
“Dear Mark. I am writing this to inform you that I shall not comply” - Sainth
http://www.aftenposten.no/meninger/kommentar/Dear-Mark-I-am-writing-this-to-inform-you-that-I-shall-not-comply-with-your-requirement-to-remove-this-picture-604156b.html
======
typeiierror
Sometimes I wonder that when we shower criticism on Facebook about privacy
concerns, we're missing the forest for the trees. The bigger issue I see is
the sheer amount of eyeballs trained exclusively to Facebook's content.

What does it mean for society when Facebook can demote a challenging but
important article (say, of war reporting) in your newsfeed so it can promote
your friend's Wedding photos, because an algorithm says that challenging
articles cause people to leave FB, reducing page views and ad revenue?

~~~
Torgo
It's a man-in-the-middle attack on culture.

~~~
hnbroseph
just like tv, radio and newspapers. perhaps even churches, temples and
mosques... though that might be more controversial to say.

~~~
mabbo
There always another radio, newspaper, church. There's really only one
Facebook, and it's now how you get essentially all of those things.

~~~
abraae
Its how _some_ people get all those things. Not people who care enough to get
their news directly from a number of sources, instead of via the Facebook
filter.

~~~
amagumori
to be completely honest, having the time and energy to stay well-informed on
current events from a variety of sources is a privilege. working-class and
poor people have neither the time nor mental energy to peruse a variety of
sources. the reason i say this is not to tell you to "check your privilege",
by the way. it's to make the argument that facebook's shaping of the zeitgeist
primarily affects the impoverished and working classes - the people who bear
the brunt of all policy decisions, the people who need to be well-informed the
most.

~~~
zaroth
Looking beyond Facebook for news and reporting on diverse topics with balanced
viewpoints is a "privilege"?

On what can you possibly base this claim? This is why Internet.org and the
walled garden got nuked. This is what we really mean when we talk about
network neutrality. You type a URL into the address bar and press enter, and
the page you requested loads.

While certainly there are populations where internet access is not readily
available, that doesn't appear to be your argument. "working-class and poor
people have neither the time nor mental energy to peruse a variety of sources"
is a bizarre claim I can't quite get my head around.

~~~
throwanem
> "working-class and poor people have neither the time nor mental energy to
> peruse a variety of sources" is a bizarre claim I can't quite get my head
> around.

Consider the possibility that this difficulty lies not with the claim, but
with your head.

The real value of money is that you can use it in place of time. The less of
it you have, the more time you must spend on dealing with problems that you
could make go away much more quickly and easily otherwise. The converse is
also true.

That's why people say that it's a privilege to be able to gather a balanced
view of the world. I would not say the same, because the rhetoric of privilege
is inseparable from personal attack, and making people feel uneasy and
defensive is inimical to worthwhile discourse. But when people use that lazy
cliché in this context, that is what they mean.

~~~
sanderjd
> the rhetoric of privilege is inseparable from personal attack

Is this a generational point of view? I don't think that the word "privilege"
is "inseperable from personal attack. To me, this very much fits into the
definition of a privilege as "a benefit enjoyed by a person, beyond the
advantages of most". Access to and time to read a broad variety of news
sources is very much a benefit enjoyed by some people, beyond the advantages
of most. I don't see how there's any personal attack implicit in that...

~~~
throwanem
I've observed people to respond very badly when I use it, and as best I can
tell, that's why.

I speak to communicate with people - that's _communicate with_ , not _talk to_
, and if you're unclear on the distinction, any dictionary with etymological
information will serve you.

Talking about other people's opinions, behaviors, and beliefs in terms of
privilege makes communicating with them harder instead of easier. So it's not
worth my while to do.

------
jshevek
Excerpt from [http://www.dagsavisen.no/verden/the-girl-in-the-picture-
sadd...](http://www.dagsavisen.no/verden/the-girl-in-the-picture-saddened-by-
facebook-s-focus-on-nudity-1.773232)

“Kim is saddened by those who would focus on the nudity in the historic
picture rather than the powerful message it conveys”, writes spokesperson Anne
Bayin to Dagsavisen.

Kim Phuc says that it has been painful to see the picture, but that it
represents an important moment in history.

“She fully supports the documentary image taken by Nick Ut as a moment of
truth that captures the horror of war and its effects on innocent victims”,
writes the Kim Phuc Foundation in a statement.

------
hiddenkrypt
> "Facebook is for the pleasure and benefit of the whole world, myself
> included, on a number of levels."

Wrong. Facebook is for making money. If providing users with pleasure or
benefits makes them money, then that's lucky for the users.

> "Facebook has become a world-leading platform for spreading information, for
> debate and for social contact between persons. You have gained this position
> because you deserve it."

Also wrong. The second sentence, I mean.

I agree with the intent here. I agree with the outrage at Facebook. The author
of this piece, too, seems to understand the futility of this open letter, and
I do think it's a good thing that he's making the statement regardless. I just
think that maybe he's being too generous to Mark and Facebook.

~~~
xupybd
I don't know if I agree with the outrage at Facebook. They are out to make
money. They can make more money if they avoid controversy and keep their site
a place that brands like to be associated with. It results in corporate
censorship for sure, but is it Facebook's responsibility to provide a
censorship free platform?

I fully agree with people taking note and becoming aware that Facebook is
simply a business providing them a service and not a benevolent social network
uniting the world.

But until people are willing to get upset enough about issues like this to
leave Facebook, they really have no incentive to change. It's a reflection on
society more than on one company. Like it or not, we use Facebook because we
like it, it provides a service we're happy to consume. If we're happy and the
advertisers are happy why would they care about these sorts of things?

~~~
xg15
This is mostly true, but IMO ignores:

a) the network effects that make people join the network even if they wouldn't
want to on their own

b) Facebook's own agressive strategies of bringing users into their network
without conscious choice - e.g. the acquisition of whatsapp or the
internet.org initiative.

At this point it's more like some property shark who'd buy up half the city's
apartment blocks, then proceed to cut services and raise the rents - and when
people complain, respond "well, for some reason all those people chose to rent
my apartments, so they must approve of what I do"...

~~~
bbarn
Point A is especially important. I quit four years ago, and I constantly get
bombarded by people trying to get me to come back onto it. I have a few
friends who've resisted and never gotten an account, but they are also
constantly goaded about it.

------
endswapper
I'm posting mostly just to make the chorus louder. This was a well-thought
out, articulate criticism of Facebook's policy.

It's relevant to free-speech, art, censorship, the means of production, etc.,
and the fact that Facebook plays a role underscores their power, and why this
matters.

It a slippery slope when policy fails to achieve an appropriate, nuanced
perspective.

~~~
maxlybbert
There are some good arguments, but I think the post really boils down to "our
community guidelines don't match Facebook's; here are good arguments why our
guidelines are what they are; we really want to use Facebook; we think news
sites (and only news sites) should have exemptions from the community
guidelines."

Given the wide variety of news sites and media companies, I don't think
Facebook will give blanket exemptions. But Facebook has been willing to make
small changes to the guidelines ( e.g., breastfeeding), so perhaps we can look
at this as an opening offer in a negotiation.

------
viraptor
I wonder what the solution to this is. From what I know about reviewing
reports about content, it's basically a case of someone reporting the post,
then the report being farmed to reviewers, then the reviewers can check the
post and I optionally the context to either kill the post or leave it alone.

That means your post is one of hundreds this person sees that day and their
guidance is likely "no genitalia, no nipples, and definitely never any naked
children". So they act accordingly.

So what's the ideal path from here? Do you educate them about art? What's the
line after that? Is this photo ok? What about the famous album cover? What
about private party pictures? Etc. Can we even describe a reasonable line? Do
we expect them to reverse image search every single photo for context? (Not
many people could recognise that photo on its own) How many more people would
be needed for clarification? What's the incentive to get them?

~~~
Miner49er
One solution is to not remove anything until told to do so by law enforcement.
If people don't like what's posted they can choose to not view it.

~~~
CaptSpify
I really don't get why sites don't think this way. If you take the hands-off
route, you can deflect a lot of criticism: "We don't endorse it, we just let
people post what they want". But as soon as you censor, or curate, or promote
one item/subject, you become responsible for everything else on your site. Why
add extra load on yourself?

~~~
bhrgunatha
> I really don't get why sites don't think this way

Because they lose revenue. In Facebook's case because advertisers have
demonstrated time and again they won't spend money when their products are
associated with controversial content. It doesn't matter how nuanced or obtuse
the reason for the controversy.

~~~
CaptSpify
That sounds plausible. I guess I don't see how FB can't throw their weight
around. Sure, smallrandomsite.com can't fight advertisers, but FB should be
able to.

------
fsloth
Facebook - context oblivious censorship on the other hand - reality-bubble
forming curator algorithms on the other. Somehow the term "negative feedback
loop" comes to mind every time Facebooks mechanisms to filter and market
content is brought forth.

I don't think internet search engines should try to be helpful. Guessing what
the recipient would like to see removes chance for serendipity and creates and
information bubble with a radius given by the algorithms parameters... and
then, for what is brought out, they remove the too-saucy bits. This is worse
than censorship.

~~~
ajoy39
Facebook hasn't been filtering their trending news for about a week now, and
in that time some of the top stories have been

\- A man having sex with a chicken sandwich

\- A fake story about Fox News firing Ann Coulter

\- A fake article about the iphone 8, claiming tim cook said Siri is going to
do your chores for you.

So yeah maybe the people were kinda needed?

~~~
robryan
You can get away without people when you have a set list of sources like
google news does.

~~~
tormeh
They did this previously. The problem was that this disqualifies most news
outlets operating on the fringes of reality. Since this includes most of the
favorite news sources of tea-partiers it obviously can't stand. I don't
particularly like the Democratic party, but any news site labeling itself as
"right wing news" is for nutters. Facebook censored those sites and the
nutters got angry and that's how we got here.

~~~
MichaelGG
Google News covers plenty of "right wing" news. One can only think FB is
intentionally letting quality fall in order to show they really had to do
something.

------
Torgo
You're a serf on the content farm, begging your lord for a favor.

~~~
riboflava
At least he knows who the lord is and in principle the lord can set things
straight. A step above complaining to the void or casting a throwaway vote.

~~~
celticninja
Similar situation with Saddam or Gaddafi really. I don't understand why people
were so upset with them.

~~~
xupybd
So you are saying that Mark Zuckerberg is a dictator and no one has the
freedom to leave his rule?

This is so different, if you don't like Facebook use a competitors service. If
a good one doesn't exist that lines up with your moral aspirations create one.
But under Saddam and Gaddafi, you don't like them, keep quiet or you might
disappear, if the wrong person over hears you.

~~~
nix0n
> if you don't like Facebook use a competitors service. If a good one doesn't
> exist that lines up with your moral aspirations, create one

Is anyone working on this?

~~~
linkregister
The product manager for Google Plus just punched a hole in his hat.

On a serious note, there were platforms that used to dominate discourse on the
internet before Facebook. Usenet, ICQ, AOL, Myspace.

Now there are alternatives. Medium for blogging; Reddit and 4chan for
discussion; Twitter for sharing breaking news, trolling celebrities, and
complaining about customer service; LinkedIn for connections and keeping in
touch; Pinterest for sharing photos and links; Snapchat for sharing photos and
videos; _et cetera_. I have a few friends, particularly in the 25-and-below
generation, who don't have a Facebook but are very active on Snapchat or when
it was trendy, Vine.

Don't forget countries where Facebook is a minority player. Weibo, Renren,
WeChat, VKontakte are examples of thriving social networks that could possibly
grow beyond their borders.

~~~
Torgo
social networks are a natural monopoly, you want everybody to be on the same
one. So if you want to avoid the centralized authority problem, you need to
define it as a network of many nodes communicating via open protocols. Sort of
like email. This is how Diaspora and GNU Social work.

------
k_sze
Relevant: [http://www.theonion.com/article/horrible-facebook-
algorithm-...](http://www.theonion.com/article/horrible-facebook-algorithm-
accident-results-expos-53841)

For those who don't understand why this is relevant: the important point is
that Facebook was never, is not, and will never be meant for dispersing
information and fostering meaningful discourse. Its only raison d'être is
entertainment and generating revenue for its shareholders, so it's rather
pointless to try to fight their arbitrary rules.

If you are trying to bring up meaningful discourse on Facebook, you're not
getting the right audience, because Facebook is all about reinforcement of the
user's existing believes and world views.

I have friends and ex-colleagues who hold different political views than me. I
virtually never see their posts on Facebook, because algorithm and machine
learning. And I'm aware of that fact when I use Facebook.

Afterposten is in the media business, they understand the unwritten rules.
Call me a cynic, but I feel that the only point of their open letter is to
sound righteous and generate publicity.

~~~
posterboy
> Its only raison d'être is entertainment and generating revenue for its
> shareholders, so it's rather pointless to try to fight their arbitrary
> rules.

How does it do that without users? I was taught, anyone with any interest in
the operation is a stakeholder. If easy dispersion of information is their
offer to users, they should be liable for that. If they aren't, the user
should either seek support from the government to hold the debtor (facebook)
accountable in an anti-trust issue, or consequently reevaluate the offer, if
the original intent can not be expected anymore.

Since FB uses advertisement, which is controversial, this is not a clear cut
case to me. Because of multiple share holders, facebook has to arbitrate the
interests in their own interest. This is also controversial in the question of
delivering the best experience regardless of the advertisement. The
advertisement just makes it so much more complicated, because it often times
borders on deception, if not fraud.

------
Vertrauen
I wonder how monopolized publishing is these days. If you want to get the
message out about something, how much are you at the mercy of a few
distribution channels and how much do we have an open ecosystem that gives
everybody equal rights? I am honestly not sure.

How important is it to be on Facebook? On Twitter? On Reddit? On HN? Indexed
by Google? Have connections to the Huffington Post?

If you have something interesting to say, can those forces stop you? Or will
it spread because it is interesting?

If you make great art, will it become popular just because it is great? Or
does it depend on your marketing skills?

Could we have technology that makes interesting, helpful content spread no
matter what?

Do we have to invent some kind of "internet voting" system to accomplish this?
Can blockchain technology help with this?

~~~
CM30
It certainly makes it a lot more difficult to get the message out about
something without those channels. And if those forces don't like what you're
saying, it becomes much harder to find for other people.

Popularity depends a lot on your marketing skills too. If you can 'figure out'
the secret to success on social media sites, or how to get your site's SEO to
be good, that helps a lot more than the quality of the work at the moment.
Unfortunately.

Not sure if you can make interesting, helpful content spread no matter what.
Seems like it could be a challenge to have any system to find interesting
content that isn't dependant on any third party services or search engines.
And even more of a challenge to get people to use it.

------
finid
A VIP reason to have popular alternatives to services like those provided by
the likes of Facebook, Google, Microsoft and Twitter that are not controlled
by monster corporations.

~~~
Razengan
A very important person reason?

Also, I think the actual problem isn't these corporations, it's ultimately the
governments of the world.

Even if the major social networks allow something highly controversial to
remain, sooner or later they may be required by the government to take it
down. Even someone as big as Apple will have trouble standing their ground, as
was shown recently.

The government and the law is what's supposed to protect people's right to
information and free speech, yet they are also the ultimate source of
censorship.

~~~
Mendenhall
Its ultimately the people. Governments just give the people exactly what they
allowed to happen.

------
bambax
> _Facebook is for the pleasure and benefit of the whole world_

Wait, what? Facebook is more like tobacco: addictive, very bad for you, and
very profitable.

~~~
mthoms
You shouldn't really try to sum up Facebook in a single sentence any more than
you would do the same with the internet as a whole. The truth, of course, is
much more nuanced than a short sentence permits.

For instance Facebook allows me to communicate with friends and family I
wouldn't otherwise be able to communicate with (at least not as efficiently).
I can't see that being bad. As a matter of fact it's something I derive a
great sense of satisfaction and wellbeing from.

~~~
exodust
I wish people would stop kidding themselves that Facebook is the same as the
Internet as a whole. Facebook is just one service you happen to use. Some of
your friends happen to use it too. Please don't pretend that cutting it off
would mean you couldnt communicate with your friends anymore. You and your
friends are resourceful. You would find another way. The Internet is a big
place with many pipes for you and your friends to use.

~~~
mthoms
As a matter of fact I communicate with some people who I would almost
certainly have no way of communicating with or, in fact, knowing if they are
alive or dead.

(I moved a lot as a child)

I get your point that it's not the only solution to this problem. But it is
currently the _best_ choice, even if only because of the network effect.

>I wish people would stop kidding themselves that Facebook is the same as the
Internet as a whole.

I never said that. That's ridiculous. I said it's complex enough that summing
it up in a single dismissive sentence is probably disingenuous.

>Please don't pretend that cutting it off would mean you couldnt communicate
with your friends anymore.

Never said that either.

------
greggman
While I get this is not the main point this part stuck out for me

> Furthermore, Facebook should distinguish between editors and other Facebook-
> users

Sigh ... so he's asking to be marked as one of the "elite" by FB while us
plebs should be treated lessor?

------
mixedCase
Well that's funny. I cannot find the picture anywhere. I even tried disabling
uBlock and then was promptly reminded of why I use it.

~~~
lake99
For me, it was HTTPS Everywhere that was causing the problem. Disabling it
showed me the pictures.

~~~
mixedCase
That was it. I wish Google would start with the red alerts already so
webmaster may start getting their shit together.

~~~
lake99
I have five privacy tools on this browser: uBlock Origin, Privacy Badger,
HTTPS Everywhere, NoScript, and a free VPN. It was quite tedious to go through
each of them before I figured out it was an HTTPS issue.

~~~
breakingcups
It's your choice to use those tools to influence your experience browsing free
content on the web provided by someone else's servers.

------
joesmo
Soon, people will start to realize that for actual information, news, and
debate, you have to venture outside of Facebook, just like you have to venture
outside of TV for those things currently in the US (not a single actual news
program available on broadcast or cable but plenty of "News" entertainment
programs). Otherwise you're just processing mindless drivel that you already
agree with and that you already know. Which is exactly the state of being
Zuckerberg and other people trying to push garbage products onto people
prefer. Until then, our society will probably just keep pretending that
Facebook is something other than brain junk food because most people don't
want to admit to themselves that they are being controlled and manipulated,
and most people simply just don't give a fuck about news, history, historical
photos, or anything beyond petty celebrity gossip or other such nonsense
(that's why those things are pulled from timelines).

------
carapace
I think of FB users as a kind of _peasant_. It is an unpleasant thought, but I
cannot escape it.

Digital serfs.

------
eCa
> If you take the liberty to challenge Facebook’s rules, you will be met – as
> we have seen – with censorship.

You are in Marks living room. He has asked you not to bring certain kinds of
photos to his place. You did anyway so he took the photo from you. You brought
another copy the next time. Now he is getting angry with you.

Maybe you should meet at your place in the future? Or maybe you shouldn't be
friends with Mark at all.

~~~
yazaddaruvala
I hate physical metaphors for digital things. They always seem so succinct,
and without possible counter argument.

You're absolutely right that if this happened in someone's living room, their
rules should apply.

However, there are 1.3 billion people in "Mark's living room". Is it still
his?

~~~
palerdot
Unfortunately it is still his. When people sign up, there is a line hidden
somewhere that says "This is my living room and you agree you stay here on the
condition that you will agree to whatever I might ask you in future".

In a way, some physical metaphor like this one drives the point home well.
Though Mark might not say bluntly that "You are in my living room, just adhere
to what I order you", he is actually saying something like "I'm not permitting
this in my living room because it is an inconvenience to other people".

The ugly truth is 1.3 billion people are guests and no matter how big they are
they have to agree with the host.

------
joncp
> Facebook is for the pleasure and benefit of the whole world

I wish that were true, but Facebook is actually for selling the world's
eyeballs to advertisers.

------
rocky1138
Am I the only one getting a 404 for the image in question?

~~~
huac
Yeah, all the images on the page look hard down for me.

~~~
lisper
Weird. It works for me.

~~~
rocky1138
People are saying this is due to HTTPS Everywhere (Chrome plugin)

------
dismantlethesun
> But, dear Mark, you are the world’s most powerful editor.

If we want to treat Mark as the editor to Facebook, then he wants to tailor
its content to the type of audience he wants to attract and business he is in.

Would Teen People or Vogue print a picture of napalmed children on its cover?

------
PavlovsCat
Between this and stuff like youtube's ideas of "advertiser-friendliness"
[0][1] the major websites are shaping up (down?) to be so. freaking.
spineless.

[0]
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bn3-Q1lY7fU](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bn3-Q1lY7fU)
[1]
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EDwdBc0-uq8](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EDwdBc0-uq8)

------
ImTalking
Does not Facebook get to decide it's own morality, just like anyone else?

~~~
RubyPinch
Well, it can, but it does still make a weird line in the sand

You can be naked for the following reasons: Breastfeeding, Satire, Comedy,
Artistic (but only photos of art), educational, and surgery (but only
reconstructive)

but being naked because you didn't exactly have time to grab clothes while
fleeing from being burnt up, is too far on the nudity scale?

~~~
ImTalking
But why do you get to question Facebook's idea of morality? If you don't like
it, don't use the service. To question someone's morality solely due to it
being different than yours is, bluntly, a waste of time.

~~~
greggman
I don't know if this is a good analogy but should the phone company be able to
tell you what you can have conversations about? What makes FB different? Yes
there are alternatives. There are also multiple phone companies.

I can guess some differences. FB conversations are semi-public, phone
conversation are generally not. Except AFAIK except for ads you have to opt
into most info in FB. To get news from this source you have to have
joined/liked their group. So you opted in. Maybe some friend shares the post
but you opted into friending them.

I'm not saying FB should or should not limit what you can post. Only that it's
interesting to consider other examples. Why should the phone company not be
allowed to ban certain topics but FB should?

------
wehadfun
I suggest they do a bait and switch make the headline be about a lipstick or a
boy band then hit the reader with the horrors of bombing 12 year old little
girls with Napalm.

------
eleitl
He would have had a point, had he not a Facebook presence. Yes, it is very
easy to avoid having a Facebook page: just don't make one.

------
beedogs
Facebook is terrible. I wish people would cease using it.

------
dmitrygr
A very valid point, which will sadly be entirely ignored.

