4 ms·

I never thought I'd actually agree with Facebook, and even most other instances of this censorship - but I do. These companies have every right to do whatever t

I never thought I'd actually agree with Facebook, and even most other instances of this censorship - but I do. These companies have every right to do whatever they want because it is theirs - not yours. You choose to give up those rights by using the service, and despite the fact that you do not agree with it, you said you did by signing up and agreeing with their terms. I'm not disillusioned by joining these services since I completely understand I have to play within their rules. I would expect the potential for backlash at any brick-and-mortar store if I wore a shirt with pictures of breastfeeding or a crude image, but if I did so, it would be under that guise. I would not, then, protest that store if they told me to leave. If you want completely free speech then pay for a website and post all the pictures you want, but to waste your time protesting the rights of a company to say "I don't like these pictures on our servers and brand" is just a ridiculous waste of energy. They have rights just as much as you do but there is no reason they should bend to the will of a small majority of people who are mixing personal pictures with very public ones or who post pictures for shock effect or even out of sheer ignorance.

vsk27 15y ago
On the other hand a company's customers can demand whatever they want of them as well. Perhaps saying "we deserve this right" is less correct than "we really want you to allow us to do this"
icebraining 15y ago
Nobody is trying to deny the right of Facebook to block what they want. They're trying to convince them - yes, through protest - to change their minds.
hellweaver666 15y ago
I'm sure people understand that. I think their point is just to make sure Facebook are aware of how they feel on the subject. You have to remember, it's hard for individuals to get in contact with these big FaceLess companies without making their arguments public, that's why you see so much of this kind of thing these days.
- herval 15y ago
  I'm sure many people DON'T understand that, as it's fairly normal to see peoplecriticizing "free" companies (Facebook, Flickr, etc) for excluding them when they clearly violate their TOS (sometimes more than once)...
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
ugh 15y ago
It’s their right to block. It’s my right to protest. Simple as that. Just because someone has a right to do something doesn’t mean you can’t criticize her or him for doing it. (This mistake is made so often. Frequently after someone is criticized some idiot will point to freedom of speech or similar such nonsense. That’s not how it works. That’s pretty much the opposite of freedom of speech, some sort of bizarro freedom of speech. Freedom of speech – or any other freedom – does not imply freedom from criticism. Just because it’s legal doesn’t mean it’s right. Oh, and also, just because I think it’s not right doesn’t mean I want to make it illegal.)
gte910h 15y ago
> or who post pictures for shock effect or even out of sheer ignorance Many people do not view feeding a child as a private thing. They think it should be no different than posting a picture of you eating a sandwich. It is important to advance their goal of being able publicly feed a child by making images of that as ho hum as images of you eating a sandwich. To do this, they must put things on facebook. Facebook can censor their images if they want to, but they'll apparently get protesting mothers in front of their building if they think it that important.
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]

vsk27 15y ago

On the other hand a company's customers can demand whatever they want of them as well. Perhaps saying "we deserve this right" is less correct than "we really want you to allow us to do this"

icebraining 15y ago

Nobody is trying to deny the right of Facebook to block what they want. They're trying to convince them - yes, through protest - to change their minds.

hellweaver666 15y ago

I'm sure people understand that. I think their point is just to make sure Facebook are aware of how they feel on the subject. You have to remember, it's hard for individuals to get in contact with these big FaceLess companies without making their arguments public, that's why you see so much of this kind of thing these days.

herval 15y ago
I'm sure many people DON'T understand that, as it's fairly normal to see peoplecriticizing "free" companies (Facebook, Flickr, etc) for excluding them when they clearly violate their TOS (sometimes more than once)...

deleted 15y ago

[deleted]

ugh 15y ago

It’s their right to block. It’s my right to protest. Simple as that. Just because someone has a right to do something doesn’t mean you can’t criticize her or him for doing it. (This mistake is made so often. Frequently after someone is criticized some idiot will point to freedom of speech or similar such nonsense. That’s not how it works. That’s pretty much the opposite of freedom of speech, some sort of bizarro freedom of speech. Freedom of speech – or any other freedom – does not imply freedom from criticism. Just because it’s legal doesn’t mean it’s right. Oh, and also, just because I think it’s not right doesn’t mean I want to make it illegal.)

gte910h 15y ago

> or who post pictures for shock effect or even out of sheer ignorance Many people do not view feeding a child as a private thing. They think it should be no different than posting a picture of you eating a sandwich. It is important to advance their goal of being able publicly feed a child by making images of that as ho hum as images of you eating a sandwich. To do this, they must put things on facebook. Facebook can censor their images if they want to, but they'll apparently get protesting mothers in front of their building if they think it that important.

deleted 15y ago

[deleted]