7 ms·

I am having trouble finding a way to describe Facebook's behavior here besides, "evil". They are running and maintaining the infrastructure for a modern-day St

I am having trouble finding a way to describe Facebook's behavior here besides, "evil". They are running and maintaining the infrastructure for a modern-day Stasi, and they steadfastly refuse to do anything about it. The targeted dissidents are regularly detained and "interrogated". How is Facebook not complicit in that, especially after they have been alerted to the abusive behavior many times? Don't their own terms of service prohibit calling for violence against individuals? And what's to stop it from happening here?

colechristensen 6y ago
Stasi as a Service. Locally, facebook isn’t much needed for this kind of tracking and targeting. We already have the NSA dragnet for phones and who knows what else. What is (or would help) stopping it from happening here? People understanding and caring about how they are tracked, leading to choosing how they use tools and making data collection and use a political issue.
- alisonkisk 6y ago
  The article is about brigading public content, not tracking.
imaadrashied 6y ago
The underlying question here is: Should Facebook be forced to obey the government of a country in which it operates or be an agent for US values and ignore the government of any specific country in which it operates. I don't think there's a simple answer here and the default should likely be 'listen to government, regardless of how terrible they are' because we want to respect other countries' sovereignty as we want our sovereignty respected.
- andrewnicolalde 6y ago
  I wholeheartedly disagree. No matter how terrible? Seriously? What if an oppressive government asks for a list of religious minorities? A list of people with with certain medical conditions?
- alisonkisk 6y ago
  "US values" aren't the issue. It's Facebook values, whatever they chose to be. Here in the US we have battles over whether to cooperate with and enable the US government (military and immigration are two obvious flareup points, as is all the free speech and privacy protections that require a warrant to overcome.) When an issue is a matter of "US values", the US government can step in and give Facebook an order or engage with the enemy directly.
- mleonhard 6y ago
  Respecting sovereignty and supporting dictators in maintaining power are separate things. One does not imply the other. Our 401Ks are not amoral tools. They provide necessary resources that companies use to grow. A publicly traded company in our country should not be allowed to support oppression, genocide, exploitation, and other violations of human rights anywhere. If we allow it, we are all complicit in crushing the lives of others. We are culpable for their suffering. > In the field of modern business, so rich in opportunity for the exercise of man's finest and most varied mental faculties and moral qualities, mere money-making cannot be regarded as the legitimate end. Neither can mere growth of bulk or power be admitted as a worthy ambition. Nor can a man nobly mindful of his serious responsibilities to society view business as a game; since with the conduct of business human happiness or misery is inextricably interwoven. -- U.S. Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis. "Business — The New Profession", La Follette's Weekly Magazine, Volume 4, No. 47 (November 23, 1912), p. 7. The right, just, moral, and American thing for Facebook to do is to treat Vietnamese people the same way they treat western people. Ban people who abuse the reporting system. Ban folks that dox others. Push back against unreasonable government demands. Provide comprehensive privacy features for vulnerable folks, with local-language instructions and how-to videos. Facebook would quickly get banned in many places and the company would make less money. This hasn't happened yet because of the greed and callousness of Facebook's leaders, the greed and cowardice of Facebook's employees, and the U.S. doctrine of shareholder primacy.
  - parineum 6y ago
    >Respecting sovereignty and supporting dictators in maintaining power are separate things. One does not imply the other. A lot of sovereign states are run by dictators. How could those things not be intertwined? > Our 401Ks are not amoral tools. 401ks are an elective retirement tool. Nobody is forced to use one. Even better, if there is such a market for something akin to "fair trade" investment, I bet such a thing exists or you could start one. Most people focus in returns instead of morals, what do you do?
- jakelazaroff 6y ago
  The answer is simple; we just pretend it’s not because doing the right thing involves a business giving up money. The logical extreme of this question is: was it wrong for IBM to assist Nazi Germany with the Holocaust?
- xyzzy123 6y ago
  Funnily enough if you asked certain parts of the U.S govt it's very likely they would say: "obey local laws, just make sure you keep operating". Facebook can provide a valuable "window" for figuring out what's going on inside a country, will have some (probably small?) direct intelligence value, and provides a potential (not proven...) platform for influence operations. We can only speculate on _exactly_ how friendly Facebook is with the three letter agencies but they are very unlikely to be "estranged". In-Q-Tel know potential when they see it. The behaviour of U.S. platforms overseas tends to make more sense if you ignore U.S. values for a moment and consider U.S. _interests_. The alternative is of course replacement by a homegrown service or, more likely, one from a rival nation. There's no outcome where human rights win.
claudeganon 6y ago
>They are running and maintaining the infrastructure for a modern-day Stasi The online advertising industry has been this way from from the outset. The CIA has been investing in the ad industry to do stuff like this for decades: https://web.archive.org/web/20100807061214/http://www.bnet.com/blog/advertising-business/wpp-agency-takes-funding-from-cia-investment-unit/3319 https://web.archive.org/web/20100807061214/http://www.bnet.c... Facebook (and all the other big players) are as much a front for state surveillance regimes as anything else.
cbozeman 6y ago
So you want Facebook out pull out of Vietnam? Because that's the only recourse I see here. If they choose not to cooperate, they'll be thrown out of the country. What then?
- alisonkisk 6y ago
  Then people use private communication channels? Then people use anonymous or confidential webhosts to post content? Then bribe the government official to change the rules?
  - cbozeman 6y ago
    Why isn't this occurring now?
redis_mlc 6y ago
Rumor has it that certain religious groups on Youtube have their own apologists appointed as moderators. They censor channels that speak critically about their religion. The problems with that are: - agreement with any criticism in that religion is apostasy, so the moderator must 100% of the time delete the post/video to protect themselves, let alone their religion. - the contents of most religious texts contain what is considered today to be hate speech, so quoting, even exactly, from the text can get your entire channel banned. - some religious texts are considered to be the perfect word of god, so pointing out logical inconsistencies is something not publicly debated before (again, apostasy.) Those religions are incapable of processing these holes. In response they're either compartmentalizing the cognitive dissonance (ie. brainwashing themselves and others) or scrubbing/softening online versions. ie. moving away from the "perfect word of god." You can see where this leads.

colechristensen 6y ago

Stasi as a Service. Locally, facebook isn’t much needed for this kind of tracking and targeting. We already have the NSA dragnet for phones and who knows what else. What is (or would help) stopping it from happening here? People understanding and caring about how they are tracked, leading to choosing how they use tools and making data collection and use a political issue.

alisonkisk 6y ago
The article is about brigading public content, not tracking.

imaadrashied 6y ago

The underlying question here is: Should Facebook be forced to obey the government of a country in which it operates or be an agent for US values and ignore the government of any specific country in which it operates. I don't think there's a simple answer here and the default should likely be 'listen to government, regardless of how terrible they are' because we want to respect other countries' sovereignty as we want our sovereignty respected.

andrewnicolalde 6y ago
I wholeheartedly disagree. No matter how terrible? Seriously? What if an oppressive government asks for a list of religious minorities? A list of people with with certain medical conditions?
alisonkisk 6y ago
"US values" aren't the issue. It's Facebook values, whatever they chose to be. Here in the US we have battles over whether to cooperate with and enable the US government (military and immigration are two obvious flareup points, as is all the free speech and privacy protections that require a warrant to overcome.) When an issue is a matter of "US values", the US government can step in and give Facebook an order or engage with the enemy directly.
mleonhard 6y ago
Respecting sovereignty and supporting dictators in maintaining power are separate things. One does not imply the other. Our 401Ks are not amoral tools. They provide necessary resources that companies use to grow. A publicly traded company in our country should not be allowed to support oppression, genocide, exploitation, and other violations of human rights anywhere. If we allow it, we are all complicit in crushing the lives of others. We are culpable for their suffering. > In the field of modern business, so rich in opportunity for the exercise of man's finest and most varied mental faculties and moral qualities, mere money-making cannot be regarded as the legitimate end. Neither can mere growth of bulk or power be admitted as a worthy ambition. Nor can a man nobly mindful of his serious responsibilities to society view business as a game; since with the conduct of business human happiness or misery is inextricably interwoven. -- U.S. Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis. "Business — The New Profession", La Follette's Weekly Magazine, Volume 4, No. 47 (November 23, 1912), p. 7. The right, just, moral, and American thing for Facebook to do is to treat Vietnamese people the same way they treat western people. Ban people who abuse the reporting system. Ban folks that dox others. Push back against unreasonable government demands. Provide comprehensive privacy features for vulnerable folks, with local-language instructions and how-to videos. Facebook would quickly get banned in many places and the company would make less money. This hasn't happened yet because of the greed and callousness of Facebook's leaders, the greed and cowardice of Facebook's employees, and the U.S. doctrine of shareholder primacy.
- parineum 6y ago
  >Respecting sovereignty and supporting dictators in maintaining power are separate things. One does not imply the other. A lot of sovereign states are run by dictators. How could those things not be intertwined? > Our 401Ks are not amoral tools. 401ks are an elective retirement tool. Nobody is forced to use one. Even better, if there is such a market for something akin to "fair trade" investment, I bet such a thing exists or you could start one. Most people focus in returns instead of morals, what do you do?
jakelazaroff 6y ago
The answer is simple; we just pretend it’s not because doing the right thing involves a business giving up money. The logical extreme of this question is: was it wrong for IBM to assist Nazi Germany with the Holocaust?
xyzzy123 6y ago
Funnily enough if you asked certain parts of the U.S govt it's very likely they would say: "obey local laws, just make sure you keep operating". Facebook can provide a valuable "window" for figuring out what's going on inside a country, will have some (probably small?) direct intelligence value, and provides a potential (not proven...) platform for influence operations. We can only speculate on _exactly_ how friendly Facebook is with the three letter agencies but they are very unlikely to be "estranged". In-Q-Tel know potential when they see it. The behaviour of U.S. platforms overseas tends to make more sense if you ignore U.S. values for a moment and consider U.S. _interests_. The alternative is of course replacement by a homegrown service or, more likely, one from a rival nation. There's no outcome where human rights win.

claudeganon 6y ago

>They are running and maintaining the infrastructure for a modern-day Stasi The online advertising industry has been this way from from the outset. The CIA has been investing in the ad industry to do stuff like this for decades: https://web.archive.org/web/20100807061214/http://www.bnet.com/blog/advertising-business/wpp-agency-takes-funding-from-cia-investment-unit/3319 https://web.archive.org/web/20100807061214/http://www.bnet.c... Facebook (and all the other big players) are as much a front for state surveillance regimes as anything else.

cbozeman 6y ago

So you want Facebook out pull out of Vietnam? Because that's the only recourse I see here. If they choose not to cooperate, they'll be thrown out of the country. What then?

alisonkisk 6y ago
Then people use private communication channels? Then people use anonymous or confidential webhosts to post content? Then bribe the government official to change the rules?
- cbozeman 6y ago
  Why isn't this occurring now?

redis_mlc 6y ago

Rumor has it that certain religious groups on Youtube have their own apologists appointed as moderators. They censor channels that speak critically about their religion. The problems with that are: - agreement with any criticism in that religion is apostasy, so the moderator must 100% of the time delete the post/video to protect themselves, let alone their religion. - the contents of most religious texts contain what is considered today to be hate speech, so quoting, even exactly, from the text can get your entire channel banned. - some religious texts are considered to be the perfect word of god, so pointing out logical inconsistencies is something not publicly debated before (again, apostasy.) Those religions are incapable of processing these holes. In response they're either compartmentalizing the cognitive dissonance (ie. brainwashing themselves and others) or scrubbing/softening online versions. ie. moving away from the "perfect word of god." You can see where this leads.