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.