entire censorship discussion to law enforcement, which is pretty much the best place for it to be. Furthermore, because this may yield some shocking images into ones timeline, Facebook should try to use machine learning to invisibly tag posts by their content. For nudity there are already algorithms, and I'm sure other shocking content could be tagged in a similar way as well. Last step: give everybody a settings panel with what they want to see, except for kids, they can't see anything that isn't according to the PG-[age] regulations. That makes it completely PC :)

kybernetyk 10y ago

It's facebook's platform. They can do with it whatever they want. And if they prefer to remove certain content it's their good right. If you don't like their policies don't use their platform. (No, "all my friends are there" is not an excuse. At some time you have to decide what's more important - your morals or whatever your peers pressure you into).

sebringj 10y ago

I love the stackoverflow model of up and down voting and how it is moderated so well. It is apples and oranges to a large degree but I wonder if there was a way to introduce up and down voting, then having things show up based on that, rather than having some moral authority taking things down. For example, if enough people down vote something, it has the effect of disappearing from the public stream but of course you can still see your friends posts. Maybe this is just a software problem given the right setup.

Mendenhall 10y ago

I think people are conflating real violence with pretend violence in many of these comments. Real violence is way more restricted than nudity in US.

fapjacks 10y ago

Interesting, considering I've been reporting the same photo for years, which is constantly not deleted by these people. The photo itself shows the naked, bloody, mutilated corpse of a woman who was raped and murdered, then had a crucifix shoved down her throat. For what it's worth, the image is absolutely real, a crime scene photo. Every single time I report it, I get "We reviewed the photo you reported ... and found it doesn't violate our Community Standards." Humans are definitely reviewing that photo. I would post a link (in hopes that others here could help me report it) but it's extremely graphic and I'm sure HN would implode. Facebook is pretty much 100% terrible and 0% great. I don't think it does anything positive for anybody except Mark Zuckerberg.

JustSomeNobody 10y ago

I cannot wait until the post-Facebook era. Hopefully whatever comes along next will learn from this mistake.

lmm 10y ago

And yet for all their pretty words, the Telegraph don't show the actual image at the centre of this furore? Too scared of upsetting their own advertisers perhaps?

aikah 10y ago

lol, here we go again, like Facebook is an public institution that owes anybody anything ... But outrage sells so let's trigger a few people that have nothing better to talk about than censorship on Facebook, when their own government is restricting their speech everyday, this is especially true in UK. The biggest hypocrites, ever.

torkable 10y ago

I always get a kick at how people that use facebook seem to have this idea that EVERYONE uses facebook ALL THE TIME. I haven't used facebook in probably 10 years and I just have to chuckle at this "facebook is editing our history" and "facebook is imposing American ideals on the whole world" crap. Is it really? Is there another option? Is there any other place to get your world fucking news other than fucking facebook? lol If you don't like having "American ideals" "imposed" on you, stop fucking using an American social media site to consume world news you tits. OMG an American social media company is acting like its run by a bunch of Americans!?!?! RABBLE RABBLE! IT HAS TO STOP Oh and get a real fucking history book, jesus.