3 ms·

> Facebook argument is ‘we do not want to follow local laws because that increases cost and makes some business practices illegal in parts of the world. That mi

> Facebook argument is ‘we do not want to follow local laws because that increases cost and makes some business practices illegal in parts of the world. That mindset is destructive and fights agains society needs just to get higher profit. I wouldn't trust Facebook any further than I could throw my smartphone, but many local laws are poorly tailored to advance "society's needs". All the censorship laws out there, lese majeste in Thailand, "don't allow insults to our religious feelings" in other jurisdictions... Then there's all the various forms of protectionism. "Society's needs" is not a phrase that can effectively advance our understanding of Facebook, and if we're going to talk about the goodness and badness of the mindset, we should be critical on both ends. Which needs are we talking about? Why does this society's rulers think it needs them, and not the society next door? And are these so-called needs really about entrenched powers oppressing someone?

pjmorris 6y ago
> many local laws are poorly tailored to advance "society's needs". Philosophical question: what is a better approach to advancing society's needs' than government and its regulations? If a given corporation, ala Friedman, best serves its owners by maximizing profit, it seems corporations are not in a position to serve any interests but their own.
- damnyou 6y ago
  The best way for society to move forward is active conflict between institutions, of which government is merely one.
  - xg15 6y ago
    Thanks for the brutal honesty of what I can easily believe is a widespread view in the tech scene. I guess by that standard, the US under Trump is a model society.
    - damnyou 6y ago
      Trump is exactly why a great deal of power needs to be vested in non-state institutions which are comfortable defying the state. Imagine the situation if the US didn't have robust free speech laws. Trump would have clamped down on dissent and we would be much worse off.
      - xg15 6y ago
        Putting free speech above all else will also protect manipulation and propaganda. That's a good part of what gave you Trump.
        damnyou 6y ago
        It will. But a less robust free speech tradition can give you an Orban or a Modi, who are both worse than Trump. On net I'd rather take that risk because of its greater potential to correct itself when it goes wrong.
        meddlepal 6y ago
        All speech is manipulation in some way. It's not clear to me what "harmful speech" is supposed to mean other than that one group of people are upset another group of people are able to say something they disagree with and want to shutdown the other group's speech.
        fennecfoxen 6y ago
        This is a common canard of those who wish to regulate or manipulate with their speech. But consider alternatives such as these for your next use of speech: to convey information, to inform, to persuade, to enlighten.
xg15 6y ago
> Which needs are we talking about? Why does this society's rulers think it needs them, and not the society next door? And are these so-called needs really about entrenched powers oppressing someone? Counter question: Why would Facebook (or any other tech company of your choosing) know any better what a society needs than the society itself? Tech companies love to paint themselves as the brave protectors of the powerless against the oppressive regimes of the world. This may be true in certain cases - however, this still doesn't seem to keep them from doing business with the exact same regimes - and it doesn't seem to motivate them to adhere to regulations any better if they are passed by functioning democracies.
- fennecfoxen 6y ago
  They wouldn't necessarily. The better question is: Why would Facebook's Users know better what they, as individual human beings, want, rather than whoever is in charge of the society, including their meddlesome neighbors, self-aggrandizing politicians, and repressive religious leaders? (n.b. there are real meaningful answers to this question which respect individual agency instead of simply collectivizing all decisions about who is allowed to send bits to whom; it's just much more work to nail them down.)
- nemothekid 6y ago
  >Counter question: Why would Facebook (or any other tech company of your choosing) know any better what a society needs than the society itself? This is a strange question. (1) Society isn't a singular being that has perfect information about what it wants. (2) Society has a terrible track record for what it wants. There's a rather large slice of society that believes it's ok to enact vigilante justice on minorities and a president who has routinely parroted conspiracy theories. I'm not convinced "society" knows that it needs either and I'd rather see Facebook destroyed than it's power handed over to "society".

pjmorris 6y ago

> many local laws are poorly tailored to advance "society's needs". Philosophical question: what is a better approach to advancing society's needs' than government and its regulations? If a given corporation, ala Friedman, best serves its owners by maximizing profit, it seems corporations are not in a position to serve any interests but their own.

damnyou 6y ago
The best way for society to move forward is active conflict between institutions, of which government is merely one.
- xg15 6y ago
  Thanks for the brutal honesty of what I can easily believe is a widespread view in the tech scene. I guess by that standard, the US under Trump is a model society.
  - damnyou 6y ago
    Trump is exactly why a great deal of power needs to be vested in non-state institutions which are comfortable defying the state. Imagine the situation if the US didn't have robust free speech laws. Trump would have clamped down on dissent and we would be much worse off.
    - xg15 6y ago
      Putting free speech above all else will also protect manipulation and propaganda. That's a good part of what gave you Trump.
      - damnyou 6y ago
        It will. But a less robust free speech tradition can give you an Orban or a Modi, who are both worse than Trump. On net I'd rather take that risk because of its greater potential to correct itself when it goes wrong.
      - meddlepal 6y ago
        All speech is manipulation in some way. It's not clear to me what "harmful speech" is supposed to mean other than that one group of people are upset another group of people are able to say something they disagree with and want to shutdown the other group's speech.
        fennecfoxen 6y ago
        This is a common canard of those who wish to regulate or manipulate with their speech. But consider alternatives such as these for your next use of speech: to convey information, to inform, to persuade, to enlighten.

xg15 6y ago

> Which needs are we talking about? Why does this society's rulers think it needs them, and not the society next door? And are these so-called needs really about entrenched powers oppressing someone? Counter question: Why would Facebook (or any other tech company of your choosing) know any better what a society needs than the society itself? Tech companies love to paint themselves as the brave protectors of the powerless against the oppressive regimes of the world. This may be true in certain cases - however, this still doesn't seem to keep them from doing business with the exact same regimes - and it doesn't seem to motivate them to adhere to regulations any better if they are passed by functioning democracies.

fennecfoxen 6y ago
They wouldn't necessarily. The better question is: Why would Facebook's Users know better what they, as individual human beings, want, rather than whoever is in charge of the society, including their meddlesome neighbors, self-aggrandizing politicians, and repressive religious leaders? (n.b. there are real meaningful answers to this question which respect individual agency instead of simply collectivizing all decisions about who is allowed to send bits to whom; it's just much more work to nail them down.)
nemothekid 6y ago
>Counter question: Why would Facebook (or any other tech company of your choosing) know any better what a society needs than the society itself? This is a strange question. (1) Society isn't a singular being that has perfect information about what it wants. (2) Society has a terrible track record for what it wants. There's a rather large slice of society that believes it's ok to enact vigilante justice on minorities and a president who has routinely parroted conspiracy theories. I'm not convinced "society" knows that it needs either and I'd rather see Facebook destroyed than it's power handed over to "society".