4 ms·
The headline seems to be a rather extreme (and willful) misrepresentation of the facts. As the article points out, framing is important for the decision making
by IfOnlyYouKnew 7y ago
The headline seems to be a rather extreme (and willful) misrepresentation of the facts.
As the article points out, framing is important for the decision making, and I see absolutely nothing wrong with that. A video showing the horrors of war, and being presented as an argument against war, just is different from a video showing violence with an accompanying message promoting such violence.
One case in point is the Kim Phuc photo of a naked crying girl running away from Napalm in Vietnam. That photo being deleted actually was widely criticized, as it should.
At least my experience using Facebook also speaks against the article’s thesis: I cannot remember ever being shown any gratuitous violence. If they are trying to shore up click with shock value they are doing a mightily bad job at it.
There’s a lot to criticize about Facebook, but this just doesn’t seem like it.
- mc32 7y agoSome images become iconic and symbolize a greater issue such as that photo. But I think that’s different from calling any gratuitous real graphic violence just because it’s contextualized “correctly”, acceptable.
- rramdin 7y agoThey would have less of an opportunity to become iconic if the biggest media distributors censored them immediately.
- mc32 7y agoWhile big media is imperfect and has its large problems, they provide a nuanced filter with regard to things like self-harm, suicide, genital mutilation, etc. I’d prefer not having very personal very dark themes go through a lowest common denominator since many people lack judiciousness and good judgement when it comes to these issues. Is an image informative or is it promoting something further? Exploitative or Journalistic?