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.
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.
Welcome to the world. Our press has become ever more tightly concentrated over the past hundred years and highly censored during every war, including the world war we are in right now. Oh did you not notice we have troops fighting wars in at least 5 different countries right now? During the Bush years the press was all too eager to support going to war and then oppose the war, then hide the war for the last 7 years once it was supposedly over. We have a fickle press, but not a free one.
Sure the Internet was great for a while, but those looking to control society have learned how to manipulate it to a great extent. And now we are back to having very centralized control of the press.
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
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.
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.
A Facebook spokesperson has given a written statement saying that they stand by their decision to censor the image. It is not "someone working for Facebook" who has decided it, it is Facebook's decision as a company.
You would know all this if you read the article, but I do respect your strict adherence to the ban on reading the article.
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
> The difficulty is that the opposite,
You're begging the question.
For the majority of people there is NO problem because we're smart enough to understand the _context_. Anyone who is offended over the nude picture of a 9 year old in this context is immature. Why should the rest of the world kowtow to their insecurity??
Only a complete idiot would think there is something that magically happens between a picture of a nude girl before she is a legal adult vs the same picture when she is legal.
The problem isn't the age. It is the insecurity / immature of people, and mis-use of the picture.
Censorship isn't the solution, it is precisely the problem.
Move along, (almost) nothing to see.
--
Only Cowards Censor.
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. He wasn't even a partisan, he was an NVA officer captured in civilian clothes near a mass grave and who admitted to carrying out the killings. Did you know the photographer that took the picture even regretted how the image was twisted into an anti-war icon because the photo didn't convey the circumstances surrounding the execution.
Personally, as someone with a history degree, and who as a child reread multiple times a (I believe Time) book set on Vietnam in their elementary school library, I found the image of the protesting monk burning himself to death to be much more shocking and powerful than the execution photo.
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
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
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?