4 ms·

This is a textbook example of an authoritarian government banning media outlets that allow criticism. It's unbelievable that anyone can hate Facebook so much t

by kanox 6y ago

This is a textbook example of an authoritarian government banning media outlets that allow criticism. It's unbelievable that anyone can hate Facebook so much that they side with authoritarian regimes.

rightbyte 6y ago
It is a shame only authoritarian regimes dare enforce local laws regarding Facebook. There has to be some local shell company to sue?
kordlessagain 6y ago
Facebook is an unstoppable entity we all "hope" will do the right thing by us. But, the reality is that it and all the people beholden to it will do whatever it takes to stay operating.
- forest_dweller 6y ago
  A corporation is much easier to get away from than a government. With a corporation you have a choice in whether you want to deal with them. Government not so much.
  - jen20 6y ago
    This is a quaint idea, and I’m sure it was true once. However, in the world of shadow profiles and invasive tracking techniques, it must also be easy to decide whether you want _the corporation to deal with you_, and it is simply not.
    - kanox 6y ago
      There is no equivalence between advertising companies tracking what you browse and a government's ability to throw you in prison.
      - TeMPOraL 6y ago
        Today. Let's remember that this is an artifact of having strong governments and regulations. There was much less difference between a government and a corporation if you happened to deal with the East India Company, or US worker towns of old.
        hkt 6y ago
        I hope you're not suggesting the east india company was anything other than a massive mistake..
        nickpp 6y ago
        The fact that you have to go hundreds of years in the past for your examples speaks volumes.
        forest_dweller 6y ago
        There is always someone that takes the most egregious examples they can find and then say "well if don't have strong government this will happen" ignoring all proportion and scale to any of these matters and the current reality we live in. It is simply a deflection from the central point that frequently the state will involve itself in things that it really shouldn't be involving itself in. This is frequenly because it must justify its ever increasing size. Saying that the state should have well defined responsibilities shouldn't be controversial. What those should be is a different conversation.
        dragonwriter 6y ago
        The East India Company was a de facto arm of government; chartered as a state-protected monopoly. There’s plenty of examples of things that aren't formally states or formally linked to them taking advantage of weak or absent states to exert extreme power over people's lives (and plenty of examples of systems without a distinction between private power and public authority at all, e.g., feudalism), but the EIC isn't one of them.
    - forest_dweller 6y ago
      No it isn't a quaint idea. I am aware of the existence of shadow profiles and it doesn't invalidate the general point. Them having a shadow profile of me is an annoyance and is rather minor one at that. However I have no such choice when it comes to Government. Whatever they choose to decide I have to abide by or face fines, jail and other reprocussions. Some of those decisions maybe just which aren't a problem. However some of them maybe unjust. If those decisions are unjust I have almost no direct way to address it especially if I am in the minority.
  - lostlogin 6y ago
    I’m not so sure. I can think of plenty of places that are beyond the reach of my government but well within the reach of most the big tech companies. This might be less true if you’re from the US or China or maybe one of a few other countries. What device would you use? How would you find information? It’s all possible, but not straightforward. There is likely a good sci-fi or black mirror plot in here somewhere.
    - forest_dweller 6y ago
      If I don't want to use an Apple or Android phone I can buy something else. I have a choice. If I don't want to use Windows or MacOS, I can use an alternative operating system. If I don't want to use Google's search engine there are many other alternatives. If I don't want to use a companies webmail solution I can setup my own. It is very simple to not deal with these tech companies.
      - lostlogin 6y ago
        > It is very simple to not deal with these tech companies. You may find it easy, and well done if so. Every step you have listed there is quite hard, even if you let some through (Apple in my case). Some of the things you are cutting out are very good, and that’s how they get you.
        forest_dweller 6y ago
        Most of it you don't need. I think Stallman is a loon but he was right about the proprietary code making people slaves to it (but probably not in the way he intended). There is still lots of stuff I kinda have to use but I've managed to massively reduce my use of most of this stuff. Obviously if your job/business relies on using this stuff then you gotta use it. I wouldn't advocate that you put yourself out on the street for the source code freedoms.
  - macintux 6y ago
    How do you "deal" with a corporation who controls a significant percentage of the news and information your fellow citizens consume? I don't use Facebook, but it still has a huge impact on my life.
    - forest_dweller 6y ago
      My fellow citizens can do as they like. The problem is when they require me to consume the same news and information when I have no wish to.
- SoSoRoCoCo 6y ago
  The funny thing is, Facebook CAN be stopped: if people don't use it, it vanishes. The existence of Facebook is 100% in the hands of the users. The problem is: 3 billion users with wildly varying options, beliefs, and attitudes. There's got to be a name for this paradox.
  - rprenger 6y ago
    Do you mean the collective action problem? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collective_action_problem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collective_action_problem
    - SoSoRoCoCo 6y ago
      Yes, thank you! I think that very well captures 95% of the effect. I also think the 5% which doesn't fit relates to the individual profit motive. I don't know how users of social media profit in the spirit of the CAP. I would replace "profit motive" with "ignorance that their passive involvement enables" the destructive direction social media is heading.
- Jeff_Brown 6y ago
  China sure stopped it.
trianglem 6y ago
Freedom to spread false information indiscriminately does not work with an uneducated populace. Heck even the US can barely hold it together right now.
- nickpp 6y ago
  So the "uneducated" should be fed just "approved" information? Approved by whom?
  - trianglem 6y ago
    Bringing the fairness doctrine back is a great first step.
ramblerman 6y ago
> It's unbelievable that anyone can hate Facebook so much that they side with authoritarian regimes. Who is doing that here? 2 Things can be bad at the same time. Just because people are critical of FB in the west it doesn't mean they support authoritarian regimes.
bogomipz 6y ago
>"It's unbelievable that anyone can hate Facebook so much that they side with authoritarian regimes." Who exactly is siding with an authoritarian regime here? The article indicates it was a unilateral decision on the part of the government. The article also states: >I't has drawn a heated response from the Government's opponents, with Opposition leader Matthew Wale labelling the ban "pathetic" and unjust."
mekoka 6y ago
Don't force a dichotomy where there isn't one. You can hate both and it's perfectly okay. There are no solutions, only trade-offs (Thomas Sowell).
millsmob 6y ago
Facebook is an authoritarian regime.
- kanox 6y ago
  You clearly have no idea what an "authoritarian regime" means.
- oarabbus_ 6y ago
  How does one actually make this claim with a straight face?
  - dane-pgp 6y ago
    Perhaps the trick is to be capable of using analogies. "Facebook is an authoritarian regime." means "Within the context of users' actions on the platform (and actions of non-users that are nevertheless tracked by the company), Facebook acts in ways that are analogous to how an authoritarian regime acts towards its citizens."
Nasrudith 6y ago
People have been confusingly propagandized about propaganda. That technique for manipulation has been around for a very long time, convincing people that your lies are priveledged secrets. It checks so many boxes for fufilling emotional needs with utter bullshit. It flatters the believer and gives a scapegoat to mean they don't need to try to understand nuanced issues, trade-offs and the cure being worse than the disease. It also provides an easy answer that doesn't mean admitting to yourself that your friends and family have frankly gone far beyond differences of opinion to become outright terrible people. I have personally concluded that there is no practical difference between credulity and corruptability - both make it easy to get them to support and commit evil. I can only conclude that a lack of critical thinking is a moral flaw in itself as strange it may sound at first blush. But really if greed can get people to do bad things nobody would deny that it is a moral flaw so why should credulity be any different?

by kanox 6y ago

rightbyte 6y ago

It is a shame only authoritarian regimes dare enforce local laws regarding Facebook. There has to be some local shell company to sue?

kordlessagain 6y ago

Facebook is an unstoppable entity we all "hope" will do the right thing by us. But, the reality is that it and all the people beholden to it will do whatever it takes to stay operating.

forest_dweller 6y ago
A corporation is much easier to get away from than a government. With a corporation you have a choice in whether you want to deal with them. Government not so much.
- jen20 6y ago
  This is a quaint idea, and I’m sure it was true once. However, in the world of shadow profiles and invasive tracking techniques, it must also be easy to decide whether you want _the corporation to deal with you_, and it is simply not.
  - kanox 6y ago
    There is no equivalence between advertising companies tracking what you browse and a government's ability to throw you in prison.
    - TeMPOraL 6y ago
      Today. Let's remember that this is an artifact of having strong governments and regulations. There was much less difference between a government and a corporation if you happened to deal with the East India Company, or US worker towns of old.
      - hkt 6y ago
        I hope you're not suggesting the east india company was anything other than a massive mistake..
      - nickpp 6y ago
        The fact that you have to go hundreds of years in the past for your examples speaks volumes.
      - forest_dweller 6y ago
        There is always someone that takes the most egregious examples they can find and then say "well if don't have strong government this will happen" ignoring all proportion and scale to any of these matters and the current reality we live in. It is simply a deflection from the central point that frequently the state will involve itself in things that it really shouldn't be involving itself in. This is frequenly because it must justify its ever increasing size. Saying that the state should have well defined responsibilities shouldn't be controversial. What those should be is a different conversation.
      - dragonwriter 6y ago
        The East India Company was a de facto arm of government; chartered as a state-protected monopoly. There’s plenty of examples of things that aren't formally states or formally linked to them taking advantage of weak or absent states to exert extreme power over people's lives (and plenty of examples of systems without a distinction between private power and public authority at all, e.g., feudalism), but the EIC isn't one of them.
  - forest_dweller 6y ago
    No it isn't a quaint idea. I am aware of the existence of shadow profiles and it doesn't invalidate the general point. Them having a shadow profile of me is an annoyance and is rather minor one at that. However I have no such choice when it comes to Government. Whatever they choose to decide I have to abide by or face fines, jail and other reprocussions. Some of those decisions maybe just which aren't a problem. However some of them maybe unjust. If those decisions are unjust I have almost no direct way to address it especially if I am in the minority.
- lostlogin 6y ago
  I’m not so sure. I can think of plenty of places that are beyond the reach of my government but well within the reach of most the big tech companies. This might be less true if you’re from the US or China or maybe one of a few other countries. What device would you use? How would you find information? It’s all possible, but not straightforward. There is likely a good sci-fi or black mirror plot in here somewhere.
  - forest_dweller 6y ago
    If I don't want to use an Apple or Android phone I can buy something else. I have a choice. If I don't want to use Windows or MacOS, I can use an alternative operating system. If I don't want to use Google's search engine there are many other alternatives. If I don't want to use a companies webmail solution I can setup my own. It is very simple to not deal with these tech companies.
    - lostlogin 6y ago
      > It is very simple to not deal with these tech companies. You may find it easy, and well done if so. Every step you have listed there is quite hard, even if you let some through (Apple in my case). Some of the things you are cutting out are very good, and that’s how they get you.
      - forest_dweller 6y ago
        Most of it you don't need. I think Stallman is a loon but he was right about the proprietary code making people slaves to it (but probably not in the way he intended). There is still lots of stuff I kinda have to use but I've managed to massively reduce my use of most of this stuff. Obviously if your job/business relies on using this stuff then you gotta use it. I wouldn't advocate that you put yourself out on the street for the source code freedoms.
- macintux 6y ago
  How do you "deal" with a corporation who controls a significant percentage of the news and information your fellow citizens consume? I don't use Facebook, but it still has a huge impact on my life.
  - forest_dweller 6y ago
    My fellow citizens can do as they like. The problem is when they require me to consume the same news and information when I have no wish to.
SoSoRoCoCo 6y ago
The funny thing is, Facebook CAN be stopped: if people don't use it, it vanishes. The existence of Facebook is 100% in the hands of the users. The problem is: 3 billion users with wildly varying options, beliefs, and attitudes. There's got to be a name for this paradox.
- rprenger 6y ago
  Do you mean the collective action problem? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collective_action_problem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collective_action_problem
  - SoSoRoCoCo 6y ago
    Yes, thank you! I think that very well captures 95% of the effect. I also think the 5% which doesn't fit relates to the individual profit motive. I don't know how users of social media profit in the spirit of the CAP. I would replace "profit motive" with "ignorance that their passive involvement enables" the destructive direction social media is heading.
Jeff_Brown 6y ago
China sure stopped it.

trianglem 6y ago

Freedom to spread false information indiscriminately does not work with an uneducated populace. Heck even the US can barely hold it together right now.

nickpp 6y ago
So the "uneducated" should be fed just "approved" information? Approved by whom?
- trianglem 6y ago
  Bringing the fairness doctrine back is a great first step.

ramblerman 6y ago

> It's unbelievable that anyone can hate Facebook so much that they side with authoritarian regimes. Who is doing that here? 2 Things can be bad at the same time. Just because people are critical of FB in the west it doesn't mean they support authoritarian regimes.

bogomipz 6y ago

>"It's unbelievable that anyone can hate Facebook so much that they side with authoritarian regimes." Who exactly is siding with an authoritarian regime here? The article indicates it was a unilateral decision on the part of the government. The article also states: >I't has drawn a heated response from the Government's opponents, with Opposition leader Matthew Wale labelling the ban "pathetic" and unjust."

mekoka 6y ago

Don't force a dichotomy where there isn't one. You can hate both and it's perfectly okay. There are no solutions, only trade-offs (Thomas Sowell).

millsmob 6y ago

Facebook is an authoritarian regime.

kanox 6y ago
You clearly have no idea what an "authoritarian regime" means.
oarabbus_ 6y ago
How does one actually make this claim with a straight face?
- dane-pgp 6y ago
  Perhaps the trick is to be capable of using analogies. "Facebook is an authoritarian regime." means "Within the context of users' actions on the platform (and actions of non-users that are nevertheless tracked by the company), Facebook acts in ways that are analogous to how an authoritarian regime acts towards its citizens."

Nasrudith 6y ago

People have been confusingly propagandized about propaganda. That technique for manipulation has been around for a very long time, convincing people that your lies are priveledged secrets. It checks so many boxes for fufilling emotional needs with utter bullshit. It flatters the believer and gives a scapegoat to mean they don't need to try to understand nuanced issues, trade-offs and the cure being worse than the disease. It also provides an easy answer that doesn't mean admitting to yourself that your friends and family have frankly gone far beyond differences of opinion to become outright terrible people. I have personally concluded that there is no practical difference between credulity and corruptability - both make it easy to get them to support and commit evil. I can only conclude that a lack of critical thinking is a moral flaw in itself as strange it may sound at first blush. But really if greed can get people to do bad things nobody would deny that it is a moral flaw so why should credulity be any different?