By Tom Egeland
(Author and social commentator Tom Egeland published just after 12 o’clock Tuesday this post on his Facebook profile, having been banned from the community for 24 hours).
First: This is not about me – and not at all about a 24 hour ban which I (and Facebook) fine can live with. But it’s about some principles that I think are worth reflecting upon.
The image of nine year old Kim Phuc fleeing crying and naked from the napalm bombs, acting in my eyes not about nudity. To tell the truth was not “nudity” in my thoughts when I first shared image. She is naked because the clothes and her skin had been on fire. The design is about the horrors of war – and is an example of an iconic press photography that definitely changed the American public’s attitude toward the Vietnam War, and that perhaps contributed to the United States withdrew the following year. Who knows …
This whole story started when I published eight such historical press photos with a reflection about press photography influence. Facebook deleted the picture of Kim Phuc – and the accompanying text – with reference to the rules on nudity.
A few days later I published as a link to the Daily newspaper interview with Kim Phuc (now 53), who criticized Facebook for this censorship and wholeheartedly supported the publication of the picture. When links to newspaper articles, follow the main image with illustrative. Thus, this case also deleted from my profile. Not only the image but the entire article with criticism of Facebook and all. And although I got slap on Lanka and 24 hour house arrest.
Read also: The girl in the picture corresponds Facebook: – This is not about nudity
English version: The girl in the picture saddened by Facebook’s focus on nudity
Why is this problematic?
More and more domestic news media are now using Facebook as a platform for sharing news and not least commentary and debate. Thus Mark Zuckerberg an editor who may delete all the news where the text or images violate the regulations. How they have deleted Daily newspaper article criticizing Facebook.
Censorship? Decent enforcement of its laws? This time applies a photo. What next? Where the threshold of infringing text? Criticism of the United States? Of US President? Of religion?
Shall we leave it to the powerful (and puritanical) American giants like Facebook, Google, Apple, Microsoft and Amazon to define and manage our framework for freedom of expression and public debate? Or should we make demands on them – when they invite us in and ask us use them in our daily life?
Those who support Facebook in this matter, have largely argued for the following lines:
1) Facebook has rules. Follow them!
2) Facebook is a private company and decide what they allow.
3) You accepted the terms of use when creating you a Facebook profile.
4) Facebook is a global forum and must have equal rules for all users.
5) Facebook has so many users that it is impossible for them to consider one frame. There are algorithms, not people, that automatically erases everything that is contrary to the rules.
6) The image is so bad and sad that it did not belong to Facebook, you find either another website if you absolutely have to publish so gruesome images.
7) It violates the girl’s dignity to render the image.
8) It becomes impossible and too expensive for Facebook to monitor the 1.6 billion users.
9) you can not just complain to Facebook?
10) Why not delete Facebook your profile if you are so unhappy?
Here are my answers:
1) ABOUT RULES: The enforcement of rules must be criticized and discussed. Unlike the Ten Commandments, are not rules written in stone for eternity. I totally agree that pornography and speculative nudity has nothing on Facebook to do. The rules, among others .: “We remove images of people showing genitals or that focus on completely bare butts. We also restrict some photos of woman breast if they show nipple. ” Eh – and it could have been printed: “We also removes non-sexualized images of war victims if they are naked.” It is not RULE I criticize, but Facebook’s exercise of discretion when they define this specific image as “offensive nudity ‘. There really is Kim Phuc nudity offensive!
2) Privately Held: Facebook has jurisprudence on its side. Yes, they decide. But it must be allowed to criticize them for it. Or should we accept all private owned companies do – because they are privately owned?
3) OPERATING CONDITIONS: The two preceding my answers still apply. I do not disagree rule, I disagree with the enforcement and assessment. Secondly: How carefully carefully reads you the thousand words long legal misgivings as Apple, Facebook, Microsoft and other forces you to accept to download an app or program? Considering all future eventualities at every formulation?
4) GLOBAL GOVERNANCE: Facebook writes in its legislation: “We restrict the display of nudity because some groups in our global society is particularly sensitive to this type of content – especially because of their cultural background or age. “Honestly! This means that “particularly sensitive” people in regimes like Saudi Arabia, Yemen and Uzbekistan will set the standard also for Anglo American and European public debate. It is okay? What happens then if North Korea drops to Facebook? Obviously, Facebook – if they want – create regional rules and practices. Facebook will define the world – and the world is happy and harmonious, and all famously agree on everything. But is there really an acceptable common denominator of cultural norms in Norway and Pakistan – defined by Facebook? Do not believe it.
5) algorithm VS Editor: 99 of 100 pictures on Facebook is unproblematic. It is the final image that actually need to be considered. Not an algorithm and not by an underpaid ‘monitors’ in a sort of call-center in Ireland, but by a reflective editor who can weigh Facebooks rules against entirely different considerations. Such webmaster will not today. Facebook says that there are people who consider and plains, not automatic algorithms. I hardly know what I think is bad.
6) SAVE US FOR grisly PICTURES: There are plenty of kittens have on Facebook. As an arena for public debate, we must also highlight sad and controversial topics. Facebook has largely taken over as the venue for public debate.
7) Girls Human Dignity: Kim Phuc (53) has repeatedly supported the use of the image. I would willingly interviewed standing in Dagsavisen – but I copy the link, so also comes with the picture, and then I probably banned for good. But go to Dagsavisen, search & lt; Kim Phuc & gt ;, then find the article a bit down on the page.
8) TOO EXPENSIVE FOR FACEBOOK: Hello! Facebook had a turnover of almost 150 billion in 2016. 150 billion! They can afford to hire regional or national Central – if they want. Yes, they can afford almost anything. If they will. They monitor us the already – and deletes they come across that is against the rules.
9) COMPLAINT: Who should I complain to? Facebook has no editors ultimately, nothing “Client Centers”. Both when the first image was deleted, and the last link was deleted, I sent a complaint via the automated form that pops up. Did I get an answer? No. Has anyone read and considered my appeal? I have no idea.
10) CLEAR UP: Jo. It is very tempting to delete my account. Yet I have a huge and for me important network here on Facebook. Colleagues, readers, friends. I like to follow the debates and see what people are concerned about. I learn a lot – too good arguments that do not match my own. I think I’m allowed to criticize Facebook even though I’m upset about certain aspects of their practices and expresses it. But yes, I seriously considering leaving Facebook if they do not show signs of learning from this debate.
Please share – whether you agree or disagree with me.
No comments:
Post a Comment