Topic: Nick Ut's photo on Facebook

[Sandeha Lynch]

You might have heard mention of a little ongoing controversy about FB deleting posts containing the famous picture of the napalm girl.  The Guardian newspaper proudly declared in an article today that FB had backed down and was reinstating the possibility to share it  - I guess they had modified their famous "Facebook Community Standards"(tm)

Only not quite.  I posted the page from the Guardian saying that Facebook had backed down from deleting Nick Ut's photo of the napalm girl, with the picture itself shown just below the headline.

And this is what the algorithm sends me:
"Facebook backs down from 'napalm girl' censorship and reinstates photo
After initially defending its decision to remove the iconic Vietnam war photo featuring a naked girl, the company has decided to allow users to share it"

Followed by:
"You’re Temporarily Blocked From Posting
This temporary block will last 30 days, and you won’t be able to post on Facebook until it’s finished.
You’ve repeatedly posted things that aren’t allowed on Facebook. Read the Facebook Community Standards to learn what kinds of posts aren’t allowed."

Confused?  And just how many people have shared this page on Facebook today, I wonder.

Anyway, unless they reinstall some news-reading humans to clear the mess I will have a time-out lasting 30 days.

[02Pilot]

All I can say is that the timing of the story was perfect for me. I read it this morning, printed the BBC article, gave it to my Poli Sci class, and ate up a good 45 minutes of that class with the ensuing discussion.

[hookstrapped]

I shared the NY Times article on it, with the pic, and haven't been given a time-out yet...

[Sandeha Lynch]

I shared the NY Times article on it, with the pic, and haven't been given a time-out yet...

Glad to hear it.  Their reasoning may be that I have been blocked twice before, once for 3 days and once for 7, all following complaints from a certified troll about my shots of the Naked Bike Ride.  I'm probably on an 'other' list.   

[imagesfrugales]

What can you expect from people who go into the sauna with bathing suits and like watching very young sparsly clothed lasciviously dancing girls on public TV shows? They don't like to be reminded so emotionally intense at the crimes against humanity commited during the Vienam war. Sorry, I had to say this.

Love and peace

[Bryan]

Sandeha, your such a trouble maker .  It amazes me the stuff they do allow, there are so many BS news stories and complete lies that are being used on Facebook to sway political opinions.  Then they don't allow a historic photo, something that everyone needs to see and understand. 

[Pete_R]

What's Facebook?

[Sandeha Lynch]

What's Facebook?

It's a little technology start-up just outside San Francisco.  You might hear something about it in a few years ... when it becomes a media giant.   

[hookstrapped]

Coincidentally, today I posted on Facebook a link to my Filmwasters photo essay on FP100C negs and it originally picked the thumbnail of the bare breasts, but then it changed to a different one. So I changed it back to the bare breasts pic to see what would happen. Nothing. So maybe low contrast dark pics is the way to defeat the bots (and their human apologists).

[Bryan]

Coincidentally, today I posted on Facebook a link to my Filmwasters photo essay on FP100C negs and it originally picked the thumbnail of the bare breasts, but then it changed to a different one. So I changed it back to the bare breasts pic to see what would happen. Nothing. So maybe low contrast dark pics is the way to defeat the bots (and their human apologists).

You hacked Facebook with film!

[Terry]

I'm with Peter.  Facebook?

[charles binns]

Couldn't care less.  I have less than no interest in Facebook. 

[macfred]

No Facebook, no twitter, no instagram ...

[hookstrapped]

The fact that individuals here or elsewhere don't care about or use Facebook is beside the point. Facebook has become the largest conduit for news in the world, by far, and acts as de facto editor and censor of that news. If you read the news, whether via Facebook or not, what's available to you is affected by Facebook and decisions its algorithms make, and the rationalizations its humans make in trying to save us all from disquieting thoughts that could upset "the community."

[02Pilot]

The fact that individuals here or elsewhere don't care about or use Facebook is beside the point. Facebook has become the largest conduit for news in the world, by far, and acts as de facto editor and censor of that news. If you read the news, whether via Facebook or not, what's available to you is affected by Facebook and decisions its algorithms make, and the rationalizations its humans make in trying to save us all from disquieting thoughts that could upset "the community."

This is the point the Aftenposten editor was making, and is quite correct, I think. There is a distressing de facto acceptance of this sort of Orwellian practice among a broad segment of the populace in many countries, but particularly in the U.S. Kudos to the Norwegian PM and others for getting behind the newspaper.

There are obviously political and other implications, but as I do not wish to engage in that conversation via public internet forum, this will be the end of my comment on the issue.

[Kai-san]

I think Aftenposten has been unbelievably naive in their approach to Facebook. They've put parts of their editorial content in the hands of a private US company whose only goal is to make tons of money, and now they're surprised that they are getting censored? As per today 78% of all advertising on this planet is in the hands of Facebook and Google, and scores of local and national newspapers are closing down every day due to this situation. These two giants will do anything to avoid upsetting their clients, so how can you expect them to stand up for freedom of speech? I don't use Facebook, and yes: it is a political decision.

[Terry]

It's the ancient subterfuge of all commercial media: the fiction that their purpose is to provide a service to their audience, when in fact that audience is not the client but the commodity being sold.  Refusal to participate is probably a futile gesture, but it at least it has the benefit of reducing one's mind-pollution.

[imagesfrugales]

.... when in fact that audience is not the client but the commodity being sold ....

Yes, SOS means sell our souls, or M.L. King would probably say today: I had a dream..... Civil rights? Anybody remembers?

[Ed Wenn]

The fact that individuals here or elsewhere don't care about or use Facebook is beside the point.

I couldn't agree more....this thread isn't a poll about which social media companies Filmwasters use (if any).