The headline seems to be a rather extreme (and willful) misrepresentation of the facts.
As the article points out, framing is important for the decision making, and I see absolutely nothing wrong with that. A video showing the horrors of war, and being presented as an argument against war, just is different from a video showing violence with an accompanying message promoting such violence.
One case in point is the Kim Phuc photo of a naked crying girl running away from Napalm in Vietnam. That photo being deleted actually was widely criticized, as it should.
At least my experience using Facebook also speaks against the article’s thesis: I cannot remember ever being shown any gratuitous violence. If they are trying to shore up click with shock value they are doing a mightily bad job at it.
There’s a lot to criticize about Facebook, but this just doesn’t seem like it.
As the article points out, framing is important for the decision making, and I see absolutely nothing wrong with that. A video showing the horrors of war, and being presented as an argument against war, just is different from a video showing violence with an accompanying message promoting such violence.
One case in point is the Kim Phuc photo of a naked crying girl running away from Napalm in Vietnam. That photo being deleted actually was widely criticized, as it should.
At least my experience using Facebook also speaks against the article’s thesis: I cannot remember ever being shown any gratuitous violence. If they are trying to shore up click with shock value they are doing a mightily bad job at it.
There’s a lot to criticize about Facebook, but this just doesn’t seem like it.