Norway's Largest Newspaper Accuses Mark Zuckerberg of Abusing Power After Facebook Deletes 'Napalm Girl' Post (theguardian.com) 273
An anonymous shares a report on The Guardian:Norway's largest newspaper has published a front-page open letter to Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg, lambasting the company's decision to censor a historic photograph of the Vietnam war and calling on Zuckerberg to recognize and live up to his role as "the world's most powerful editor." Espen Egil Hansen, the editor-in-chief and CEO of Aftenposten, accused Zuckerberg of thoughtlessly "abusing your power" over the social media site that has become a lynchpin of the distribution of news and information around the world, writing, "I am upset, disappointed -- well, in fact even afraid -- of what you are about to do to a mainstay of our democratic society. I am worried that the world's most important medium is limiting freedom instead of trying to extend it, and that this occasionally happens in an authoritarian way," he said. The controversy stems from Facebook's decision to delete a post by Norwegian writer Tom Egeland that featured The Terror of War, a Pulitzer prize-winning photograph by Nick Ut that showed children -- including the naked 9-year-old Kim Phuc -- running away from a napalm attack during the Vietnam war. Egeland's post discussed "seven photographs that changed the history of warfare" -- a group to which the "napalm girl" image certainly belongs.
"mainstay of our democratic society" (Score:5, Insightful)
If Facebook is considered a 'mainstay of democratic society' you know the news media is complete fucking disconnected from reality.
Re:"mainstay of our democratic society" (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:"mainstay of our democratic society" (Score:5, Insightful)
That reinforces my point that the news media/journalism is completely disconnected from reality.
Dissemination of facts is no longer about vetting and varifying information, it's about how many SJW's you can get to follow your posts and give you likes. There are no 'traditional safeguards' that work on the 'reddit' format. That's not how the mob fucking works.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That reinforces my point that the news media/journalism is completely disconnected from reality.
It isn't. It's divorced from its alleged mission of providing news on reality, but it seeks to create reality by providing misleading commentary, or outright lies.
Dissemination of facts is no longer about vetting and varifying information, it's about how many SJW's you can get to follow your posts and give you likes.
Acronym "SJW" used, dickhead detected.
There are no 'traditional safeguards' that work on the 'reddit' format.
There are no 'traditional safeguards' that work on the 'newspaper' (etc. etc.) format. That's now how news fucking works. At least, not in America; in this country, you can call yourself a news organization without making any attempt whatsoever to be factual [projectcensored.org], or even being willfully disingenuous. Furthermore,
Re:"mainstay of our democratic society" (Score:5, Insightful)
What's funny is you think I care if you 'detected I'm a dickhead'.
That's the FB/twitter/reddit mentality for you, downvote and discredit/suppress 'uncomfortable' ideas. Wouldn't want to trigger anybody.
That's what we're upholding as the 'mainstay of democracy' here, which is laughable at best.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If facebook was censoring other sites, that would be censorship, but they are not. The safeguards against such a thing are too numerous to mention. The worst censors right now are the copyright trolls that can use the government courts to shut down any number of sites with frivolous claims of "ownership".
Re:"mainstay of our democratic society" (Score:4, Interesting)
On the contrary; they are. Think of it this way: Facebook is essentially acting as a web host for its user's content. How is Facebook's censoring any more acceptable than if some entity like GoDaddy or Wordpress did it?
Free communication: mainstay of democratic society (Score:3)
If Facebook is considered a 'mainstay of democratic society' you know the news media is complete fucking disconnected from reality.
Free and uncensored communication is the mainstay of democratic society.
Facebook just happens to be the medium that a very large fraction of people are using to accomplish this, right at the moment.
Re:Free communication: mainstay of democratic soci (Score:4, Insightful)
Dissemination of information based upon the feelings and opinions of the users to decide what is and is not 'news' is NEVER uncensored communication.
It cannot ever BE MADE to be uncensored. It is filtered.
If you're basing what you view as 'free communication' off of what is 'trending' that's a problem, and a HUGE one. The fact that people think this is a good thing is (in only my opinion of course) a travesty.
Re: (Score:2)
Dissemination of information based upon the feelings and opinions of the users to decide what is and is not 'news' is NEVER uncensored communication. It cannot ever BE MADE to be uncensored. It is filtered. If you're basing what you view as 'free communication' off of what is 'trending' that's a problem, and a HUGE one. The fact that people think this is a good thing is (in only my opinion of course) a travesty.
Voting as metadata saying you approve or disapprove of a post is an expression of free speech, even if you don't seem to like it. Actual filtering of negatively rated posts to the point where you can't read them anymore is censorship. People post a lot of drivel, there is no right that I should spend equal time on an insightful and informative +5 comment and a -1 GNAA troll, particularly if one side is just trying to flood the discussion with copy-pasta, crazy rants, meaningless drivel or blatant propaganda
Re:"mainstay of our democratic society" (Score:4, Informative)
This needs more exposure.
Facebook is NOT a news site. It's not run by or populated by journalists.
Re:"mainstay of our democratic society" (Score:4, Insightful)
Considering how many people, people we allow to vote (for whatever ungodly reason), pretty much get most of their information from FB these days, yes, it is.
Re: (Score:3)
It's a mainstay of society, I won't doubt that.
It is not a mainstay of "democratic" society, or should not be (IMO). There are some pretty famous "propagandists" who would look at this type of distribution of information and say "really, holy shit that just made my job way easier".
Re: (Score:2)
0% of the web (Score:2)
It was worrying to hear that Zuckerberg deleted the image, but then I found out something that I think everyone else missed: He only deleted it from Facebook. So it's missing from (approximately; I'm just rounding to the nearest percentage) about 0% of the web, but there's still the other 100% where Zuckerberg didn't touch anything.
Mis-directed (Score:5, Insightful)
Much as I dislike Mark Zuckerberg, the real problem is not him, nor Facebook, but the users who have made Facebook the " lynchpin of the distribution of news and information around the world..." I realize that Facebook is how a lot of people get their news, but the responsibility for that rests on the shoulders of the dumb shits who use it that way, not on Mark Zuckerberg. While Zuckerberg has made it clear that he would like for Facebook to become everyone's entire internet experience, that can't happen without the cooperation of the people using it.
Re: (Score:2)
Only part right (Score:2)
Lay a nice helping of blame on the traditional media who have spent more time fighting the internet than adapting to it. Why aren't they, with decades of in-house experience, creating better systems than Silicon Valley?
Re: (Score:2)
While Zuckerberg has made it clear that he would like for Facebook to become everyone's entire internet experience, that can't happen without the cooperation of the people using it.
How some people (yeah, you, Norway) conflate lots of people visiting Mark's shitty little dorm-room website (all scaled up now) with something like a public water supply is beyond me.
*I* don't like it when FB removes stuff I post (mostly fine art with boobs) but it's not my website, it's theirs.
Re: (Score:2)
Much as I dislike Mark Zuckerberg, the real problem is not him, nor Facebook, but the users who have made Facebook the " lynchpin of the distribution of news and information around the world..."
Actually in this case it's pretty much a "you make your bed and now you got to lie in it" because the mainstream media in Norway has been either shutting down their comments section and forums or "outsourced" them to Facebook because of operating costs. A private, commercial company run by the cheapest labor Facebook can find - at least the image censors - and that's what you get. It's funny how they still think they're the newspaper and Facebook the printing press, but they're not.
The main problem (Score:4, Insightful)
Facebook can censor, suppress or hype any news story using "algorithms" that nobody outside of the company can inspect.
Re: (Score:2)
Media houses should avoid feeding Facebook with this kind of power.
Facebook (Score:3)
Last I checked it's a social networking site, NOT a NEWS SOURCE.
Despite the millions of users, it's a private company, not a government news source, they can censor if they want to. If it bothers enough of their users, those users will quit Facebook. ITts their site, they have no responsibility to provide an utterly open platform, nor have they ever claimed to. They take down porn, hate pages, etc.
Re: (Score:2)
Being at the mercy of someone like Zuckerberg is unacceptable, and I prefer to keep my private live *private*.
I don't need Facebook, period.
One thing certain is there are many groups that use FB to distribute activities, events, local happenings, etc. on FB. Ballroom dancing in Silicon Valley for example makes extensive use of FB. If you are into ballroom dancing, either social or competitive, you gotta be on FB or you will not be in the loop of workshops, lessons from notable instructors, competitions, parties, etc.
Re: (Score:2)
The homeless guy living under the bridge shouting at passing cars about how the aliens probed his ass is a "News Source", but would you really rely on/trust him?
Same with Facebook.
Just because people are stupid enough to think of Facebook as a news source doesn't actually make it one, it's a SOCIAL site, everything there is technically "lore" rather than "data". You don;t like what Facebook deletes, vote by leaving Facebook. That's the only real option you have unless you can afford to buy enough shares
Re: (Score:2)
People Still Use Facebook? (Score:2)
Re:So what? (Score:5, Insightful)
Categorising one of the most important images of the 20th century with child pornography is a problem. A big one.
This has repercussions to the very roots of a free and informed society.
Re:So what? (Score:4, Insightful)
I am no fan of Facebook and their communist leanings, but do people really think it's Zuckerberg sitting at his desk clicking a "nix" button on these things? It's some hipster making 15 bucks an hour reading through a word document that tells them how and what to do.
Re:So what? (Score:5, Insightful)
Then it's even more tragic that apparently hipsters today don't know that iconic picture that was probably critical to the change in the public opinion on the Vietnam war. Not knowing this means not understanding how reporting in war zones works today.
Re:So what? (Score:5, Insightful)
You're assuming they've even heard of the vietnam war.
Re:So what? (Score:5, Insightful)
the realization that you're right makes me profoundly sad...
Re:So what? (Score:4, Insightful)
Yep, our wonderful school systems in action.
It also may have to do with millennial mind thought that "I don't have to learn anything, I can always Google it..."
So, there is no learned history would have put this photo into context, at least enough for them to look into it further.
Re: (Score:2)
What? America losing a war? That's so unpossible!
Re: (Score:2)
Vietnam was a tie!!!
Re: (Score:3)
Yep, our wonderful school systems in action.
You mean like here in Texas, where the state school board requires text books to refer to African American slaves as "workers", not to mention a long list of other Republican revisionist bullshit. Yeah, just like that. I'm pretty sure that next year, the books will conclude that we lost the Vietnam War because of "hippies".
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
You're assuming they've even heard of the vietnam war.
Correct. And if they did, they probably wouldn't give a shit.
We should tell them it was the Hipster War, as in, "You probably never heard of it."
Re: (Score:2)
Don't give the mem-makers any more ideas....
Re: (Score:3)
“When I was making a World War II movie called ‘Fury,’ we did this boot camp for a week, and Logan Lerman, who was the youngest actor of the bunch — I think he was 21 — was given grunt detail. We gave him a watch and he had to keep track of how long it took us to eat and get in and out of our gear. One day he came to me and said the watch has stopped, and I said, ‘You’ve just got to wind it.’ He came back literally 15 minutes later and said, ‘Wait, how do you wind it?’"
Re: (Score:3)
You're assuming they've even heard of Vietnam.
Re: (Score:2)
Why would they? The US wasn't in that war after all, it was just a civil war in Vietnam... /s
Re: (Score:2)
You're assuming they've even heard of the vietnam war.
Well, it is clear nobody remembers World War 2, much less World War 1. Vietnam was just a small skirmish compared to those.
What a sad world we live in where some people think we should forget about all of that so we can do it all again. :(
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
+1 Interesting.
Sad that young kids don't know, or don't care to know, about the significant milestones of our history.
Someone really needs to write an article entitled:
"The 20 most important images of the 20th century and why."
Re: (Score:2)
Get 50 different people to write that article and you'll probably see 1000 different photos between all 50 articles....
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
There's a million "the 10 most (insert random bullshit) of all times" out there, on various pages and on YouTube, I refuse to believe it doesn't exist.
Re: (Score:2)
If you depend on Facebook for actual news and actual history, it's really your own fault....
Re: (Score:2)
I'd gladly think so but remember: These people vote. And thus affect you.
Re: (Score:2)
Too bad our votes don't matter. Between voting machines with no paper trail and the legalized bribery that is campaign contributions, Regular Americans don't really control much of anything. When all contributions are banned and punishable harshly, and accepting bribes punishable even more harshly, nothing will change.
Re:So what? (Score:4, Insightful)
Then it's even more tragic that apparently hipsters today don't know that iconic picture that was probably critical to the change in the public opinion on the Vietnam war. Not knowing this means not understanding how reporting in war zones works today.
I doubt that the picture made any difference in anyone's opinion for a couple of reasons.
One is that it took place in June 1972. The USA's withdrawal was nearly complete (down to around 25,000 troops from 500K).
The other is at that time everyone I knew was pretty solid on their opinions. Those who favored the USA's involvement were in an awkward position of supporting a war that the USA had plainly announced they were ending. Those who were against were having their way.
As for people who were on the fence, those tended to be looking at the rather complex Vietnam war situation from a point of view of both local and global events, and were already well aware that people suffer horrible injuries during war. Keep in mind that our (WWII and baby boomer) generation grew up on a steady stream WWII carnage and Nazi death camp pictures.
The press had already been keeping us well-supplied with pictures of dead children for some time and the alternative press showed even more graphic photos than the mainstream.
IMHO, what made the photo of Kim Phuc interesting was that she was naked and alive. There had been many pictures of naked and dead adults and children published before with the My Lai massacre of 1968 being among the most notable.
Here's another one from back then that I remember that I found far more unsettling than the Kim Phuc photo.
http://www.vets-helping-vets.c... [vets-helping-vets.com]
Re: (Score:3)
I'm well over 60. I'm speaking as what would have been a liberal small-town southerner pseudo-hippie who moved to the big city, but I mostly felt the war was necessary. I would like to pretend I was otherwise, but that's the way it was.
Much of what you say is true, but ....
However I do not believe the photo was that big a deal at the time. We already had plenty.
And it certainly had no effect on the USA's role in the war because we had already withdrawn almost all our troops when the photo was taken.
At that
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Think min-wage workers in the Philippines
https://www.wired.com/2014/10/... [wired.com]
Re: (Score:3)
I am no fan of Facebook and their communist leanings, but do people really think it's Zuckerberg sitting at his desk clicking a "nix" button on these things?
According to my Jewish friends, Zuckerberg personally nixes all pro-Israel posts and approves all anti-Israel posts.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Would that be your Jewish friends with the tinfoil yamakas by any chance?
Tinfoil Yakamas, no. Tinfoil underwear, yes.
Re: (Score:2)
According to my Jewish friends, Zuckerberg personally nixes all pro-Israel posts and approves all anti-Israel posts.
And according to the typical internet trollbag, the opposite is true, and it's a Zionist conspiracy. What kind of name is Zuckerberg anyway? etc etc
Re: (Score:2)
What kind of name is Zuckerberg anyway?
Zuckerberg Name Meaning Jewish (Ashkenazic): ornamental name composed of German Zucker 'sugar' + Berg 'mountain', 'hill'.
http://www.ancestry.com/name-origin?surname=zuckerberg [ancestry.com]
Re: (Score:2)
I shoulda put quotes around that bit, I guess.
You can find out what kind of name it is just from his WP page, albeit without the definition.
Re:So what? (Score:5, Informative)
A Facebook spokesperson has given a written statement saying that they stand by their decision to censor the image. It is not "someone working for Facebook" who has decided it, it is Facebook's decision as a company.
You would know all this if you read the article, but I do respect your strict adherence to the ban on reading the article.
Re: (Score:2)
I am no fan of Facebook and their communist leanings,
wot?
You know "communist" is a word that actually means something, not a generic insult to hurl in the direction of something you dislike. Or maybe I misunderstood and actually Zuckerberg owning the means of production is one of the core tenets of communism.
It's some hipster
Well, the important thing is that you've found someone to feel superior to. Enjoy your 2 minutes hate.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Indeed communist: Cultural hegemony [wikipedia.org] is a Communist theory to manipulate the thoughts, culture and morality of the multi cultural society in order to make the parties (in this case it's Facebook) the only accepted world view among the public.
Having one single thing in common with certain theories held by certain communists definitely does not make one a communist. That's like saying Facebook is like my mum because she, too, has an internet connection.
Besides, you are misunderstanding the concept of cultural hegemony in Marxist and post-Marxist theory. It's mainly an observation of how things in fact work in society, which you could have known by skimming the first paragraph of your link. That some theorists also recognized that it may be turned
Re: (Score:2)
I think you mean that IRONIC commercial (compare big brother to the Apple model)? I don't see how it is relevant to a severely misguided understanding of politics in general and communism in particular, a level of understanding that I'd measure close to a mental disease (absolute black and white understanding of the world + ignoring everything that shows that ones preferred model also contains parts of whatever one hates).
Until you begin understanding that nothing in this world is black or white there simpl
I must politely disagree (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
from memory, it goes a little like this:
today marks the one year anniversary of the behavioral unification directive. never before have we had such a complete uniformity of beliefs and ideals. we are one people, one will. our uniformity is more powerful than any weapon, any army...
in other words, he was preaching about the cultural hegemonies that GP was mentioning. while perhaps more fascist or socialist in its delivery, (the nature of the totlitarian regime is not elaborated on, but the wording of the spe
Re: (Score:2)
That's a version of totalitarianism which isn't limited to communism.
fickle press does not equal free press (Score:5, Interesting)
Categorising one of the most important images of the 20th century with child pornography is a problem. A big one.
This has repercussions to the very roots of a free and informed society.
Welcome to the world. Our press has become ever more tightly concentrated over the past hundred years and highly censored during every war, including the world war we are in right now. Oh did you not notice we have troops fighting wars in at least 5 different countries right now? During the Bush years the press was all too eager to support going to war and then oppose the war, then hide the war for the last 7 years once it was supposedly over. We have a fickle press, but not a free one.
Sure the Internet was great for a while, but those looking to control society have learned how to manipulate it to a great extent. And now we are back to having very centralized control of the press.
Re: (Score:2)
The press is free to write whatever it wants. It just shouldn't be surprised to not be invited to the interesting parties that people want to read about if they don't write what the host wants to hear.
So the press writes what it should, we get great pictures of heroic bombings of terrorists with cluster bombs that miraculously avoid any civil casualties (those only happen whenever those evil enemies attack, oddly they do so with minute precision whenever we dumped our terrorist-homing cluster bombs), and ev
Re: (Score:3)
No it isn't. Even Italy has declared that certain things are off limits when they involve children.
You could turn this around and say "Internet lech complains that picture of naked little girl taken off of Facebook."
This is about decorum and not ideology. So the the cries of censorship are a little less meaningful. Facebook censors for content on a regular basis and gets a free pass for it. If you want to whine about something, whine about that.
How do you decide on rules [Re:So what?] (Score:4, Insightful)
No it isn't. Even Italy has declared that certain things are off limits when they involve children.
Exactly. This is the problem when you have inflexible rules: a rule "no naked pictures of 9-year-old girls" sure sounds like a completely uncontroversial rule, one for which it's even reasonable to say "this rule has no exceptions; we just can't allow that kind of naked pictures on our site."
The difficulty is that the opposite, approach, which is to allow human judgement to make exceptions to the rules, is just as bad, and just as subject to abuse.
It's a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation for them. Making exceptions to rules on naked pictures of children is just as likely to give problems.
Re:How do you decide on rules [Re:So what?] (Score:5, Insightful)
> The difficulty is that the opposite,
You're begging the question.
For the majority of people there is NO problem because we're smart enough to understand the _context_. Anyone who is offended over the nude picture of a 9 year old in this context is immature. Why should the rest of the world kowtow to their insecurity??
Only a complete idiot would think there is something that magically happens between a picture of a nude girl before she is a legal adult vs the same picture when she is legal.
The problem isn't the age. It is the insecurity / immature of people, and mis-use of the picture.
Censorship isn't the solution, it is precisely the problem.
Move along, (almost) nothing to see.
--
Only Cowards Censor.
Re:So what? (Score:5, Insightful)
This picture we're talking about is a piece of history. That picture shaped what people felt about a war and it had a huge impact on the war itself, how it was waged and how it was seen.
Are you one of those rednecks that consider Michelangelo's David porn 'cause it's "just a stone guy with his wang out"?
Re: (Score:2)
By that logic, no art is allowed. Ever. I bet there's Mona Lisa porn, and I dare not enter that search string into Google.
Re: (Score:3)
This is about decorum and not ideology.
Ahhh, "decorum", another "go-to" excuse for censoring things that might be controversial or make someone feel bad, ashamed, or uneasy.
There's a place for decorum and then there are times it must be ignored in favor of the truth.
Re: (Score:2)
Categorising one of the most important images of the 20th century with child pornography is a problem. A big one.
Except it is not pornography. Pornography is defined as printed or visual material containing the explicit description or display of sexual organs or activity intended to stimulate sexual excitement.
Now if somebody really believes a photo of napalm victims is intended to stimulate sexual excitement, then I agree this person might have some big problems indeed.
Re:So what? (Score:5, Insightful)
You know, you post constantly, and I kind of want to put together a collection of your finest moments which makes me sure you're about 13 years old, but yes, Facebook is allowed to choose what they want to show the public, and everybody else is allowed to call them out on what they choose to do. Do you understand that's how freedom works? Yes, you're free to do what you want, and I'm free to criticize you for it. And if Facebook chooses to act this way, and enough people voice their criticism, they can either change their ways, or risk losing a customer base.
Is what I'm talking about too complicated for you? And I'm speaking down to you, because I do think it would be worth your time to go back and re-read most of your posts and see how they make you come across as a very immature individual.
Simple rules (Score:2)
Is what I'm talking about too complicated for you?
No, the opposite: you're too simple for me.
Your point is basically that censorship is bad when it's done by a government, but anybody else can do it, no problem. The real world is somewhat more complicated. If one particular channel for information is the dominant channel for information exchange, yes, it does matter if they are picking and choosing what opinions they allow to be communicated over their channel.
You may like to shout "freedom, freedom, corporations need to have freedom!" all you like, but
All Freedoms Matter [Re:Simple rules] (Score:2)
the belief "it doesn't matter when they restrict our freedoms because we only care about it when the government restricts freedoms" is a poor argument.
So, to coin a phrase: "All freedoms matter."
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
If you want to shock children about the Vietnam war, there are plenty of other photos to choose from. The summary execution of the Viet Cong partisan is a very good example.
The more I think about this particular picture the more I view that picture as being less about Vietnam than it is our "think of the children" bias that tends to short circuit any sense or reason. That goes for the picture itself as well as the objections too it. The Vietnam angle is really far less relevant.
Re:Most Likely... (Score:5, Informative)
If you want to shock children about the Vietnam war, there are plenty of other photos to choose from. The summary execution of the Viet Cong partisan is a very good example.
Out of curiosity, why do you find that picture shocking? It was a very common occurrence that is authorized by the Geneva convention and the rules of war. He wasn't even a partisan, he was an NVA officer captured in civilian clothes near a mass grave and who admitted to carrying out the killings. Did you know the photographer that took the picture even regretted how the image was twisted into an anti-war icon because the photo didn't convey the circumstances surrounding the execution.
Personally, as someone with a history degree, and who as a child reread multiple times a (I believe Time) book set on Vietnam in their elementary school library, I found the image of the protesting monk burning himself to death to be much more shocking and powerful than the execution photo.
Re: (Score:2)
If you want to shock children about the Vietnam war, there are plenty of other photos to choose from. The summary execution of the Viet Cong partisan is a very good example.
Out of curiosity, why do you find that picture shocking? It was a very common occurrence that is authorized by the Geneva convention and the rules of war.
No it isn't.
The Geneva convension is rather big on the rights of prisoners of war, you could in fact say it is the largest part of it, because it is. I am amazed you could get yourself to even believe that.
Re:Most Likely... (Score:5, Insightful)
If you want to shock children about the Vietnam war, there are plenty of other photos to choose from. The summary execution of the Viet Cong partisan is a very good example.
Out of curiosity, why do you find that picture shocking? It was a very common occurrence that is authorized by the Geneva convention and the rules of war.
No it isn't.
The Geneva convension is rather big on the rights of prisoners of war, you could in fact say it is the largest part of it, because it is. I am amazed you could get yourself to even believe that.
Commissioned officers captured in civilian clothing are considered spies and unlawful combatants and therefore not entitled to prisoner of war status. As an unlawful combatant as defined by the Geneva convention, they are eligible for but not guaranteed the rights and protections of a POW. If the status of the combatant is in doubt a "competent tribunal" is required to determine the status, but as the prisoner had already confessed to the act, been found in proximity to evidence of the act (the mass grave), and there were witnesses to the act his status was not in doubt and therefore a trial was not necessary. And summary executions of spies (during open conflict) and other unlawful combatants has been accepted practice for centuries.
Re: (Score:2)
saw a picture of a naked girl and thought, "Child Porn!!!
So, no concept of context then?
Re: (Score:2)
The history US schools do teach, is also biased to seem patriotic to the point of straight wrong.
The history book I had in the early 1980's ended just before Watergate and President Nixon's resignation. The instructors made no attempt to explain what happened since then. I had to go to college to learn about the history they don't teach in public schools.
Re: (Score:2)
Forget about voting for the senile old bastard. What about going out and doing something. They want a free unicorn pony and whine about the state of the world but do squat about it. If they really want a European lifestyle, they could reduce their amount of living space and give most of their income to the charity of their choice.
THAT would make an immediate impact and would not require the intervention of the government, or leader, or savior. It would (oddly enough) be closer to the communist ideal too.
Re: (Score:3)
It's "losers" not "lusers". Internet dictionaries are free.
You mean, like the Hacker's Dictionary? "Luser" is in there. [outpost9.com] Even with that spelling.
"Luser" is ancient late-70s/early 80s computer jargon, an insulting word for the computer users, a portmanteau [adelaide.edu.au] of loser and user. (Not acknowledged in the jargon files, but it originally stems from an anti-drug ad from the late '70s that got played ad nauseum as a public-service announcement on the radio, with the refrain "users are losers and losers are users.")
Re: (Score:2)
I thought the PSA was "Only losers use drugs" which was quickly corrupted to "Only users lose drugs"
Re: (Score:3)
We must accept that it's time for Western Civilization to take a back seat.
Make us. Before you try, remember that we still have biggest sticks.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Demonstrably untrue. Else I'd be getting deliriously drunk at your funeral.
Re: (Score:2)
Facebook isn't a news source, it's social media.
Facebook isn't a news source, it's a communications medium.
Censorship by Facebook is censoring communications. As long as Facebook isn't the only, or the dominant, communications medium, their censorship is irrelevant. To the extent that they are the dominant communciations medium, however, censorship by Facebook is simply: censorship.
In this case, I'll still go with the conclusion that Facebook is not, yet, dominant. So I'm not particularly concerned. Yet.
But, it doesn't matter who is restricting y
Undesirable, possibly-- but not illegal (Score:2)
I will agree, restrictions are restrictions... and I find them icky. However, my point was that there's nothing illegal about it.
I don't recall anybody suggesting that it was illegal. Undesirable, possibly-- but not illegal.
Re:Facebook is now part of the government? (Score:5, Insightful)
Facebook is a private company. Facebook can "censor" whatever they want. There is no free speech issue.
Of course there is a free speech issue. Speech is being censored.
I agree there is no law being broken, and no legal challenge to bring against facebook. It's their site and their rules.
However, perhaps it should be illegal. Perhaps if a 'social media' site reaches a certain critical mass then it should assume some additional responsibilities to protect free speech. If lots of people are using facebook as their primary means of communication, then private entity or not, common carrier or not, it starts to matter.
Your 'its a private company' argument is simplistic at best. What happens to society if enough of the world is privatized? Does that mean we should just lay down and accept censorship.
Imagine a world where the phone company and the postal service have died out, replaced solely by private couriers, and social media companies. Are you willing to completely cede the ability to have a political discussion with anyone outside the room simply because socialmedia company won't let you post, courier company won't carry your letters.
If HP, Xerox, and Brother etc start producing smart printers that won't print 'offensive' content. Will you defend them as private companies and if you don't like it don't buy the printers!? Will you point out, that you can still use a paper and pencil so everything is fine.
That's just silly. You sit there in your little box claiming that since the law isn't being broken everything is fine. But everything is not fine, the world is changing, norms of communication are changing... the law needs to change with it.
Essentially... if we agree that facebook has become an important 'space' for society to discuss news, share opinions, and generally communicate with eachother -- then it stands to reason that we should protect freedom of speech on that hub, whether it is a private company or not, for the good of the society.
Just as a dictionary does not define words, but instead reflects how they are used; so it is with the law. The law does not DEFINE what is right and wrong -- it is written to serve the needs of society. And in the 21st century, it is arguable that society needs freedom of speech legal protections baked into their use of major social media sites.
There is no journalistic duty to do anything... Facebook isn't a news source, it's social media.
"Facebook News Feed - Welcome To The Stories That Matter
The objective of News Feed is to show you the stories that matter the most to you, every time. "
newsfeed.fb.com
Why can't it be *both* ? It's certainly trying very hard to get you use facebook as news source. So why exactly shouldn't it be considered one?
Re: (Score:3)
No, it isn't. You have no "right" to post on Facebook. You speech isn't being censored, you're free to post it elsewhere..
You are arguing for what IS. Not necessarily what should be.
When the telephone was invented it too was established as private businesses. It wasn't a utility. It wasn't a common carrier. The FCC didn't even exist.
If Mr. Bell and whoever else owned the exchanges wanted to listen to your calls, or censor them, and they could have figured out how to record the calls, or censor them... they could have done so legally. It wasn't the government listening it. It wouldn't be the government censoring the calls. Inde
Re: (Score:2)
Hell, in Afghanistan the USA bombed a regiment of Canadians.
You sure that was an accident?