5 ms·

Is it not ironic that Facebook is unable to sue the Chinese government behind their ban?

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
crdrost 6y ago
I mean I don’t personally experience the emotion of irony in relation to that state-of-affairs. Like, if one were to tell a tale of some non-mainstream Christian commune which gave free healthcare to neighboring cities and then one day one of the commune members went to a hospital in a neighboring city and they charged that member a massive hospital bill, that would similarly not generate that feeling of irony. I don’t mean to say that the US is a tremendous beacon of light in all respects, but we do have this principle that everyone can have their day in court and in some respects that is one wavelength of light which we are a beacon of, and it is not terribly surprising that we cast this light out to a world which does not cast it back to us. (As you might see, in other respects I think that ‘beacon’ is quite problematic. None of my Dutch relatives are looking over at the US and saying ‘you know what the Netherlands needs? More lawsuits!’ But it does give a certain access to structures of power which in China one is often impotent to actually access.)
pphysch 6y ago
Facebook willingly pulled out of China because it was not willing to comply with Chinese laws surrounding disinformation and hate speech. It is not even a remotely similar situation.
- usaar333 6y ago
  Disinformation being defined as "disagreeing with official government statements"
  - pphysch 6y ago
    China blocked Facebook following the deadly 2009 Ürümqi terrorist attacks because Facebook was negligently allowing ETIM-backed groups to spread disinformation and hatred via their platform. Facebook subsequently refused to filter such content and the ban continues to this day. Control over the Xinjiang/Uyghur narrative is paramount in the "New Cold War" declared against China by Pompeo this July, so Facebook's actions are not surprising.
  - Spivak 6y ago
    You can hold both of these opinions. - If you wish to do business in a country you must follow their laws. - The laws of a country are unjust, oppressive and the government that enacted them is corrupt.
    - seanmcdirmid 6y ago
      China is not a "rule of law" country. Their constitution has a strong guarantee for freedom of speech, for example, but this is meaningless because they don't have an independent judiciary. They do have "rule by law", which basically mean law is used as a means for the officials to accomplish whatever goals they are interested in (vs. rule of law where laws are interpreted independently of goals). > The laws of a country are unjust, oppressive and the government that enacted them is corrupt. The laws of a country could be completely just and unoppressive, but it doesn't really matter unless the judiciary has the will and power to use them in the people's best interest.
- remarkEon 6y ago
  This is a weird way of saying "Facebook didn't think it in their interest to comply with Communist censorship requirements".
- stuqqq 6y ago
  you know nothing about the censorship conduced by the Chinese government. Bytedance can comply to US’ requirement of untying CCP. but a simple google search tells the truth https://www.google.com/search?q=%E5%AD%97%E8%8A%82%E8%B7%B3%E5%8A%A8+%E5%85%9A%E6%94%AF%E9%83%A8&safe=off&rlz=1CDGOYI_enUS712US713&hl=en-US&prmd=nmiv&sxsrf=ALeKk03fgba4bklN8PzKD5kCZNNzZ1Cc7g:1598296225147&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjwlvu1xbTrAhXCs54KHZ-3BJAQ_AUoA3oECGUQAw&biw=375&bih=553 https://www.google.com/search?q=%E5%AD%97%E8%8A%82%E8%B7%B3%... As a Chinese, I want someone be tough on The new Hitler, I don’t care if Volkswagen is caught in the middle.
  - pphysch 6y ago
    Please leave the hysterical propaganda out of HN.
    - boogies 6y ago
      One of the most interesting books I was ever required to read was Night, by Elie Wiesel. In it he recounts how Holocaust survivors where disbelieved as similar to hysterical when they returned to warn their fellow Jews of the horrors ahead. From page 7: > Day after day, night after night, he went from one Jewish house to the next, telling his story and that of Malka, the young girl who lay dying for three days, and that of Tobie, the tailor who begged to die before his sons were killed. > Moishe was not the same. The joy in his eyes was gone. He no longer sang. He no longer mentioned either God or Kabbalah. He spoke only of what he had seen. But people not only refused to believe his tales, they refused to listen. Some even insinuated that he only wanted their pity, that he was imagining things. Others flatly said that he had gone mad. Is it impossible for history to repeat itself with a new Hitler? If not, how could we recognize him (/her)?
- stuqqq 6y ago
  China banned NBA for misinformation? Should NBA comply?
  - pphysch 6y ago
    It's up to them! They are (hopefully) independent of the State Department and can make their own choices. The basketball community in China is larger than that of America.
- creato 6y ago
  There are only two end states here if you insist on this reasoning: either Chinese companies dominate the world, because they can exist under their laws and ours but companies from other countries cannot; or the western world adopts laws like the Chinese and blocks foreign competition with unreasonable requirements (however "lawful" they might be).
- cmonnow 6y ago
  In other news, blacks willingly choose not to be slaves to white masters.
29athrowaway 6y ago
If Facebook sues the Chinese government, how would that happen? Would it take place in: A) American justice system, or in B) Chinese justice system? The answer is: B) Facebook would have to sue the Chinese in China, in the Chinese jurisdiction subject to Chinese law. And under Chinese law, it is legal for China to block Facebook, therefore there is nothing for Facebook to do there. Now... TikTok vs the US is a different case. That would take place in American jurisdiction where TikTok may actually have legal path to make this go away.
- ycsux 6y ago
  What court is going to help a national security threat?
  - 29athrowaway 6y ago
    Many things are a national security threat. American corporations themselves are also a national security threat. Tax evasion, lobbying, etc.
slg 6y ago
No, this isn't ironic. It is actually the opposite of irony. The results are completely expected that a company has more recourse against the government in the US than in China. Maybe the word you are looking for is apropos.
thesausageking 6y ago
It's not ironic because it's not true. Facebook can bring a claim for their ban in China. They won't win as the ban is legal under Chinese law, but can bring it.
- takeda 6y ago
  As far as I understand they weren't banned, they pulled it out themselves, because they weren't willing to comply with their laws.
- seanmcdirmid 6y ago
  They aren't officially banned. If you ask your ISP in China why Facebook isn't working, they will tell you it must be Facebook's fault. The list of banned internet sites is a state secret anyways, so even communicating that Facebook is banned would run afoul of China's state secrets law.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

I mean I don’t personally experience the emotion of irony in relation to that state-of-affairs. Like, if one were to tell a tale of some non-mainstream Christian commune which gave free healthcare to neighboring cities and then one day one of the commune members went to a hospital in a neighboring city and they charged that member a massive hospital bill, that would similarly not generate that feeling of irony. I don’t mean to say that the US is a tremendous beacon of light in all respects, but we do have this principle that everyone can have their day in court and in some respects that is one wavelength of light which we are a beacon of, and it is not terribly surprising that we cast this light out to a world which does not cast it back to us. (As you might see, in other respects I think that ‘beacon’ is quite problematic. None of my Dutch relatives are looking over at the US and saying ‘you know what the Netherlands needs? More lawsuits!’ But it does give a certain access to structures of power which in China one is often impotent to actually access.)

pphysch 6y ago

Facebook willingly pulled out of China because it was not willing to comply with Chinese laws surrounding disinformation and hate speech. It is not even a remotely similar situation.

usaar333 6y ago
Disinformation being defined as "disagreeing with official government statements"
- pphysch 6y ago
  China blocked Facebook following the deadly 2009 Ürümqi terrorist attacks because Facebook was negligently allowing ETIM-backed groups to spread disinformation and hatred via their platform. Facebook subsequently refused to filter such content and the ban continues to this day. Control over the Xinjiang/Uyghur narrative is paramount in the "New Cold War" declared against China by Pompeo this July, so Facebook's actions are not surprising.
- Spivak 6y ago
  You can hold both of these opinions. - If you wish to do business in a country you must follow their laws. - The laws of a country are unjust, oppressive and the government that enacted them is corrupt.
  - seanmcdirmid 6y ago
    China is not a "rule of law" country. Their constitution has a strong guarantee for freedom of speech, for example, but this is meaningless because they don't have an independent judiciary. They do have "rule by law", which basically mean law is used as a means for the officials to accomplish whatever goals they are interested in (vs. rule of law where laws are interpreted independently of goals). > The laws of a country are unjust, oppressive and the government that enacted them is corrupt. The laws of a country could be completely just and unoppressive, but it doesn't really matter unless the judiciary has the will and power to use them in the people's best interest.
remarkEon 6y ago
This is a weird way of saying "Facebook didn't think it in their interest to comply with Communist censorship requirements".
stuqqq 6y ago
you know nothing about the censorship conduced by the Chinese government. Bytedance can comply to US’ requirement of untying CCP. but a simple google search tells the truth https://www.google.com/search?q=%E5%AD%97%E8%8A%82%E8%B7%B3%E5%8A%A8+%E5%85%9A%E6%94%AF%E9%83%A8&safe=off&rlz=1CDGOYI_enUS712US713&hl=en-US&prmd=nmiv&sxsrf=ALeKk03fgba4bklN8PzKD5kCZNNzZ1Cc7g:1598296225147&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjwlvu1xbTrAhXCs54KHZ-3BJAQ_AUoA3oECGUQAw&biw=375&bih=553 https://www.google.com/search?q=%E5%AD%97%E8%8A%82%E8%B7%B3%... As a Chinese, I want someone be tough on The new Hitler, I don’t care if Volkswagen is caught in the middle.
- pphysch 6y ago
  Please leave the hysterical propaganda out of HN.
  - boogies 6y ago
    One of the most interesting books I was ever required to read was Night, by Elie Wiesel. In it he recounts how Holocaust survivors where disbelieved as similar to hysterical when they returned to warn their fellow Jews of the horrors ahead. From page 7: > Day after day, night after night, he went from one Jewish house to the next, telling his story and that of Malka, the young girl who lay dying for three days, and that of Tobie, the tailor who begged to die before his sons were killed. > Moishe was not the same. The joy in his eyes was gone. He no longer sang. He no longer mentioned either God or Kabbalah. He spoke only of what he had seen. But people not only refused to believe his tales, they refused to listen. Some even insinuated that he only wanted their pity, that he was imagining things. Others flatly said that he had gone mad. Is it impossible for history to repeat itself with a new Hitler? If not, how could we recognize him (/her)?
stuqqq 6y ago
China banned NBA for misinformation? Should NBA comply?
- pphysch 6y ago
  It's up to them! They are (hopefully) independent of the State Department and can make their own choices. The basketball community in China is larger than that of America.
creato 6y ago
There are only two end states here if you insist on this reasoning: either Chinese companies dominate the world, because they can exist under their laws and ours but companies from other countries cannot; or the western world adopts laws like the Chinese and blocks foreign competition with unreasonable requirements (however "lawful" they might be).
cmonnow 6y ago
In other news, blacks willingly choose not to be slaves to white masters.

29athrowaway 6y ago

If Facebook sues the Chinese government, how would that happen? Would it take place in: A) American justice system, or in B) Chinese justice system? The answer is: B) Facebook would have to sue the Chinese in China, in the Chinese jurisdiction subject to Chinese law. And under Chinese law, it is legal for China to block Facebook, therefore there is nothing for Facebook to do there. Now... TikTok vs the US is a different case. That would take place in American jurisdiction where TikTok may actually have legal path to make this go away.

ycsux 6y ago
What court is going to help a national security threat?
- 29athrowaway 6y ago
  Many things are a national security threat. American corporations themselves are also a national security threat. Tax evasion, lobbying, etc.

slg 6y ago

No, this isn't ironic. It is actually the opposite of irony. The results are completely expected that a company has more recourse against the government in the US than in China. Maybe the word you are looking for is apropos.

thesausageking 6y ago

It's not ironic because it's not true. Facebook can bring a claim for their ban in China. They won't win as the ban is legal under Chinese law, but can bring it.

takeda 6y ago
As far as I understand they weren't banned, they pulled it out themselves, because they weren't willing to comply with their laws.
seanmcdirmid 6y ago
They aren't officially banned. If you ask your ISP in China why Facebook isn't working, they will tell you it must be Facebook's fault. The list of banned internet sites is a state secret anyways, so even communicating that Facebook is banned would run afoul of China's state secrets law.