From a millennial, to someone who doesn’t quite get social media.
Dear Espen Egil Hansen,
When Facebook suspended Tom Egeland’s account for repeatedly posting the ‘Napalm girl’ image ― an iconic photo from the Vietnam war featuring a naked nine-year-old girl fleeing a Napalm strike while the flammable liquid melts her skin ― I followed with quiet interest the ensuing online buzz. I followed with greater interest your open letter to Mark Zuckerberg, and the decision of the Norwegian Prime Minister (among others) to repost the same image.
In your letter, you refer to Mark Zuckerberg as “the world’s most powerful editor,” a title he has repeatedly rejected. Now that Facebook has decided to allow the iconic photo, you might be tempted to view this as a sign that the tech giant is embracing its role as pseudo-media company.
This is a cautionary letter: I believe that you, and indeed much of the print industry, have misunderstood the essential nature of social media corporations.
Your letter describes Facebook as “a mainstay of our democratic society”. Your pleasant imagery betrays a misunderstanding of what Factbook is, and more specifically what it is not. Facebook is not, nor has it ever claimed to be, a sanctuary for the free press ― crucially, it is under no obligation to be one. Facebook is not a forum for free speech ― it is a privately owned enterprise that occasionally chooses to allow it.
Though Facebook, Twitter, and a handful of other social media services have played often pivotal roles in the promotion of democracy and the propagation of free information, doing so has always been to their advantage. The use of Facebook during the 2011 Egyptian revolution increased web traffic through the the site, and Twitter’s decision to reschedule maintenance work so that Iranians might continue to tweet about the 2009 election did much the same.
For anyone doubting their essential nature, it’s sufficient to observe that collectively Facebook and Twitter are components of the NYSE, the NASDAQ-100, and the S&P 500.
This should not be taken as an indication that they are as some would claim “evil,” or actively hindering the free press ― as you suggested. Rather, it should be recognized as private for-profit corporations their actions will understandably be driven by their interests. Occasionally these actions will be altruistic, but altruism should not be expected of them.
As large companies, social media enterprises are to some degree bound by social corporate responsibility (a horrible word, I know). To a certain extent, this includes a responsibility towards the free press. Social media should not be idealized, as many do, as medium in which to the free press may move without resistance.
To add some context to Tom Egeland’s ‘Napalm girl’ post, the image was removed in accordance with Facebook’s policy of censoring “fully nude genitalia or buttocks”. Given the photo featured a legal minor, the censorship seems all the more appropriate. Your letter lambasts Facebook for “[creating] rules that don’t distinguish between child pornography and famous war photographs”. The algorithms governing nudity are understandably harsh because, for a company marketing itself as socially conscientious, the risks of allowing the circulation of an image which might be child pornography are simply too large.
You end your letter by asking for “geographically differentiated guidelines” and “[distinctions] between editors and other Facebook-users”. It is likely these changes will occur, but only because they are advantageous to Facebook, and not out of any deference for the free press.
The correspondences you ask for will continue to occur in the form of pre-established guidelines and machine learned algorithms ― this, if anything, is the crux of my letter.
From changes in social norms to the transition to digital media, the print industry has an established history of being slow to adjust. The fact that in 24 hours you were unable to reply to Facebook’s email, while its algorithms removed the ‘Napalm girl’ photo almost immediately, proves that this is still the case.
If Aftenposten wants to continue being a relevant source of free and independent information, it is crucial that you recognize the essential nature of social media.
Best,
Shakeel