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.
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 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