As word spread Friday morning about Facebook’s censorship of an iconic photo from the Vietnam War, the fallout was immediate and global.
By forcing a Norwegian newspaper to delete or obscure a Pulitzer Prize-winning photo in which a terrified — and naked — young girl flees a napalm attack, the social media giant again became the target of worldwide criticism for trying to tell its billion-plus users what is news and what’s not.
Increasingly resembling a sort of global editor-in-chief as it wrestles with the nature of news for its billions of users, the Menlo Park-based social media firm continues to blur the line between traditional journalism and the news-feed model it now curates on its high-profile platform.
“This is just another example of how Facebook is uneasy being a news source,’’ said Richard Craig, a journalism professor at San Jose State. “Because Facebook’s become such a central source for millions of people to get their news, they’ve had to take on this role of a news organization, and they’re clearly uncomfortable with it.”
The online fallout was swift.
“This is what you get when you eliminate human judgment from editorial decisions. Complete stupidity,” advertising agency R/GA wrote on Twitter.
“Facebook,” read one headline on Pando.com, “has lost its mind.”
By noon, Facebook realized its mistake — confusing one of history’s most famous and powerful photographs with child pornography — and reversed its decision, allowing the photo to appear.
“The photo originally was deemed to violate our community standards for nudity,” said a Facebook representative who did not want to be identified because of company policy. “We relooked at how we were applying those standards in this instance.”
In a statement sent to this newspaper, Facebook said “an image of a naked child would normally be presumed to violate our community standards, and in some countries might even qualify as child pornography. In this case, we recognize the history and global importance of this image in documenting a particular moment in time.”
It’s unclear whether the original order to delete the photo was the result of a decision made by a human editor or by an algorithm, a controversial automated method that Facebook has used in the past to determine news value. But the incident spawned yet another in a string of embarrassing stories about Facebook’s editorial missteps. The social network has faced previous allegations of censorship, notably charges earlier this year that it was suppressing news from conservative publications.
The global ripple effect from Facebook’s censorship started Friday in Norway, where the country’s largest newspaper published a front-page open letter to Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg.
Blasting Facebook’s decision to demand the removal of the photo of 9-year-old Kim Phuc — a photo captured as the girl was running away from a napalm attack during the height of the war — Espen Egil Hansen, the editor-in-chief and CEO of Aftenposten, accused Zuckerberg of thoughtlessly “abusing your power.”
“I am upset, disappointed — well, in fact, even afraid — of what you are about to do to a mainstay of our democratic society,” Hansen wrote, demanding that Zuckerberg recognize and live up to his role as “the world’s most powerful editor.”
The brouhaha started when Facebook caught wind of a post by Norwegian writer Tom Egeland that included “The Terror of War.” The June 8, 1972, photo by Nick Ut shows several children, including Phuc, in a terrified run for their lives. Some of the kids were dressed, but Phuc — who had torn off her burning clothes — was not. In his post, Egeland talked about the so-called “napalm girl” image in the context of the “seven photographs that changed the history of warfare.”
After Egeland said his account was temporarily suspended by Facebook for reposting the photo and criticizing the removal of his initial post, Aftenposten wrote about the suspension and used the same photo Egeland had. That article was shared on the newspaper’s Facebook page, and a short time later the paper was told by Facebook to “either remove or pixelize” the photograph.
The notice from Facebook was clear, reading in part: “Any photographs of people displaying fully nude genitalia or buttocks, or fully nude female breast, will be removed.” Before Hansen could even respond, the folks back in Silicon Valley had wiped out both the article in question and the image from the site.
On Friday, Hansen had his say, writing, “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.”
In his letter, Hansen said Facebook’s decision belies a worrisome inability to “distinguish between child pornography and famous war photographs,” as well as an unwillingness to “allow space for good judgment.”
Journalism professor Craig said that Facebook employees who must choose stories and photos that appear on the site are faced with a knotty dilemma: While traditional newspapers have had fixed and clear audiences, usually associated with the paper’s geographical location, Facebook’s audience is the entire world. And that can lead to problems if Facebook is wary of offending its users in various countries and cultures.
“In the digital age, where everyone can read everything, you have to assume that your audience is anyone with a mobile device,’’ Craig said. “And that raises the chances of misunderstandings exponentially. With a world full of different standards for what’s acceptable and what’s not, you run the risk of upsetting people with things that you may have had no idea would upset them.’’
Phuc, the girl in the photo, told CNNMoney through her personal manager that she supports the use of the image.
“Kim is saddened by those who would focus on the nudity in the historic picture rather than the powerful message it conveys,” Anne Bayin wrote in an email to CNNMoney. “She fully supports the documentary image taken by Nick Ut as a moment of truth that captures the horror of war and its effects on innocent lives.”
