The Napalm Girl Photo

Published by

Clarissa

September 10, 2016

In the conflict over the Napalm Girl Photo, I’m on the side of Facebook (‘s original decision.) I’m sick and tired of seeing the poor naked, traumatized girl whose name everybody is too bored to learn get exploited to make some dumb point. War is bad! Here is a photo that proves it! Oh really? We had no idea whatsoever before you pointed it out.

And since I’m at it, I’m equally annoyed with the habit of sticking Holocaust photos into posts on Putin’s badness. Yes, he’s bad but he didn’t organize the Holocaust. Stop milking historical tragedies that have nothing to do with you.

Rate this:

11 responses to “The Napalm Girl Photo”

Shakti

September 10, 2016

Phan Thị Kim Phúcis currently a Canadian citizen who is receiving laser treatment in Miami for her burn scars. She never asked to be a symbol.

LikeLike

Reply
1. Clarissa
  
  September 10, 2016
  
  Exactly. I hate it when people from rich, comfortable societies revel in the depictions of misery they know they will never experience.
  
  LikeLike
  
  Reply
Steve

September 10, 2016

A friend posted a link to an article about the stuff that Facebook chooses to show you or not to show you. Facebook told him he was blocked from posting because it “promoted sexual violence”.

That’s a new slant on America’s wars, perhaps one that’s worth investigating.

LikeLike

Reply
1. Clarissa
  
  September 10, 2016
  
  What people don’t seem to understand is that Facebook is proprietary. It’s not a common good or a shared space. It has a specific owner who has his own politics, tastes, preferences and is 100% justified in banning anything his left foot happens not to like. Just like I’m entitled to ban absolutely anything from my blog for absolutely any reason.
  
  It’s unfortunate that so many people made Facebook their one and only platform. I don’t understand this choice. But now they have to live with it.
  
  LikeLike
  
  Reply
Vic Crain

September 10, 2016

There are several issues here:

(1) Treating FB as an authoritative information source is inane. There’s no effort to validate anything published on FB, no fact checking. In fact, the counts FB publishes of subscribers includes dead people. Really. So they are not a place I would go to look for information of any kind.

(2) All news media in the US are private in the same way that Facebook is. That makes it very difficult to differentiate the “journalistic” responsibilities of a Fox or CNN or The New York Times from Facebook or Yahoo. Anyone who reports news is by definition a journalist.

(3) Facebook has tried to differentiate itself as a neutral carrier of information, eliminating responsibility for content. Basically, that’s a “I’ll have my cake and eat it too” argument in that it wants to be a utility without the regulation and oversight to which public utilities in the US are subject (e.g., phone companies). That’s an argument that can only play in the US, as the EU courts have already denied that argument when Google made it a couple of years ago. I expect disciplinary action against Facebook in the EU much as there is pending action now against Google.

What about the photograph? This one is in the category of historical objects, as it contributed to the sea change in public opinion in the US toward the Vietnam War. Why it is relevant now is beyond me, but the attempt to censor it ranks with the attempt to put a fig leaf over the male parts of Michelangelo’s “David”. Yes, someone back in the day did push for that.

LikeLike

Reply
1. Clarissa
  
  September 10, 2016
  
  “Why it is relevant now is beyond me, but the attempt to censor it ranks with the attempt to put a fig leaf over the male parts of Michelangelo’s “David”.”
  
  The word “censor” doesn’t really work here. If you, for instance, don’t want to hear from me, that’s not censorship. If Zuckerberg doesn’t want to hear from either of us, that’s not censorship either. However, if a government or any political entity forces Zuckerberg to post / not post the photograph or anything else, well, that is censorship.
  
  “Anyone who reports news is by definition a journalist.”
  
  Zuckerberg is definitely not a journalist even according to the loosest criteria we can think of.
  
  LikeLike
  
  Reply
Stringer Bell

September 10, 2016

“The word “censor” doesn’t really work here.”

Maybe not here. But Vic’s larger point remains. Given all media organizations are private corporations, can any newspaper/tv channel be accused of censorship? Or is censorship a term that can only be applied to the actions of the state?

LikeLike

Reply
1. Clarissa
  
  September 10, 2016
  
  It could have been justified before the Internet. But today, when anybody can publish anything they want both online and in paper with great ease, it makes no sense to speak of “censorship by Facebook.” If Facebook doesn’t want your contribution, there is a million other spaces. Big media organizations no longer have a monopoly on public expression. And that’s a good thing.
  
  LikeLike
  
  Reply
Evelina Anville

September 10, 2016

I’m kind of with fb here myself. I use fb purely for light relaxation: it’s where my family, close friends and I exchange photos and little anecdotes about our lives. Occasionally, I’ll click on a news that someone posts (some of my friends will occasionally post news stories about higher ed specifically) and sometimes I’ll appreciate a cute animal picture. And occasionally, I’ll play a fun little game like Scrabble.

But that’s about it. FB is leisure for me. I don’t need to be assaulted by pictures of young girls being tortured–especially since it’s something that I’ve seen before and know exists. It’s not like someone on fb “broke” a covert story and Zuckerberg squashed it. This photo is common knowledge.

I think fb is just trying to make sure that fb remains, at basis, a pleasant and uncontroversial experience for users. It’s why they won’t introduce “thumbs down” signs either. I think people mistake what fb is meant to be.

LikeLike

Reply
1. Clarissa
  
  September 10, 2016
  
  I agree. I also see Facebook in the same way. It’s too weird that some people use it as a news source.
  
  LikeLike
  
  Reply
Shakti

September 10, 2016

Facebook is what AOL wanted to be. Facebook is like the Walmart of the internet, if some people shopped at Walmart because of the user density. It’s not so much user density as eyeballs on content that concerns people. Since Facebook wants you to share as much of your life and thoughts as possible on their platform, they backed down. To take the position of not publishing a famous photo on their platform puts people in the frame of sharing their thoughts elsewhere and they judged it would turn off people they want to data mine

LikeLike

Reply