Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.Facebook’s decision that it will once again allow footage of people being beheaded on its website is difficult to credit. Indeed, such was the outpouring of abhorrence yesterday that even the Prime Minister felt emboldened to comment, bemoaning the move as “irresponsible” and calling for an explanation for “worried parents”.
Such matters are, of course, an issue. But the implication that graphic images of real people being murdered are a danger only to children is a strange one. There must surely be few of any age who would be untouched by such gruesome viewing; and it is hardly desirable to cultivate such insensitivity, even in adults.
In its defence, Facebook says that its site is “a place where people share their experiences, particularly … connected to controversial events on the ground”. But it is hard to see how such nobility of purpose translates into grim videos of horrific – yet entirely banal – violence. The caveat that, while such things can be posted, they cannot be “celebrated”, is just as meaningless. Not only does a Facebook page confer a degree of normalcy upon that which is better kept abnormal; it is risible to suggest viewers’ responses can be controlled. Meanwhile, there is also a question of consistency here. Presumably rape, say, or paedophilia, is still off limits. Or are they not?
Claims that the decision is part of a grander debate about free speech are equally ill-conceived. Facebook is not the internet. To suggest that leaving such horrors to the web’s dark corners is an infringement is to imply that every editorial decision made by, for instance, a newspaper is an implicit act of censorship.
It is Facebook’s hasty promise of extra warning banners and access controls that give the game away. The company is trying to have it both ways. It cannot. The law may not yet have caught up, but Facebook is, in effect, a publisher. As such, it must take responsibility for its content. And that means no more beheadings.
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments