> both sides seem pretty idiotic

What seems idiotic about the "pictures of breastfeeding infants should be allowed on Facebook" side?

(The fact that they don't give up on Facebook and use something else? But their goal isn't just to be able to post their pictures somewhere; they want to be able to participate in Facebook, where for good or ill much of the world's social life happens these days, without censoring themselves in pointless ways; and they want everyone on Facebook to have that freedom. Saying they should go elsewhere instead of protesting at Facebook would be, on a much smaller scale, a bit like saying that people unhappy with their country's government should emigrate rather than protesting at their government.)

It's idiotic because it's pointless. I guess some people may be offended by it (after all, it's public!) Say that some people are offended by photos of people eating so Facebook decides to ban those. What's the big deal? It's not like it's racial discrimination or anything.

So, it's idiotic because you personally don't feel it's a big deal?

No. It's idiotic because it is actually not a big deal.

We have women who like publishing photographs of them breastfeeding their babies, and we have a corporation that thinks some people are offended by said photographs, so they take them down. The women insist on their right to publish said photographs on the very same website owned by the aforementioned corporation, so they stage a public protest.

I find it entertaining, but I mostly think it is a nice cultural moment in the history of the West. But it is by no means a big deal.

It is idiotic because it doesn't even begin to solve the problem. Remember, images get flagged for removal on Facebook. Someone has to flag the pictures.

The issue is that "Facebook users don't accept me breastfeeding in public."

Facebook users, not Facebook.

Idiotic is a strong word because these types of protests are common enough that this issue gets more exposure than just to Facebook execs, but it could be a losing battle unless the mainstream Facebook user backs them.

But not all flagged pictures are removed - there's still a Facebook employee who has to make the decision.

A woman breastfeeding her baby is not in a compromising position. Comparing it to incest is ridiculously trollish.

I am not comparing it to incest. This was hyperbolic! And taking everything so seriously, especially such a minor matter (and it is a minor matter; people in other areas of the world have bigger things to protest other than their right to post breastfeeding pictures on a social network) is also a bit ridiculous.

It's not really about Facebook - IMO it's about combatting the harmful assumption that breastfeeding is not a normal part of society. Facebook is merely an element supporting the contrary view.

Personally I suspect this to be mainly a USA issue born out of the promotion of women's bodies as sexual objects.

Great! So what I'm saying is that I find it interesting that Facebook, a large corporation, is now a major force in deciding what is normal in society and what isn't. It's not a TV broadcast network (that has to get a license from the government and whose content is under regulation), but a private website. Other websites, like tumblr, don't have any qualms with international dissemination of breastfeeding material or with promoting women's bodies as sexual objects or otherwise.

My point is that Facebook, which is not (or hardly) subject to any governmental regulation, has become the focus of such a statement.

You're right, it's an interesting phenomenon, but I don't think it's new. For better or worse, Facebook has become the primary (and often only) way I communicate with the majority of my friends and family. While there is certainly an important legal distinction between government censorship and private censorship, the effect here is indistinguishable.

And it's not the first time. The USA used to have rules governing how much of an area's media channels could be owned by a single corporation (and thus warped to serve a single set of interests.) There are strong parallels to this situation.

One of the effects of these Too Big/Entrenched To Replace corporations. It is often easier and more effective to change the corporations than to use alternatives, and in many cases, there simply are no viable alternatives.

The people on HN probably care more about having an open web that enables free-as-in-breastfeeding-pictures communication than it does about breastfeeding. One can choose to view this controversy in either context; I care about both, somewhat to my surprise.

(Actually, much of HN appears to care more about "you know what's cool? a hundred billion dollars" than open communication, but that's a different story.)

Ha! What's that word... oh: LOL!

I think HN-ers don't expect "free-as-in-breastfeeding-pictures" (really liked that) from a company whose business is selling your personal information to advertisers.

Assumption is not about role of breastfeeding in society, it's about whenever such public (including public accessible images) demonstration is acceptable.

Death is normal part of society, but no sane person will consider posting pictures of decomposing bodies acceptable. (Another hyperbole).

>Death is normal part of society, but no sane person will consider posting pictures of decomposing bodies acceptable.

This was the point someone else tried to make (see my other comment).

You've cut the proposition in half.

Yes death is a normal (and natural) part of society. Presenting decomposing bodies in public is not generally considered a normal part of civilised society (sky burials aside I guess; though they have their own context). It's that 'a baby feeding in public' is normal. The equivalent is that 'a dead body in a morgue' or 'a dead body in a coffin' is normal.

This is not a new development. People have been protesting corporations for a long time.

Absolutely, but over different things like work conditions or blatant discrimination. I think there is something new here. It's a social-cultural issue that in a government would have been handled by the supreme court.

Or over changing the formula of Coca-Cola. When you feel that the free market does not provide you with an acceptable substitute, it's in your interest to make your problem known. With any luck, you thereby make it in the corporation's interest to change. If not, perhaps you encourage the market to provide an alternative.

If they had just silently stopped using Facebook, there's no chance that any change they wanted would occur. That would be idiotic.

How is "blatant discrimination" NOT a social-cultural issue that in a government...

This is hardly new. People have always protested companies.

I wonder whether this protest will have the desired effect. Banning topless and breastfeeding photos leading to topless women descending on FBHQ might not be the stick the protesters are hoping for.

But it's certainly great entertainment.