4 ms·

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 thin

by 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.
- aikah 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. No, it's more like the person who has been censored has an ego so big he thinks it shouldn't happen to him. This outrage was ridiculous.
  - sliverstorm 10y ago
    I find simply having a big ego doesn't drive other people to be outraged on your behalf.
  - ethanbond 10y ago
    It's the specific context around this photo. Vietnam was defined by media presence which was what drove public outrage against the war. Essentially the thesis is this: if Facebook were the dominant media platform during Vietnam, we never would've seen these images; we probably would have continued committing atrocities against civilians and our own soldiers. Seeing as we are now involved in several wars around the world, if our media cannot publicize the realities of war because a child's clothes got blown off with her legs, then someone (i.e. Facebook) has a stranglehold on public opinion.
    - iThrowA1 10y ago
      Sure but Facebook isn't preventing the media from showing this, sure if Facebook was our only forum for journalism censorship of things like this would be atrocious. But I don't think facebooks argument is this shouldn't exist but that Facebook isn't a news station and isn't the right forum to share those kind of things. One easy reason is news stations warn about graphic content and are usually watched by adults whereas any 10 year old with an internet access can find it on this guy's Facebook page. I think this article, and the outrage in general, treats Facebook as too powerful of a social institution. It undeniably is but I feel it's influence is overstated, and that Facebook trying to maintain itself as a forum for socializing is fine, it owns the website it can decide what to put on it. If the thing you need to say is so important there are many other forums to express that idea, even within the internet. That said I think if this truly is Facebook is trying to make a policy that truly promotes what their trying to do it should be stricter. Videos of beheadings belong on deeper webs imho.
      - ecnahc515 10y ago
        Your not allowed to have Facebook if your under 18 iirc, even if that's not enforced heavily.
sir_smurf 10y ago
I would guess that censoring a head of state is what made most people react. From my European perspective: This is a case of an american corporation imposing censorship based on american values (that almost no european care about) on an European head of state, where the message being censored is of historical importance while painting america in a negative light. While other claims of censorship is easily shrugged of as unimportant this one makes it blatantly clear that an american corporation is trying to interfere in our democracy, something that is going to annoy a lot of people to the degree where they are going to at-least complain loudly about it.
- r_smart 10y ago
  Thanks for that, it's an interesting difference from my own opinion, and totally understandable. I don't like it because it clearly (to me) is a censorship of art, and famous art at that. It violates principles of free speech as I understand it (from the US). But the angle of it being an American company meddling in European politics is also an important idea. For what it's worth, I doubt they care about the picture's portrayal of America so much as the simple fact that it's a naked child. There seems to be a fine line between diplomacy and meddling that hasn't been going too well lately.
  - sir_smurf 10y ago
    yes, I don't think that facebook cares so much about the america perspective of the picture, nor do I think that it's the major point for most people complaining about the censorship, but it is that little extra twist. Compared to if they had censored the photo of the man in front of the tanks on tiamen square in china; it would still technically be as bad, but I would guess that fewer people would complain as it would _feel_ less politically motivated.

by r_smart 10y ago

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.

aikah 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. No, it's more like the person who has been censored has an ego so big he thinks it shouldn't happen to him. This outrage was ridiculous.
- sliverstorm 10y ago
  I find simply having a big ego doesn't drive other people to be outraged on your behalf.
- ethanbond 10y ago
  It's the specific context around this photo. Vietnam was defined by media presence which was what drove public outrage against the war. Essentially the thesis is this: if Facebook were the dominant media platform during Vietnam, we never would've seen these images; we probably would have continued committing atrocities against civilians and our own soldiers. Seeing as we are now involved in several wars around the world, if our media cannot publicize the realities of war because a child's clothes got blown off with her legs, then someone (i.e. Facebook) has a stranglehold on public opinion.
  - iThrowA1 10y ago
    Sure but Facebook isn't preventing the media from showing this, sure if Facebook was our only forum for journalism censorship of things like this would be atrocious. But I don't think facebooks argument is this shouldn't exist but that Facebook isn't a news station and isn't the right forum to share those kind of things. One easy reason is news stations warn about graphic content and are usually watched by adults whereas any 10 year old with an internet access can find it on this guy's Facebook page. I think this article, and the outrage in general, treats Facebook as too powerful of a social institution. It undeniably is but I feel it's influence is overstated, and that Facebook trying to maintain itself as a forum for socializing is fine, it owns the website it can decide what to put on it. If the thing you need to say is so important there are many other forums to express that idea, even within the internet. That said I think if this truly is Facebook is trying to make a policy that truly promotes what their trying to do it should be stricter. Videos of beheadings belong on deeper webs imho.
    - ecnahc515 10y ago
      Your not allowed to have Facebook if your under 18 iirc, even if that's not enforced heavily.

sir_smurf 10y ago

I would guess that censoring a head of state is what made most people react. From my European perspective: This is a case of an american corporation imposing censorship based on american values (that almost no european care about) on an European head of state, where the message being censored is of historical importance while painting america in a negative light. While other claims of censorship is easily shrugged of as unimportant this one makes it blatantly clear that an american corporation is trying to interfere in our democracy, something that is going to annoy a lot of people to the degree where they are going to at-least complain loudly about it.

r_smart 10y ago
Thanks for that, it's an interesting difference from my own opinion, and totally understandable. I don't like it because it clearly (to me) is a censorship of art, and famous art at that. It violates principles of free speech as I understand it (from the US). But the angle of it being an American company meddling in European politics is also an important idea. For what it's worth, I doubt they care about the picture's portrayal of America so much as the simple fact that it's a naked child. There seems to be a fine line between diplomacy and meddling that hasn't been going too well lately.
- sir_smurf 10y ago
  yes, I don't think that facebook cares so much about the america perspective of the picture, nor do I think that it's the major point for most people complaining about the censorship, but it is that little extra twist. Compared to if they had censored the photo of the man in front of the tanks on tiamen square in china; it would still technically be as bad, but I would guess that fewer people would complain as it would _feel_ less politically motivated.