Where is the line between editorial discretion to drive home the emotion of certain news or art and the need to...
Where is the line between editorial discretion to drive home the emotion of certain news or art and the need to create a space that won't offend anyone? Are newspapers relying too much on social media sites to spread their news, to get their clicks? Have individuals and agencies lost control, or abdicated their own rights, to technology corporations because they're the gate keepers?
More: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/sep/09/the-realisation-that-facebook-can-censor-comes-too-late-to-publishers
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/sep/09/facebook-deletes-norway-pms-post-napalm-girl-post-row
More: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/sep/09/the-realisation-that-facebook-can-censor-comes-too-late-to-publishers
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/sep/09/facebook-deletes-norway-pms-post-napalm-girl-post-row
Comments
Yes, Facebook is convenient, but if it's the primary way a company interacts or shares information with the world they're either paying for eyeballs or they're trusting an algorithm to show their stuff.
I believe it about fb and g+. If it's the only platform it's flawed because they don't control it or their message.