Slashdot Mirror
Norway's Largest Newspaper Accuses Mark Zuckerberg of Abusing Power After Facebook Deletes 'Napalm Girl' Post (theguardian.com)
An anonymous shares a report on The Guardian:Norway's largest newspaper has published a front-page open letter to Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg, lambasting the company's decision to censor a historic photograph of the Vietnam war and calling on Zuckerberg to recognize and live up to his role as "the world's most powerful editor." Espen Egil Hansen, the editor-in-chief and CEO of Aftenposten, accused Zuckerberg of thoughtlessly "abusing your power" over the social media site that has become a lynchpin of the distribution of news and information around the world, writing, "I am upset, disappointed -- well, in fact even afraid -- of what you are about to do to a mainstay of our democratic society. I am worried that the world's most important medium is limiting freedom instead of trying to extend it, and that this occasionally happens in an authoritarian way," he said. The controversy stems from Facebook's decision to delete a post by Norwegian writer Tom Egeland that featured The Terror of War, a Pulitzer prize-winning photograph by Nick Ut that showed children -- including the naked 9-year-old Kim Phuc -- running away from a napalm attack during the Vietnam war. Egeland's post discussed "seven photographs that changed the history of warfare" -- a group to which the "napalm girl" image certainly belongs.
If Facebook is considered a 'mainstay of democratic society' you know the news media is complete fucking disconnected from reality.
Categorising one of the most important images of the 20th century with child pornography is a problem. A big one.
This has repercussions to the very roots of a free and informed society.
I am no fan of Facebook and their communist leanings, but do people really think it's Zuckerberg sitting at his desk clicking a "nix" button on these things? It's some hipster making 15 bucks an hour reading through a word document that tells them how and what to do.
You know, you post constantly, and I kind of want to put together a collection of your finest moments which makes me sure you're about 13 years old, but yes, Facebook is allowed to choose what they want to show the public, and everybody else is allowed to call them out on what they choose to do. Do you understand that's how freedom works? Yes, you're free to do what you want, and I'm free to criticize you for it. And if Facebook chooses to act this way, and enough people voice their criticism, they can either change their ways, or risk losing a customer base.
Is what I'm talking about too complicated for you? And I'm speaking down to you, because I do think it would be worth your time to go back and re-read most of your posts and see how they make you come across as a very immature individual.
Much as I dislike Mark Zuckerberg, the real problem is not him, nor Facebook, but the users who have made Facebook the " lynchpin of the distribution of news and information around the world..." I realize that Facebook is how a lot of people get their news, but the responsibility for that rests on the shoulders of the dumb shits who use it that way, not on Mark Zuckerberg. While Zuckerberg has made it clear that he would like for Facebook to become everyone's entire internet experience, that can't happen without the cooperation of the people using it.
Proverbs 21:19
The real issue here is the wide spread usage of Facebook as a news distributor. Media houses should let Facebook handle selfies and chat between friends, not the what and who of distributing news.
Facebook can censor, suppress or hype any news story using "algorithms" that nobody outside of the company can inspect.
Then it's even more tragic that apparently hipsters today don't know that iconic picture that was probably critical to the change in the public opinion on the Vietnam war. Not knowing this means not understanding how reporting in war zones works today.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Dissemination of information based upon the feelings and opinions of the users to decide what is and is not 'news' is NEVER uncensored communication.
It cannot ever BE MADE to be uncensored. It is filtered.
If you're basing what you view as 'free communication' off of what is 'trending' that's a problem, and a HUGE one. The fact that people think this is a good thing is (in only my opinion of course) a travesty.
No it isn't. Even Italy has declared that certain things are off limits when they involve children.
Exactly. This is the problem when you have inflexible rules: a rule "no naked pictures of 9-year-old girls" sure sounds like a completely uncontroversial rule, one for which it's even reasonable to say "this rule has no exceptions; we just can't allow that kind of naked pictures on our site."
The difficulty is that the opposite, approach, which is to allow human judgement to make exceptions to the rules, is just as bad, and just as subject to abuse.
It's a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation for them. Making exceptions to rules on naked pictures of children is just as likely to give problems.
This picture we're talking about is a piece of history. That picture shaped what people felt about a war and it had a huge impact on the war itself, how it was waged and how it was seen.
Are you one of those rednecks that consider Michelangelo's David porn 'cause it's "just a stone guy with his wang out"?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
You're assuming they've even heard of the vietnam war.
the realization that you're right makes me profoundly sad...
whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump
Yep, our wonderful school systems in action.
It also may have to do with millennial mind thought that "I don't have to learn anything, I can always Google it..."
So, there is no learned history would have put this photo into context, at least enough for them to look into it further.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
Indeed communist: Cultural hegemony is a Communist theory to manipulate the thoughts, culture and morality of the multi cultural society in order to make the parties (in this case it's Facebook) the only accepted world view among the public.
Having one single thing in common with certain theories held by certain communists definitely does not make one a communist. That's like saying Facebook is like my mum because she, too, has an internet connection.
Besides, you are misunderstanding the concept of cultural hegemony in Marxist and post-Marxist theory. It's mainly an observation of how things in fact work in society, which you could have known by skimming the first paragraph of your link. That some theorists also recognized that it may be turned around as a weapon was inevitable. Either notion is not particularly limited to communism and in time would have been recognized by any number of people of different political leanings, it just happens that Marx was quick to see it as with quite many other properties of modern capitalist societies.
"When I first heard Daydream Nation it quite frankly scared the living shit out of me." -- Matthew Stearns
If you want to shock children about the Vietnam war, there are plenty of other photos to choose from. The summary execution of the Viet Cong partisan is a very good example.
Out of curiosity, why do you find that picture shocking? It was a very common occurrence that is authorized by the Geneva convention and the rules of war.
No it isn't.
The Geneva convension is rather big on the rights of prisoners of war, you could in fact say it is the largest part of it, because it is. I am amazed you could get yourself to even believe that.
Commissioned officers captured in civilian clothing are considered spies and unlawful combatants and therefore not entitled to prisoner of war status. As an unlawful combatant as defined by the Geneva convention, they are eligible for but not guaranteed the rights and protections of a POW. If the status of the combatant is in doubt a "competent tribunal" is required to determine the status, but as the prisoner had already confessed to the act, been found in proximity to evidence of the act (the mass grave), and there were witnesses to the act his status was not in doubt and therefore a trial was not necessary. And summary executions of spies (during open conflict) and other unlawful combatants has been accepted practice for centuries.
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
Then it's even more tragic that apparently hipsters today don't know that iconic picture that was probably critical to the change in the public opinion on the Vietnam war. Not knowing this means not understanding how reporting in war zones works today.
I doubt that the picture made any difference in anyone's opinion for a couple of reasons.
One is that it took place in June 1972. The USA's withdrawal was nearly complete (down to around 25,000 troops from 500K).
The other is at that time everyone I knew was pretty solid on their opinions. Those who favored the USA's involvement were in an awkward position of supporting a war that the USA had plainly announced they were ending. Those who were against were having their way.
As for people who were on the fence, those tended to be looking at the rather complex Vietnam war situation from a point of view of both local and global events, and were already well aware that people suffer horrible injuries during war. Keep in mind that our (WWII and baby boomer) generation grew up on a steady stream WWII carnage and Nazi death camp pictures.
The press had already been keeping us well-supplied with pictures of dead children for some time and the alternative press showed even more graphic photos than the mainstream.
IMHO, what made the photo of Kim Phuc interesting was that she was naked and alive. There had been many pictures of naked and dead adults and children published before with the My Lai massacre of 1968 being among the most notable.
Here's another one from back then that I remember that I found far more unsettling than the Kim Phuc photo.
http://www.vets-helping-vets.c...
Facebook is a private company. Facebook can "censor" whatever they want. There is no free speech issue.
Of course there is a free speech issue. Speech is being censored.
I agree there is no law being broken, and no legal challenge to bring against facebook. It's their site and their rules.
However, perhaps it should be illegal. Perhaps if a 'social media' site reaches a certain critical mass then it should assume some additional responsibilities to protect free speech. If lots of people are using facebook as their primary means of communication, then private entity or not, common carrier or not, it starts to matter.
Your 'its a private company' argument is simplistic at best. What happens to society if enough of the world is privatized? Does that mean we should just lay down and accept censorship.
Imagine a world where the phone company and the postal service have died out, replaced solely by private couriers, and social media companies. Are you willing to completely cede the ability to have a political discussion with anyone outside the room simply because socialmedia company won't let you post, courier company won't carry your letters.
If HP, Xerox, and Brother etc start producing smart printers that won't print 'offensive' content. Will you defend them as private companies and if you don't like it don't buy the printers!? Will you point out, that you can still use a paper and pencil so everything is fine.
That's just silly. You sit there in your little box claiming that since the law isn't being broken everything is fine. But everything is not fine, the world is changing, norms of communication are changing... the law needs to change with it.
Essentially... if we agree that facebook has become an important 'space' for society to discuss news, share opinions, and generally communicate with eachother -- then it stands to reason that we should protect freedom of speech on that hub, whether it is a private company or not, for the good of the society.
Just as a dictionary does not define words, but instead reflects how they are used; so it is with the law. The law does not DEFINE what is right and wrong -- it is written to serve the needs of society. And in the 21st century, it is arguable that society needs freedom of speech legal protections baked into their use of major social media sites.
There is no journalistic duty to do anything... Facebook isn't a news source, it's social media.
"Facebook News Feed - Welcome To The Stories That Matter
The objective of News Feed is to show you the stories that matter the most to you, every time. "
newsfeed.fb.com
Why can't it be *both* ? It's certainly trying very hard to get you use facebook as news source. So why exactly shouldn't it be considered one?