3 ms·

Well I think the governments are not doing enough to stop Facebook. EU just passed GDPR last year but still, based on recent developments (like the Crossfit cas

Well I think the governments are not doing enough to stop Facebook. EU just passed GDPR last year but still, based on recent developments (like the Crossfit case) it should be obvious to everybody that FB is damaging to society on many levels. I would go even further with government actions and start to block their IP ranges on the national level.

cameronbrown 7y ago
So mass censorship, then?
- StreamBright 7y ago
  Why do you think that blocking Facebook is censorship? You are not blocking a particular book or post, you are blocking a company that disregards privacy many ways, filtering the internet according their internal policy that is not accessible to the outside world while selling user data to the highest bidder.
  - cameronbrown 7y ago
    Why do you think blocking [Facebook, Google, Amazon, etc..] is censorship? Filtering the internet according China's internal policy that is not accessible to the outside world.. You see my point? It should be consumers and NOT government who decides what products and services are allowed to be used, especially with regards to information. Transparency regulations I can get behind but mass blocking is fundamentally wrong - it takes power out of the hands of regular people. The government shouldn't have that power to begin with in my opinion.
    - StreamBright 7y ago
      No, I was talking about blocking Facebook. I do not support blocking Amazon, there is no reason for it. China rightfully blocked Facebook, I think the 2016 US election made this clear for everybody. Unless you like Russian interference with election of course. Heroin is banned for the same reason as Facebook should be, people cannot handle it and it has very damaging implications for society as a whole. I think the rule of law should govern a society that is accessible for everybody, unlike Facebook internal policies.
      - cameronbrown 7y ago
        China bans those companies to 'protect social unity', a valid moral argument from a certain point of view. They don't block these things to benefit citizens. You just compared a website to heroin. Next you'll be comparing Pokémon Go to organised crime. I completely refuse to believe people lack so much agency that they aren't responsible for the content they consume. They can't handle it? It's a website dude. Say what you want about privacy issues but this is a nonsensical argument.

cameronbrown 7y ago

So mass censorship, then?

StreamBright 7y ago
Why do you think that blocking Facebook is censorship? You are not blocking a particular book or post, you are blocking a company that disregards privacy many ways, filtering the internet according their internal policy that is not accessible to the outside world while selling user data to the highest bidder.
- cameronbrown 7y ago
  Why do you think blocking [Facebook, Google, Amazon, etc..] is censorship? Filtering the internet according China's internal policy that is not accessible to the outside world.. You see my point? It should be consumers and NOT government who decides what products and services are allowed to be used, especially with regards to information. Transparency regulations I can get behind but mass blocking is fundamentally wrong - it takes power out of the hands of regular people. The government shouldn't have that power to begin with in my opinion.
  - StreamBright 7y ago
    No, I was talking about blocking Facebook. I do not support blocking Amazon, there is no reason for it. China rightfully blocked Facebook, I think the 2016 US election made this clear for everybody. Unless you like Russian interference with election of course. Heroin is banned for the same reason as Facebook should be, people cannot handle it and it has very damaging implications for society as a whole. I think the rule of law should govern a society that is accessible for everybody, unlike Facebook internal policies.
    - cameronbrown 7y ago
      China bans those companies to 'protect social unity', a valid moral argument from a certain point of view. They don't block these things to benefit citizens. You just compared a website to heroin. Next you'll be comparing Pokémon Go to organised crime. I completely refuse to believe people lack so much agency that they aren't responsible for the content they consume. They can't handle it? It's a website dude. Say what you want about privacy issues but this is a nonsensical argument.