Baby born without skull, parents call it "God's beautiful creation"

[TrueEpic08]

DID YOU LOOK AT THE PICS, BROTHER?

Of course. They're not disgusting at all.

I mean, I watched Saddam's hanging live, though, and enjoys the imagery of New French Extremity movies like Martyrs earnestly, so I might be different in what I find to be disgusting (not very much...) or not.

And besides, its not about the pictures, its about Facebook wanting to claim ownership of and manipulate something that is not theirs to do with. At worst, that is something that exists within social and common space, not Facebook's private space (as much as you can define this).

And those that don't agree with me, really think about the implications of Facebook saying that they own those photos and can do what they like with them- beyond Facebook alone- before answering.

 

[Hulk Hogan]

THE IMPLICATIONS ARE DISTURBING, DUUUDE! WHAT'S EVEN MORE DISTURBING IS THAT EVERYBODY SIGNED THAT EULA AND AGREED THAT WHATEVER THEY UPLOAD BELONGS TO ZUCKDRE THE GIANT! LEGALLY, HE'S IN THE CLEAR, BROTHER! DO YOU PROPOSE THE GOVERNMENT STEP IN AND MAKE HIS PROPERTY PUBLIC?

 

[TrueEpic08]

THE IMPLICATIONS ARE DISTURBING, DUUUDE! WHAT'S EVEN MORE DISTURBING IS THAT EVERYBODY SIGNED THAT EULA AND AGREED THAT WHATEVER THEY UPLOAD BELONGS TO ZUCKDRE THE GIANT! LEGALLY, HE'S IN THE CLEAR, BROTHER! DO YOU PROPOSE THE GOVERNMENT STEP IN AND MAKE HIS PROPERTY PUBLIC?

Eh, not my ideal solution, but that's one. I'd just repost the pictures as a sign that he does not control the pictures. They are shared for the commons to see, and, as such, should stay within the commons. For more extreme measures, I'd try to organize a mass pullout of members from Facebook (possible negligible effect by itself) and/or hack the servers and delete the pictures from their servers as a form of protest.

And the implications are already felt in the form of ACTA, the TPP, PROTECT IP (and what happened to filesharing sites and domains), HADOPI, the Digital Economy Bill and generally in this notion related to "intellectual property" (a term that needs to die itself) that this immeasurable, ever expanding space that is becoming the core of peoples lives is something that can be owned. In my opinion, treating the internet like something that can be owned and traded would be like doing the same to an entire city, including its air (NOT preposterous paranoia).

But I don't want to derail (see my discussion with Mayweather in one of the other threads), and that's a thread in and of itself, so I'll leave it at that.

 

[Hulk Hogan]

THE HULKSTER FINDS HIMSELF AGREEING WITH YOU, BROTHER! BUT THE INTERNET HAD PLENTY OF TIME TO CREATE A FREE AND OPEN PUBLIC ALTERNATIVE TO THE CORPORATE SOCIAL NETWORKS AND IT NEVER PULLED THE TRIGGER!

 

[shont32]

wow

 

[Tommy Tuffnuts]

Where's. the pic?