When Facebook censors photos

<p>This is the type of limits to violence and extremism that can find a support also in Europe in line with the laws in place. Forbitten images of breasts, nibbles and buttocks is off limit.</p>

<p>https://theintercept.com/2016/09/07/google-program-to-deradicalize-jihadis-will-be-used-for-right-wing-american-extremists-next/</p>

 

Michael. I sent you a response on PN mail.

<p>Not strange, Phil. After all Facebook is mainly a first world phenomenon, and that world is certainly prepared to curb facebook initiatives if they threaten over laws and freedoms. </p>

<p>"Mindless slaves of the old system". Are you sure when talking about hiding from our view, pictures of breasts, nibbles and buttocks ? No, it is the old zealous systems of morals, that try to imposed its repressions through social media of our times. Facebook, Twitter and Youtube should be liberated from the influence of such radical censorship. This what the censoring of the image of 1972 image of nine-year-old Kim Phuc fleeing an American napalm attack in Vietnam, is all about and why it is so important, that we are fighting it - if it is not just dirty political censorship and a tentative revision of our history, and it is even worse. Cannot be defended.</p>

<p>They don't really need to defend there policy. Its Facebook's site, registered to them, its not public domain actually. I may not like what they choose to censor, but they can do as they please. People are free to create alternative sites.<br>

I do think its stupid to lump historically important, yet significant material in the same category as porn or extreme violence etc. But if they so choose, its their choice. However they do depend on widespread use of their site for revenue and if people stop using their site because of censorship and go elsewhere, then they will change or face significant losses. </p>

<p>Facebook, Youtube or Twitter have actually become public domains and public concerns, because of their size, what ever legal status they have chosen in California or elsewhere.<br /> At least that is the argument behind the Norwegian initiative against their censorship, which they have accepted. Hopefully they have learned a lesson. Maybe you should too.</p>

I fought in that war. There is a dichotomy here. There is a conflict between a private entity showing what they damn

well please in a free society and those who would like to regulate these activities in the so-called public interest based

upon their size and influence. So would you regulate the actions of kaepernick (sic) because of his vast television

audience that sees him when he kneels? Where does one draw the line? Kim's picture is powerful and helps me

remember a war that when I returned from it I felt it was morally wrong and where 58,000 of my comrades died. I was

alive when we thought that 400,000 just US service men and women died not to mention the allies in WWII to protect

us from government interference with free speech. I believe the Norwegian argument is specious. Freedom is

precious but it is subject to erosion. I would like everyone to see the picture but, really is it worth ceding to

government control to make that happen?

<p>And what lesson is that Anders? Where's the part where FB accepted the argument that they are part of the public domain? Here's what Facebook actually said as reported in Al Jazeera</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Facebook said in a statement earlier in the day on Friday that its rules were more blunt than the company itself would prefer, adding that restrictions on nudity were necessary on a global platform.<br>

"While we recognise that this photo is iconic, it's difficult to create a distinction between allowing a photograph of a nude child in one instance and not others," a company spokesperson wrote.<br>

"We try to find the right balance between enabling people to express themselves while maintaining a safe and respectful experience for our global community. Our solutions won't always be perfect, but we will continue to try to improve our policies and the ways in which we apply them."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Is that what you were referring to? If so, how else do you wish to distort the meaning of it to fit your argument? </p>

<p>Barry, I'm not in the business of distorting anything. Personally I would never go back to what the PR guys of Facebook formulate as defence and explanation.<br>

I would look at facts: the image is back on-line and so are the journalist account and his critical comments.</p>

<p>Dick you might have seen that no-one argues for "government control" of anything in this context. What is the subject is that a big multinational corporation, here Facebook, should not get away way dictating any political,moral ethical limits to people on the other side of the world when their "social media" has become a public space. I surely agree, that what each one of us defines as "public space" differs, but in the case of Facebook, which has billions of users across the Globe it would probably qualify for most. <br>

I can certainly also see the difficulties of Facebook in finding a balance between trying to satisfy local high-strong radical moral warriors and keeping the media open, they are up for a challenge. Facebook like other social media need to answer this challenge so that its users throughout the world can accept it according to their moral and legal frameworks.<br>

An example of what this involves, can be found by following what happens around internet giants like UBER or Airbnb even inside US borders, but also , again, across the world. The time where such questions could be dismissed with reference to private companies, and individual consumer choices has passed. Concerns on protection of freedoms in public spaces, general public interests and the need of respecting legal frameworks have come to the fore. <strong><br /></strong></p>

<p>Anders, I'm only referring to the statement which seems inaccurate as to "what they have accepted":</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Facebook, Youtube or Twitter have actually become public domains and public concerns, because of their size, what ever legal status they have chosen in California or elsewhere.<br />At least that is the argument behind the Norwegian initiative against their censorship, which they have accepted.</p>

</blockquote>

<p> I think you are misconstruing the difference between what is a space the public uses, and what is a "public space". If you want to use Facebook to post anything you have to join, and agree to use their terms of membership relating to posting. They have absolute authority to determine what those standards are. You may not agree with their policies, I may not agree with their policies, but it is still their policies and their choice. Do I think they should have left the photo up? Absolutely, it is and at the time was an extremely important photo, but it's not my choice, nor yours, nor the publics. Our choice is to use or not use the site if we don't like their policies.<br>

</p>

<p>...and of course to express one's displeasure as to their policies.</p>

<p>Barry, I'm sure that according to local laws they have indeed "absolute authority to determine what those standards are", but reality is that they are acting across legal boundaries like any actor on internet.<br>

Obviously we are going toward a situation where internet companies will have to respect legal rights where there customers are (case Uber, Airbnb) just like they should when paying their tax (case Apple/Ireland). The Norwegian latest actions to prevent Facebook from doing what ever they decide to do based on their trust in "absolute authority to determine what those standards are", is being challenges. </p>

<p>Sure, countries pass laws and if Facebook wants to do business there they would have to comply. I think that happened in China with FB. But absent an actual law or regulation directed to them in that country, its their net. Further, lets say that Norway or even the EU decided to make it a condition for FB to operate there that they had to cease censoring, then FB would have a choice. Either comply, or shut down in that area. If they chose to comply, they could still enforce their rules anyplace else that didn't have those rules. So has Norway passed such a law? I haven't heard of any. As far as Apple, and other corporations attempting to skip out on taxes by pretending to be based in a tax shelter country, I hope they get tagged and pay the EU the billions they want. Also I might add that I don't believe FB has not respected any one's legal rights. All they've done is enforced the terms of agreement everyone that signs up for FB agrees to.</p>