
Facebook deletes Norway PM's post as 'napalm girl' row escalates - 0x10c0fe11ce
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/sep/09/facebook-deletes-norway-pms-post-napalm-girl-post-row
======
norea-armozel
This is what you get out from centralizing your communications medium. Sure,
we all can easily talk to each other but now you have to assume the host will
find something you do or say a liability thus remove it as quickly as you post
it. To say that Facebook shouldn't do this comes into conflict in protecting
share holder value (which means also avoiding illegal content per local laws).
So, you can't have it both ways. Either you have a corporate defend it's share
holder value or you have it all nationalized and get NPR. I just wish people
would realize that corporations aren't our friends, they're here to make a
profit. And profit isn't always what's ethical. I think the better solution to
the problem as it stands is to force people to start hosting their own content
(which is why I support net neutrality and anti-metering laws). That way,
you're in charge of your content and responsible for getting people to view
it. We shouldn't have to return to the days of AOL (which we have largely
done) to get eye balls. People still go to websites, so why depend on Facebook
to distribute your content?

~~~
forgetsusername
> _I just wish people would realize that corporations aren 't our friends,
> they're here to make a profit._

I wish people would stop saying that _corporations_ are some disparate entity,
rather than a collection of people with a defined purpose, like our friends
and family members. People just like you in other words.

Corporations don't have a mind of their own, nor do they pursue profit
regardless of ethics.

~~~
dragonwriter
> I wish people would stop saying that corporations as some disparate entity,
> rather than a collection of people

The whole _point_ of a corporation is to be a separate entity from the
collection of people that have interests in it.

~~~
forgetsusername
> _The whole point of a corporation is to be a separate entity from the
> collection of people that have interests in it._

It doesn't have a mind of its own, any direction comes from real live people
making decisions every day. Or can you point to a single instance where this
isn't the case?

------
mabbo
I'm torn.

Freedom of speech and freedom of expression mean that the government can't put
you in prison or punish you for saying or believing what you do. Facebook
aren't the government, they're a private entity and don't have to host
anything they don't like- including hosting photos that they don't like. It's
a walled garden, and it's their walled garden, and if you don't like it you're
welcome to leave.

And on the other hand: it's the only garden. If your friends are in that
garden, they can't share with you, interact with you, etc, without you also
being inside. Facebook's created a 'with us or not with us' distinction that
has a very sharp boundary. And it's worked- they've won the social network
wars. A billion people are on it.

The question is, as the social network champions does Facebook have to have to
public's interests in mind or just their own bottom line profit margin? As a
public company, the shareholders will fire their leadership if they don't
choose the bottom line. As the major social network of the world, the public
will denounce them for actions like this.

~~~
bjt
The PM didn't post the photo. Someone else did.

The PM posted a criticism saying Facebook should "review its editing policy".

And then Facebook deleted that.

I can concede that there could be good reasons to pull the photo. But I don't
see good reasons to pull the PM's post. I don't like any organization having
so much power to make criticism about itself disappear.

~~~
greggyb
The PM's post included the photo.

> Erna Solberg, the Conservative prime minister, called on Facebook to “review
> its editing policy” after it deleted her post voicing support for a
> Norwegian newspaper that had fallen foul of the social media giant’s
> guidelines.

> Solberg was one of a string of Norwegian politicians who shared the iconic
> image after Facebook deleted a post from Tom Egeland...,

~~~
pritambaral
That doesn't say the post included the photo.

~~~
greggyb
> > Solberg was one of a string of Norwegian politicians who shared the iconic
> image after Facebook deleted a post from Tom Egeland...,

> > > shared the iconic image

....

~~~
pritambaral
Shared the image? yes. Shared the image in the same post? Not clear.

That's all I was trying to say. The way the two cited sentences are written —
and "her post" os on a different sentence from "who shared the iconic image" —
does not say the image share was in the same post as the one being talked
about.

~~~
ycombinatorMan
So, youre nitpicking?

~~~
pritambaral
What's the opposite of 'drawing from incomplete evidence'?

I hate the power Facebook as a behemoth and a monolith holds and abuses. But
when accusing, we should be fair. The statements cited as evidence are from a
publication, not an offhand comment by a random person on Facebook with no
regard to correctness or clarity. And even in that, there isn't clarity for
what was being accused.

So, if pointing out a lack of clarity in an accusation is called nitpicking,
so be it.

------
RodgerTheGreat
If you're a Facebook user and you are unhappy with the way the company
strongarms, censors and manipulates its audience, the most effective way for
you to express this dissatisfaction is to close your account, block social
media bugs and encourage your friends and family to do the same.

Facebook doesn't care how you feel when you use their service; their bottom
line simply depends on your contribution to the statistics they use to sell
ads. Apathy, or even outrage, are perfectly acceptable provided you express it
through channels they control and profit from.

As far as I'm concerned, as long as this conversation is couched in trying to
appeal to Mark Zuckerberg's imagined sense of ethical responsibility it will
lead nowhere.

~~~
red_admiral
No. It's more effective to lobby your local member of parliament/congress to
pass laws restricting what media organisations can or cannot do.

Granted, by "more effective" I mean something like 0.1% instead of 0.01%, but
it's worth a try.

~~~
Dirlewanger
Absolutely not. Government should have no say what a private entity can/can't
do in their walled garden. The fact that over a billion people use it is a
different issue.

~~~
kefka
A private individual, sure. I'll accept that argument.

But a corporation should have no such leeway. Companies exist for the mutual
benefit of the citizens, and their shareholders. Just because we've lost that
sense of ethic doesn't make it not true.

Now, the predominant view is "A company can fuck over whomever they want, as
long as it lies within the confines of the law", is preposterous. Public
corporations are already required to be sociopathic, given the legal
requirement of profit (exception given to benefit corps).

Or in much more shallow words, "I'll believe corporations are people when they
execute one in Texas."

~~~
witty_username
Corporations are just a group of people with legal status. How many people
beyond which you won't accept that argument? 1? 10?

~~~
landryraccoon
Not the OP but:

A corporation crosses the line when it has a single person who is protected
from the legal actions of the corporation by statue (i.e., a shareholder). At
this point the quasi-libertarian theory of a corporation as "just a bunch of
guys" completely breaks down as there is a special legal protection for
shareholders.

A corporation isn't a partnership. A partnership is just a group of people who
have agreed to do business together. All of them are jointly legally liable
for the criminal actions and liabilities of the corporation.

A corporation, on the other hand, has _legal protection_ for shareholders. A
VC can bankroll eMurder.com and the VC isn't liable when the officers of the
corporation go on a shooting spree. The options are : Investors get no special
legal protection, and creditors and the law can pursue them and their personal
assets for the liabilities and crimes of the corporation OR a corporation
really is a special instrument of the State, and only has particular standing
because we as a society believe the corporate veil provides social benefits.

~~~
kefka
The state can still attack people in the corporate structure individually. For
example, if VP Jones decides to go execute a competitor, VP Jones can be
brought to trial for murder.

But if that company decides to, say dump toxic chemicals in the waterways,
it's only a few hundred thousand dollars, versus millions to dispose of them.
Or if the company decides to refuse doing a recall because the cost of recall
doesn't equal or exceed its liability, well, too bad.

Corporations can, and do, a great deal of harm. And many of those behaviors
are collective across multiple levels and people. But yet, the most we do is a
hand-slap of a fine.

~~~
witty_username
> Or if the company decides to refuse doing a recall because the cost of
> recall doesn't equal or exceed its liability, well, too bad.

Is that wrong (I think that's what you're implying)? I'm serious. More money
can be used to make things safer, but there's a point where the benefits
become marginal compared to the costs.

------
jokoon
Any centralized social network is subject to moderation because if it's
centralized, it can be attacked, fined or shut down by a court. So facebook
can't escape that rule and must decide what is acceptable or not and have to
anticipate any flak they can get.

In the end, moderation is a gruesome job and nobody really wants to do it, and
it will be subject to how moderators anticipate public perception, so it's a
PR race.

So of course you will have those situations where facebook will make bad
choices, but it doesn't only depends on their moderation team, it also depends
on political correctness. That's why decentralized networks are better,
because nobody is really responsible, and it can hardly be attacked.

You can decide to either have a politically correct website and get
investments, or disagree with political correctness and be like 4chan.

It's not great, I'm sure people realize that, and that the internet will go
back to decentralized systems.

~~~
the_af
This particular picture was on the cover of the New York Times. Surely a human
reviewer from Facebook must consider this as reason enough to revert the
censorship?

~~~
pwg
Sadly, the human reviewer at Facebook is quite likely to not have even been
alive in 1972 (or not old enough to even remember the photo) and so it is
likely they are just following the "official facebook policy" without
thinking, and thereby hitting the "censor" button.

Note - this does not excuse their actions, but may put some context around
'why' it is happening.

~~~
chris_wot
That just makes things worse. Uneducated, inexperienced people are judging
what can and can't be posted on Facebook. Well, that's just dandy.

------
planetjones
Was the Norwegian Prime Minister's post removed because she posted the image
again in that post ? This is a crucial question and not clear from the
article. If Facebook censored only words then this is a much larger issue. If
they censored the whole post (including photo) then while debatable this is
Facebook's policy i.e. a blanket ban on such imagery, irrespective of history.

Edit: I don't find it clear journalism, but the fact is there:

 _Solberg was one of a string of Norwegian politicians who shared the iconic
image after Facebook deleted a post from Tom Egeland_

So the post was removed because it had the image, not because she had dared to
criticize FB.

~~~
daenney
In the article itself the PM gives Facebook credit for at least being
consistent, w.r.t removing posts that contain that photo. So yes, it seems
likely it was removed because of that picture.

However, you probably want to think twice before removing a post by any PM.
Having done so only fuels the fire, which arguably can be a good thing in this
case.

~~~
chris_wot
I rather hopes she keeps putting it back up again. Then they can suspend her.

~~~
vidarh
Yes.. I don't like her policies, but she has her good moments, and while I
don't think they'll keep reposting it, as they'll have more important things
to do, the Minister of Culture has _also_ posted it and had her post taken
down, and she has already indicated she very much wants to get Norwegian
newspaper editors and Facebook together for a meeting. They'd not do that
unless they're very displeased.

------
the_af
This iconic picture was not only a Pulitzer Prize winner, but was also on the
cover of the New York Times. Surely this will help the anonymous "Facebook
spokeswoman" determine on which side it lies of the thin red line of "censor"
/ "do not censor"?

------
dazhbog
Why doesn't fb just blur the content that users find disturbing like "Viewer
discretion.., flagged by our users". Then you can click to view or adjust the
sensitivity in your account settings.

------
kajecounterhack
At Google certain images are considered EDSA (Educational, Documentary,
Scientific or Artistic). I wonder if this would have been considered EDSA vs
Facebook's decision to say it's against ToS.

That said, it totally makes sense that they have a consistent policy. Whether
you find their overall abuse ToS objectionable should be the main
consideration here. It's OK to me that they seem to have decided that imagery
containing nude children should be hard-banned. It's a decision couched in the
desire to protect children, not some heavy-handed censorship.

------
jondubois
I think censoring the PM's complaint is a bad move by Facebook. Regarding
censorship of the photo, I think it should be left to Norwegians to decide
whether it's appropriate or not - I think different people might have
different views on this.

------
wonks
I feel like this is a good argument for taking another look at projects like
Diaspora and Friendica Red

~~~
soylentcola
As much as I'd love to see some alternative to Facebook that provides
generally the same basic features (easy sharing of original content and
links/reposted media with a large group of contacts) I feel that they'll all
face the same issues for the foreseeable future.

Same issue with the ones you mentioned or even ones like G+ that are backed by
another big player: critical mass of users combined with no standardized
protocol.

I've made the analogy plenty of times before but basically I compare and
contrast with email, another service where you can "roll your own" but most
general users just stick with a service, either paid or ad-funded, from
another company. The thing with email is that it can be 2001 and you're
happily using your @aol.com email account but down the line you decide to
switch over to Yahoo. Then maybe later you switch to Hotmail and later still,
to Gmail. All of those switches are up to the user and nothing stops you from
even setting up your own email server if you have the desire.

Regardless, none of the people you email need to do anything or change
anything. And it's a good thing too because it would suck if in order to move
off AOL or Yahoo you need to convince every one of your friends, relatives,
business contacts, and potential email recipients to switch over as well. It
might be feasible to get that 5% of your "techie" friends to switch services
based solely on some new feature or whatever but you won't have much luck
getting Aunt Mabel, your kid's 2nd grade teacher, your barber, or your
potential clients to all switch over to some new UI and remember some new
account address.

But since email is based on a common protocol it doesn't matter. No matter how
popular one provider is, you can switch to any other one and not lose the
ability to email. Contrast this with centralized social media and you're
basically screwed if you want to switch to another one.

This really struck home when G+ came out. I found it to be a better Facebook
for the most part. Faster mobile app, more granular sharing permissions, no
stupid game/app spam, better media hosting, and better text/video chat. Maybe
10 of the people I generally connect with on social media felt the same way
but the other couple hundred in my friends/contact list? They found it
annoying to learn a new interface or they weren't already using Gmail so
they'd need to sign up for another account or they just didn't like something
else about it.

And that's legit. Variety in services means there will be preferences. But in
this case it didn't matter because the end result was the same: unless
everyone moved over to G+ (or Diaspora or whatever) en masse, you'd either be
cutting off contact with most of your list or you'd be maintaining multiple
profiles and sharing links and pics on two sites.

So G+ only got used for more specific groups and niche interests while
Facebook kept more general social networking. And now Google seems tired of
trying to build a better Facebook and is de-Plus-ifying most of their
services. I seriously wonder how anyone will conceivably succeed at this where
massive companies like Google can't pull it off.

Instead, just as centralized social media replaced mass email chains for most
people, I don't see Facebook going anywhere until something entirely different
(not just new and improved) comes along and grabs mass user attention in the
same way.

~~~
vidarh
Something that "gateways" to Facebook would be great, but of course Facebook
would fight it with every weapon possible if it were to get any kind of
traction.

~~~
palerdot
Can you explain your thoughts a bit more on what might be that "gateway"?

~~~
vidarh
Let's say you built a distributed social network where you can add plugins to
communicate via different protocols... And one of them happen to know how to
interact with Facebooks APIs or website, so that you would not need to care
whether your contacts are facebook users or non facebook users.

The same way we have IM clients that can talk multiple protocols.

Facebook almost certainly would try to shut it down if it got any kind of
traction, because the set of people you could interact with on this new
platform would be a strict superset of Facebook users. It'd be bound to have
clunky usability issues (e.g. group communication would be hard to get right
with groups split across platforms), but it'd enable users to start extracting
themselves from Facebook more and more if/when more of their friends decide to
try it out.

I'd love to see someone try. I won't try myself for two reasons: I don't use
Facebook enough to know what features would be necessary, and secondly it's
likely to be a game of cat and mouse with Facebook both technically and
legally.

~~~
aws_ls
I totally agree with the concept of "gateway". Kind of like a social protocol
similar to SMTP(which is for emails), by which Facebook/G+/<some-new-player>
inter-operate. That's the best solution and the only solution to fix this
situation.

If needed, Facebook must be _forced_ to open up. Its a wrong kind of monopoly.

 _> I'd love to see someone try. I won't try myself for two reasons: I don't
use Facebook enough to know what features would be necessary, and secondly
it's likely to be a game of cat and mouse with Facebook both technically and
legally._

SMTP protocol[1] is created and maintained by IETF. Ditto for social. I wonder
why don't Google, who didn't succeed with G+, submit a 'social' protocol
already to IETF.

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simple_Mail_Transfer_Protocol](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simple_Mail_Transfer_Protocol)

------
angelofm
The article makes a reference about an open letter from the editor-in-chief -
Espen Egil Hansen, the link return an internal error, you can read the open
letter in the web.archive website
[https://web.archive.org/web/20160909061907/http://www.aftenp...](https://web.archive.org/web/20160909061907/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)

------
cannonpr
I suspect a large part of this isn't so much an attempt by facebook to impose
US cultural norms to the rest of the world, as much as an attempt to avoid
financial burden by simply applying the ban stick as bluntly as possible.
After all, being multicultural, providing good editing suitable for several
countries acceptable norms, while trying to advance/modify them... Well that
might be viewed as admirable work or cultural imperialism. The point is it's
not work that they want to do, nor do I think is it work that they feel they
can get paid for.

------
Raphmedia
It is kind of scary to see how countries are powerless when it comes to
Facebook. I know that this article and the whole discussion here is not about
that but I get a eery feeling reading about it.

~~~
jfoster
Theoretically, the PM could find herself having trouble with her social media
reach in the lead-up to the next election.

The primary criticism that gets leveled toward Facebook is about privacy, but
I think the degree of control they can exercise over communication is the more
worrying issue.

~~~
palerdot
In a way, both privacy and control issues of FB are related.

Privacy => how FB chooses to share your data with others, Control => how FB
allows you to share your data with others

Ultimately it is the data about you that is funneled through FB.

------
thr0waway1239
If you want something from FB: its reach, you need to play by its rules,
however arbitrary they may be. If you wish to change the laws of physics, go
and get yourself your own planet. It is much easier in this case: just choose
a different forum.

Having said that, this incident should teach Norwegians (and the countrymen of
any country) a thing or two about where they stand on the totem pole of power.

Facebook > Every other country on the planet

Facebook is a country because it is acts as an independent sovereign state
which is not answerable to anyone at this point. Apparently, it already makes
up its own taxation laws[1]. I expect them to release their own flag, maybe a
national anthem?

[1]
[http://www.forbes.com/sites/kellyphillipserb/2016/07/29/face...](http://www.forbes.com/sites/kellyphillipserb/2016/07/29/facebook-
ignores-another-irs-summons-reveals-it-could-owe-billions-in-
taxes/#71ea3ae30bfc)

But of the many truly troubling things I see with FB's policies - their
alarming intrusiveness and ruthless exploitation of our need for being social,
choosing its own censorship policy is not one of them, especially if it is
consistent. I would rather see them made answerable to privacy violations.

------
samfisher83
Maybe the censorship team was too young know the significance of the picture.
I am guessing average Facebook employee is under 30. Probably younger than
that. Vietnam war is over 40 years old, most American students learned about
it and knew that picture, but I don't know how much Vietnam war is taught in
other countries. It might have been a combination of age and where the person
grew up that contributed to deleting the picture?

~~~
Broken_Hippo
"Most American students learned about it and knew that picture..."

I'm 38: We didn't learn much about the Vietnam war, honestly. The sections on
everything from the 50's onward were very short, and sometimes glossed over
due to time constraints. I think we had one teacher tell us that it was simply
because not enough time had passed since it happened, which always seemed
ridiculous to me.

It is kinda like we _knew_ it happened, but didn't really _learn_ much about
it formally. Lots of heresay and rumors and things.

~~~
samfisher83
If you took AP history they went through Regan.

~~~
ClashTheBunny
What year?

~~~
samfisher83
2002 2003? early part of 2000s

------
maxxxxx
I always find it interesting that no level of violence is deemed inappropriate
in the US but nudity has to be avoided at any cost.

~~~
kyriakos
Also the censorship of a few spoken words on TV while showing gore and other
violent scenes are not a problem. I find it weird also cause when the word is
censored as a viewer you already know that's what the character was meant to
say.

~~~
Noos
Gore is a problem, yeesh. The whole "americans love violence" is overrated.
The love of violence is a worldwide thing. Not like John Woo, Dario Argento,
or Takashi Miike are american.

~~~
rangibaby
The amount of clean, bloodless violence against faceless enemies (watch any
Hollywood movie) is a kind of soft propaganda IMO

------
thomasfl
Let's create a walled garden that embraces facebook's walled garden. A new
social network that displays your facebook timeline and other items.

BTW. I'm Norwegian.

------
tromp
Facebook has reversed its stance and is reinstating posts featuring 1972's
"The Terror of War" picture, according to

[http://www.theverge.com/2016/9/9/12865670/facebook-
censorshi...](http://www.theverge.com/2016/9/9/12865670/facebook-censorship-
napalm-girl-aftenposten-reversal)

"Because of its status as an iconic image of historical importance, the value
of permitting sharing outweighs the value of protecting the community by
removal, so we have decided to reinstate the image on Facebook where we are
aware it has been removed"

~~~
the8472
Not really a good sign if it takes a country's PM to complain before they
reverse their position.

------
oneloop
That moment when government officials start realising their biggest publishers
are American companies.

------
cmdrfred
This is a place where I do not agree with Facebook's decision but I agree they
have a right to decide who and what can be on their platform. Freedom of
speech does not give me the right to come into your home and say whatever I
like without being asked to leave. I'm free to do so in the public park across
the street though. Your property rights trump my free speech.

------
TrevorJ
It's particularly troubling because facebook is primarily about communicating
with your own friends and acquaintances. Censoring public content is
troubling, but removing content that is private and only available to people
who took the step to friend you on Facebook is really really crappy.

------
newscracker
Facebook is very arbitrary in its censoring and account deactivation
decisions. Many cases I have read about are instances where Facebook is in the
wrong and does not provide users a way to get things resolved (perhaps these
instances surface online more often or more prominently).

Every time I read about Facebook's decisions, I feel extremely frustrated and
downright angry. Humans need an alternative to Facebook that's not as evil and
can get better traction (no, this does not mean everyone closing their FB
accounts and switching to email or text messaging). I'm waiting for that to
happen.

------
dmckeon
Posters may find it informative to review Tom Egeland's response (in
Norwegian, so a translation site may be helpful).

[https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=1203560296...](https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=1203560296352340&id=185679154807131)

Is the collection of the other 6 or 7 photos still available? - my google-fu
has not found them.

------
EdSharkey
It would be neat to have a decentralized social network simply to avoid the
editorial demands of the walled garden. I think we'd have a lot more unsavory
content making its way to people's eyes though. There'd need to be more
sophisticated ways of filtering information than just "unfriend", I suppose.
And people would need to have tougher skins for it to work.

~~~
macintux
We had a decentralized social network called the web (or I suppose blogs if
you want to think of it at a more granular level). Facebook won.

------
codingmyway
I can accept why they need to draw a line on naked child images and be done
with it. Like most silicon valley companies they want everything automating
with as little human customer service as possible.

However if they aren't going to do that job of editorial then they need to
stop trying to be a news source while abdicating any responsibility that
entails by saying they are a tech company.

------
cx1000
Ironically, Facebook is not censoring the news articles covering this story.
The unedited photo is now shown all over Facebook.

------
niccaluim
On the subject of whether speech protections apply to the government only:
it's all well and good to apply a _legal_ analysis to free speech issues, but
if you're looking to the law to tell you what's _right and wrong,_ you're
trying to buy milk at a hardware store.

------
golemotron
Facebook needs to be broken up like Ma Bell was. It's too big to manage well
and network effects are preventing alternatives from gaining ground. The world
needs more diversity in policy than it has with this mediated communications
juggernaut.

~~~
reitanqild
I tend to agree. Microsoft needed to be punished by authorities and they do
better now as a result, all while behaving better.

------
return0
The bigger problem is that the new media is US controlled,and youre going to
have some culture conflicts. Maybe legislative action could force facebook to
federate the users content

------
pi-rat
The prime minister's original post:
[http://snpy.in/5Nv92c](http://snpy.in/5Nv92c)

~~~
pritambaral
"Sorry, no image found"

------
aikah
This outrage is ridiculous. Of course, the Guardian is pimping it, they are
outrage professionals.

------
roadman
I'm not on fb. I read in the comment from the spokeswoman that the distinction
cannot be made by their robotic rules. So I believe this illustrates a
limitation of their AI. And they don't care so much about the people than
their algorithms. Just an opinion.

~~~
ClashTheBunny
The article states that it was flagged by users and moderated by people. This
has nothing to do with AI.

~~~
roadman
Do you mean the last paragraph? I am not native English, so I thought the
"would", "would" sounded highly hypothetical.

------
zouhair
We really need a real public safe space on the Internet.

------
ycombinatorMan
facebook is really an infrastructural service.

------
dajohnson89
What was the PM's motivation to make the post in the first place?

~~~
jbmorgado
"Yes, your honor, but I believe the jury should know what the victim was
wearing that night."

~~~
dajohnson89
Oh please. I am honestly curious. Why is the PM of Norway posting a graphic
photograph of the Vietnam War?

~~~
DanBC
A Norwegian newspaper made a post about 7 photos that changed the course of
war.

[http://www.aftenposten.no/meninger/kommentar/Dear-Mark-I-
am-...](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)

> First some background. A few weeks ago the Norwegian author Tom Egeland
> posted an entry on Facebook about, and including, seven photographs that
> changed the history of warfare. You in turn removed the picture of a naked
> Kim Phuc, fleeing from the napalm bombs – one of the world’s most famous war
> photographs.

> Tom then rendered Kim Phuc’s criticism against Facebook for banning her
> picture. Facebook reacted by excluding Tom and prevented him from posting a
> new entry.

------
fil_a_del_fee_a
I honestly think it was an algorithm that flagged it.

~~~
pi-rat
Pretty sure you would have a manual step for important verified people.
Imagine the PR disaster if an algorithm removed a post by Obama.

~~~
GavinMcG
Now I'm curious what would happen if Obama posted a similar response,
including the photo.

~~~
reitanqild
Anyone here knows him or some of his close friends and want to ask? I might be
wrong but I'm pretty sure someone here is _at least_ friend-of-a-friend to
him.

------
Demoneeri
A picture of a naked child was removed from FB because of the law. No story
there.

Are we going to allow child porn on FB because it is artistic ?

~~~
GavinMcG
Which law?

Depending on the legal system involved, "child porn" and "artistic" are
mutually exclusive.

------
JabavuAdams
Why are we thinking of FB as some monolithic entity? Isn't the most likely
explanation that some low-wage contractor in the Philippines saw a picture of
a naked girl and flagged it? That contractor may not even know the historical
significance of the picture.

You're in a low-wage job and have to look at horrifying shit all day, every
day. Are you going to let the one image through that maybe will cost you the
job that you really need?

~~~
danso
Unlikely. A lot of publicity was generated when the original photo was
removed. Not only was a photo removed, but the newspaper employee who
submitted it, IIRC, had their account suspended. So that's at least two levels
of decision making. Then (as linked to in the OP), the newspaper's editor made
a public appeal that was well-read in media and tech circles.

And now this, involving the Norwegian prime minister. I don't think the higher
levels of Facebook are ignorant to the issue at this point.

------
tamana
Guardian is pretty trashy for tossing that picture up _twice_ in one article.
The article isn't even about napalm or the war, the picture is being used as
snuff shock. Show some respect for human dignity.

~~~
DanBC
> snuff shock

Snuff normally refers to dead people. She's not dead.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phan_Thi_Kim_Phuc](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phan_Thi_Kim_Phuc)

She uses the picture in her work around child victims of war:
[http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-
pacific/8678478.stm](http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-
pacific/8678478.stm)

> However, the realisation came to her she did not have to remain an unwilling
> victim. The photo was, in fact, a powerful gift that she could use to help
> promote peace.

> "I realised that now that I have freedom and am in a free country, I can
> take control of that picture," she says.

------
exodust
She should simply publish it somewhere else, such as her own blog or some
other website. When she signed up to Facebook.com she ticked a box agreeing to
their terms.

I never signed up so couldn't care less, but aren't most people on Facebook
talking about what they had for breakfast and how awesome stuff is? I'm not
sure where Napalm girl fits in with that culture except maybe "awesome war
photography - thumbs up!!".

~~~
tjl
Facebook wants to be a place for news as well, with things like their "Instant
Articles". It's a historically significant photo and was actually on the front
page of the NY Times when it came out. So, would they censor a post from the
NY Times if it had the same photo?

------
upofadown
Wait, Facebook censors pictures of naked children because they are afraid that
some pedophile might get off on then?

That's kind of twisted, isn't it?

~~~
pior
Is it sarcasm?

~~~
gbin
sarcasm, the other no-no :)

------
andrewclunn
Dear Norway,

The US governments make us legally complicit in child pornography if we don't
have automated processes to take this stuff down. People keep blaming
corporations for censorship of porn-like (but not porn) content, song lyrics
that get mistaken for terrorist threats, and overly zealous take downs of
anything that might infringe on IP. Do you think we want our users to get
angry at us over this shit? Look at the US child porn laws, the numerous
governments spying under the banner of the war on terror, and laws like the
DMCA. Our hands are tied and you are blaming the wrong people.

\- Facebook

------
kybernetyk
Why should the PM be treated differently than anyone else? Just because she's
the PM?

FB has any right to remove whatever they want from their private property.

~~~
hga
I'm starting to get tired of making this point in some of the many discussions
of this topic (most recently
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12457371](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12457371)),
so the last time for a month, I swear:

You tell me when I can open a segregated lunch counter, or refuse to bake a
gay wedding cake, and I'll consider your argument to have merit. Otherwise,
it's only a matter of time until Facebook and company are brought to heel
under that sort of "public accommodation" approach.

See also mabbo's well thought out comment:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12462031](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12462031)

~~~
ythl
I still don't understand the gay wedding cake argument.

If I'm a baker, why can't I refuse to make certain cakes? I mean, I would
never turn away a customer, but if the customer asked me to write obscene
things on the cake, don't I have the right to refuse their request?

"I'd like to have a rainbow cake" "ok" "with little penises sticking out of it
for my gay wedding" "no, sorry."

What's wrong with that? It's no different from refusing a straight man's
request to have a cake with the outline of a nude woman on it.

~~~
maxerickson
You're manufacturing your example. The refusal in a famous case wasn't based
on lascivious content, it was based on the people buying the cake.

[http://aclu-co.org/court-rules-bakery-illegally-discriminate...](http://aclu-
co.org/court-rules-bakery-illegally-discriminated-against-gay-couple/)

~~~
ythl
Well, in that case I agree. You should not be able to refuse service based on
the person, but you should be able to refuse service based on the request.

