
Mark Zuckerberg accused of abusing power after row over 'napalm girl' photo - ghosh
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/sep/08/facebook-mark-zuckerberg-napalm-girl-photo-vietnam-war
======
okket
See also: "Dear Mark. I am writing this to inform you that I shall not comply"

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12457004](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12457004)
(10 hours ago, 165 comments)

------
yCloser
He is right. Applying "terms of agreement" blindly is stupid. For the same
principle, one couldn't post a pic of David Michelangelo or Birth of Venus,
because of nudity?

Norms and laws have to be applied thinking about their Ratio, not just
"because here it says so"

~~~
cloudjacker
Actually Facebook's terms, at least for their Instagram property, allow for
photographs of murals, paintings and ironically other photographs depicting
nudity.

So I see the point you were going for but its almost like they made that
policy out of precognition for your exact rebuttal years in the future

------
nallerooth
So basically he's saying "I broke the terms of agreement and you removed my
content. Now I'm sad." I don't know why some journalists seem to believe that
terms and/or laws don't apply to them. I know there are a lot of gray areas,
but you still don't have the right to do anything you please and yell at the
world for not being handled differently from whatever law/agreement you know
you are breaking.

~~~
kazinator
Even though businesses are privately owned, when they provide public spaces,
they do not absolutely get to make up their own rules on grounds of private
proprietorship.

Suppose Facebook's agreement said "blacks are not allowed in this site and
will be removed". Would that even be legal in the US?

~~~
prostoalex
> Suppose Facebook's agreement said "blacks are not allowed in this site and
> will be removed". Would that even be legal in the US?

I would imagine it would be. I don't really frequent any racially-charged Web
sites, but if KKK or Aryan Nations or you-name-it run a forum of some sort,
those are likely the rules they go by.

------
Sn4p
Large Norwegian Newspaper (Aftenposten) changed its logo for today, and has
this open letter, strong message.
[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)

~~~
Sn4p
sorry for bad formatting, new to this one

------
tangue
Nudity == bad. Jihadists == Freedom of speech.

------
jcoffland
FB "the world’s most important medium." Ha! If this is true then I'm really
out of touch.

~~~
catmanjan
At first I agreed, but then, can you think of a better (more important?)
medium?

~~~
jcoffland
Important is subjective.

------
dawson
In other news, Newspaper requests different rights for “editors and other
Facebook users” as a way to stop 'limiting of freedoms'.

tl;dr Editor breaks TOS, uses open letter to misuse own editorial
responsibility.

~~~
raarts
This photo shows the atrocity of using napalm. The suffering of this girl (any
idea in how much pain she is?) is much more important than the hurt feelings
of some people about 'showing too much skin'.

The OP makes the point that the TOS must be changed. This photo was chosen
Press Photo of the Year and earned a Pulitzer Price. It also influenced public
opinion worldwide.

Some things are bigger than hurt feelings.

~~~
Kristine1975
Her name is Phan Thị Kim Phúc, and her Wikipedia article has a bit of
information about her current health:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phan_Thi_Kim_Phuc](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phan_Thi_Kim_Phuc)

I doubt Facebook removed the picture because of hurt feelings though. I'd
wager it's more that they have a "nudity is not allowed" policy, and they
apply that policy without thinking for even one second. In other words: Zero
tolerance.

------
nomercy400
I don't get it. Why does a Norwegian paper complain about an American company?
Facebook isn't Altenposten's website, you post something on Facebook, you play
by Facebook's rules. You don't agree, then don't post on Facebook and go run
your own website / printed paper.

And if you feel that Facebook is too large and censoring things, go talk to
your government. If you are a large enough paper in your country, you should
have a say.

I think the biggest issue here is that there is no way to get into a
reasonable discussion with Facebook that a picture should not be removed or
pixelated. It's automated, and no Facebook representative will look at it.

It should be very easy for Facebook to include a picture like this in their
whitelist (eg. all award winning photos or something).

~~~
meira
This American company evades taxes from Norway (and all other countries they
operate), so maybe they have even more reasons to complain than their American
counter-part. Same problem is happening here in Brazil.

