3 ms·

>The diplomatic game that unfolded in Vietnam has become increasingly common for Facebook. Yes, At least this should ring a bell to all those who still think t

by amrrs 9y ago

>The diplomatic game that unfolded in Vietnam has become increasingly common for Facebook. Yes, At least this should ring a bell to all those who still think they can write anything on FB about a Government and get away with it. Facebook while being pushed and portrayed as your personal diary is actually your digital repository only accessible for the most elite like Government. While an average FB user can easily shame anyone around him (like how frustrated boy friends shame their ex girl friends), fellow average FBians can't do much. This reiterates the capitalist world that we live in where Democracy is just a myth.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
Gaelan 9y ago
Facebook, for better or worse, seems to adapt to local laws. I haven’t heard anything about FB removing anti-government posts in countries that have strong speech protections for non-internet speech.
driverdan 9y ago
> At least this should ring a bell to all those who still think they can write anything on FB about a Government and get away with it. They should be able to. Free speech is a human right. FB should not be helping governments violate human rights. > This reiterates the capitalist world that we live in where Democracy is just a myth. Those are two different things.
- rdtsc 9y ago
  > Free speech is a human right. FB should not be helping governments violate human rights. I think it is usually framed in as a human right against government intervention. That is the government can't shut you up if you want to criticize it. However FB is not the government. FB can stop and censor people because it is a private entity. Nobody has a right to use FB's resources (server time, bandwidth) for free to say whatever they want. They can be kicked out without any legal repercussion. Now wonder what happens if the government gives incentives FB to act on its behalf. Maybe a carrot and stick approach, it can tax it higher, raid its offices or pay it off with contracts in response to FB silencing or blocking certain users. This is where it gets interesting. What about if a 3rd party wants to silence some opinions and it has nothing to do with the government. Does free speech still apply. Let's say multi-billionaire wants to shape public opinion so it pays billions of dollars to FB or Google to silence and suppress competing opinions. No government in sight here. But it does feel like free speech is being violated. Or is it? Kinda interesting to think about. And this is not just hypothetical after the election Facebook, Google and Twitter all jumped on the "we will work hard to fight Fake News" bandwagon. It was a nice impulse on the surface, but I think what they really meant was that they are offering those who have money to spend the ability to manipulate and control opinions and discussions since they are essentially monopolies of online social interaction and news dissemination.
  - thewhitetulip 9y ago
    This is exactly what is happening. The guardian article talked about an arrest made for a anti govt post. FB is being used for these purposes.
  - driverdan 9y ago
    While you raise some interesting discussion points about 3rd parties that's not what I was referring to. FB can have whatever internal content guidelines they want, independent of governments. What I'm talking about is creating tools that allow oppressive governments to violate human rights.

by amrrs 9y ago

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

Gaelan 9y ago

Facebook, for better or worse, seems to adapt to local laws. I haven’t heard anything about FB removing anti-government posts in countries that have strong speech protections for non-internet speech.

driverdan 9y ago

> At least this should ring a bell to all those who still think they can write anything on FB about a Government and get away with it. They should be able to. Free speech is a human right. FB should not be helping governments violate human rights. > This reiterates the capitalist world that we live in where Democracy is just a myth. Those are two different things.

rdtsc 9y ago
> Free speech is a human right. FB should not be helping governments violate human rights. I think it is usually framed in as a human right against government intervention. That is the government can't shut you up if you want to criticize it. However FB is not the government. FB can stop and censor people because it is a private entity. Nobody has a right to use FB's resources (server time, bandwidth) for free to say whatever they want. They can be kicked out without any legal repercussion. Now wonder what happens if the government gives incentives FB to act on its behalf. Maybe a carrot and stick approach, it can tax it higher, raid its offices or pay it off with contracts in response to FB silencing or blocking certain users. This is where it gets interesting. What about if a 3rd party wants to silence some opinions and it has nothing to do with the government. Does free speech still apply. Let's say multi-billionaire wants to shape public opinion so it pays billions of dollars to FB or Google to silence and suppress competing opinions. No government in sight here. But it does feel like free speech is being violated. Or is it? Kinda interesting to think about. And this is not just hypothetical after the election Facebook, Google and Twitter all jumped on the "we will work hard to fight Fake News" bandwagon. It was a nice impulse on the surface, but I think what they really meant was that they are offering those who have money to spend the ability to manipulate and control opinions and discussions since they are essentially monopolies of online social interaction and news dissemination.
- thewhitetulip 9y ago
  This is exactly what is happening. The guardian article talked about an arrest made for a anti govt post. FB is being used for these purposes.
- driverdan 9y ago
  While you raise some interesting discussion points about 3rd parties that's not what I was referring to. FB can have whatever internal content guidelines they want, independent of governments. What I'm talking about is creating tools that allow oppressive governments to violate human rights.