Norway and Facebook clash over news censorship [Updated:FB backs down]

[Prysin]

1 minute ago, dalekphalm said:

Welp.

 

I can honestly say with 100% certainty, that I NEVER want to be hit with Napalm.

images like this makes people understand WHY these things are banned.

[dalekphalm]

Just now, Prysin said:

images like this makes people understand WHY these things are banned.

I mean... that image of the womans back should not be banned anywhere. That's not offensive or unsuitable for anyone but young children.

 

It just looks awful and painful - I bet many of her nerves were destroyed. She may not even have sensation in her back at all (Note: I'm not a doctor - speculation only).

[suicidalfranco]

15 minutes ago, Prysin said:

@Sakkura

from the "Facebook gives in article" in Norway

 

http://www.vg.no/nyheter/utenriks/vietnam/40-aar-siden-det-ikoniske-bildet-av-napalm-jenta/a/10054142/

 

incase anyone wonder how the naked girl looks today, 40 years after being hit by napalm bombs

  Hide contents

 

could have been worst... she could have been one of the survivors of hiroshima or  nagasaki 

[suicidalfranco]

14 minutes ago, Prysin said:

images like this makes people understand WHY these things are banned.

Why? 

[Bensemus]

6 minutes ago, suicidalfranco said:

Why? 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Napalm

 

Check out the "Effects on people" part.

 

Apparently the US only agreed to the treaty in 2009 when Obama took office.

[Trixanity]

17 minutes ago, dalekphalm said:

I mean... that image of the womans back should not be banned anywhere. That's not offensive or unsuitable for anyone but young children.

 

It just looks awful and painful - I bet many of her nerves were destroyed. She may not even have sensation in her back at all (Note: I'm not a doctor - speculation only).

 

1 minute ago, suicidalfranco said:

Why? 

 

I think he means why napalm is banned (which I'm sure it is). Considering what napalm can do when it touches the skin, I'd almost say she was lucky that's it's only that bad. From what I understand it hit her clothes first and burned through a bit which is why she stripped. If she was hit directly on the torso, I think she'd be dead.

[suicidalfranco]

7 minutes ago, Bensemus said:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Napalm

 

Check out the "Effects on people" part.

 

Apparently the US only agreed to the treaty in 2009 when Obama took office.

 

6 minutes ago, Trixanity said:

 

 

I think he means why napalm is banned (which I'm sure it is). Considering what napalm can do when it touches the skin, I'd almost say she was lucky that's it's only that bad. From what I understand it hit her clothes first and burned through a bit which is why she stripped. If she was hit directly on the torso, I think she'd be dead.

yeah, thought that he meant that that picture should be banned 

[Prysin]

28 minutes ago, dalekphalm said:

I mean... that image of the womans back should not be banned anywhere. That's not offensive or unsuitable for anyone but young children.

 

It just looks awful and painful - I bet many of her nerves were destroyed. She may not even have sensation in her back at all (Note: I'm not a doctor - speculation only).

i think you grossly misunderstood me.

 

Images like the one i posted is what makes people understand while things like NAPALM is BANNED. (yes it is. The use of napalm against civillians or even military targets is a war crime these days)

[dalekphalm]

16 minutes ago, suicidalfranco said:

could have been worst... she could have been one of the survivors of hiroshima or  nagasaki 

Oh my god, that picture almost made me gag lol - that's awful

9 minutes ago, Trixanity said:

 

 

I think he means why napalm is banned (which I'm sure it is). Considering what napalm can do when it touches the skin, I'd almost say she was lucky that's it's only that bad. From what I understand it hit her clothes first and burned through a bit which is why she stripped. If she was hit directly on the torso, I think she'd be dead.

Ohhhh - I agree with @suicidalfranco - I thought he was talking about the image being banned too.
 

2 minutes ago, suicidalfranco said:

 

yeah, thought that he meant that that picture should be banned 

 

1 minute ago, Prysin said:

i think you grossly misunderstood me.

 

Images like the one i posted is what makes people understand while things like NAPALM is BANNED. (yes it is. The use of napalm against civillians or even military targets is a war crime these days)

I understand now - I thought you meant the image, not Napalm itself. I agree - Napalm is nasty and should only ever be used in very controlled circumstances, and definitely not against people.

[Prysin]

15 minutes ago, Trixanity said:

 

 

I think he means why napalm is banned (which I'm sure it is). Considering what napalm can do when it touches the skin, I'd almost say she was lucky that's it's only that bad. From what I understand it hit her clothes first and burned through a bit which is why she stripped. If she was hit directly on the torso, I think she'd be dead.

yes she would be dead if it hit her head on.

Reason one is because the substance itself creates its own fuel and can draw oxygen from even water, thus it cannot be put out by any conventional means. The only mean to put out napalm is to cool it so fast it cannot sustain ignition. However due to the intense heat it creates, you would risk drowning the victim or further damage them if you used a fire-hose, as the water pressure would peel the skin right off.

Jumping into a lake will not work, as napalms heat will simply split water molecules and keep using the oxygen in water to sustain the burning until there is not enough fuel left to sustain the heat needed to split said molecules.

 

Napalm also has a glue like effect, it sticks to whatever it hits, and burns until the fuel runs out.

 

Reason two is due to the body shutting down from the sheer trauma.

 

also, it is based off of NAFTA, which is highly toxic and can cause severe solvent damage (same kinda damage you can get from breathing in the gasses from petrol)

[suicidalfranco]

16 minutes ago, dalekphalm said:

Oh my god, that picture almost made me gag lol - that's awful

sad thing is that's not the worst survivor condition 

[dalekphalm]

1 minute ago, suicidalfranco said:

sad thing is that's not the worst survivor condition 

Oh I believe that - Nuclear weapons are powerful and terrible things. And that was only a first gen super basic bomb.

[Trixanity]

20th century warfare was very inhumane and very experimental. The epitome of human degeneracy.

[suicidalfranco]

1 minute ago, Trixanity said:

20th century warfare was very inhumane and very experimental. The epitome of human degeneracy.

and 19th century war was the loony one 

[Trixanity]

Just now, suicidalfranco said:

and 19th century war was the loony one 

In what sense? 

[suicidalfranco]

Just now, Trixanity said:

In what sense? 

WW1 being the one were all nation were just trying to bring the bigger weapon, developing the funniest tanks history will ever give us and WW2 has his own set of crazy ideas, from pigeon guided bombs to incendiary bats and balloon bombs

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bat_bomb

 

[Trixanity]

10 minutes ago, suicidalfranco said:

snip

Bro, we're in the 21st century. WW1 and WW2 was in the 20th century. 

 

I know, I hate the naming scheme as well. I always have to spend an extra second to make sure I use the correct number when saying the century.

[That Norwegian Guy]

4 hours ago, Trixanity said:

Bro, we're in the 21st century. WW1 and WW2 was in the 20th century. 

 

I know, I hate the naming scheme as well.

It's not hard, if you keep in mind that the 1st century is year 0-99

[dalekphalm]

2 minutes ago, That Norwegian Guy said:

It's not hard, if you keep in mind that the 1st century is year 0-99

Yeah I personally don't have any issue remembering which century was the 19th, 20th, and 21st. I didn't realize that was a thing.

[Trixanity]

5 minutes ago, That Norwegian Guy said:

It's not hard, if you keep in mind that the 1st century is year 0-99

Not saying it's hard. It isn't. It's just a minor nuisance because I always think of the year and not the century, so it's a small matter of thinking "1600s... 15th century". It's easy to say it wrong when you're occupied or when you're discussing something and going back and forth between year and century. Many people mix them up. Of course there is a difference between using the wrong one by mixing them up and simply not knowing...

[dalekphalm]

1 minute ago, Trixanity said:

Not saying it's hard. It isn't. It's just a minor nuisance because I always think of the year and not the century, so it's a small matter of thinking "1600s... 15th century". It's easy to say it wrong when you're occupied or when you're discussing something and going back and forth between year and century. Many people mix them up. Of course there is a difference between using the wrong one by mixing them up and simply not knowing...

*cough*

 

1600's was 17th Century...

[dalekphalm]

8 minutes ago, huilun02 said:

Interested to know why FB had to remove that image. I'm pretty sure they are smart enough to know its to convey an important message instead of some random nudity or to turn people off. 

That was the problem. There was no "they" - they use an algorithm that constantly scans content and identifies, for example, a naked child - which it compares against it's database of things that are prohibited, and it takes it down.

 

All without a human ever knowing, unless someone at Facebook decides to go back and check.

 

The algorithm cannot tell the difference between a historically significant image, and just a picture of a naked kid.

[dalekphalm]

43 minutes ago, huilun02 said:

The algorithm must also be why FB refuses to reinstate the image even after the matter blowing up and known to every human FB employee. 

Well they've since backed off and have reinstated the image. But only after the shitshow of negative PR. They can manually add exceptions that the algorithm will ignore when scanning. They just chose not to until the last minute, since these manual exceptions require human intervention - which they are trying to save costs on.

[Dabombinable]

9 hours ago, suicidalfranco said:

WW1 being the one were all nation were just trying to bring the bigger weapon, developing the funniest tanks history will ever give us and WW2 has his own set of crazy ideas, from pigeon guided bombs to incendiary bats and balloon bombs

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bat_bomb

 

The bat bomb would have caused havoc BTW if it had been put into use-tests caused a lot of damage.

[Mira Yurizaki]

The only issue I have with this is if you are certain an algorithm triggered this and was responsible for the takedown, rather than have a human at least verify it (though that would defeat the purpose of automating your content filter anyway), you shouldn't bring up a huge world wide stink about it like this. It's an algorithm. It's a computer program. You expect an algorithm to understand subtle contexts and cues? I mean, it would be nice if computers were infallible and perfect and... oh wait, they are, it's just their human programmers aren't.

 

This isn't censorship if it's a misunderstanding.