5 ms·

Facebook is not a country, it's a website, trying to characterize Facebook's business decisions as U.S policy is a dishonest rhetorical tactic.

dcolkitt 6y ago
Honest question: Is Facebook doing this out of genuine business interest? Or because they're concerned about legal and/or regulatory backlash?
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- grzm 6y ago
  What’s the difference? Business interests include mitigating legal and regulatory exposure.
  - dcolkitt 6y ago
    Because the latter would definitely be a form of government censorship. In fact it's essentially how most censorship in Russia, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey work. If you tell a newspaper that they'll be regulated out of existence if they publish a certain opinion, it doesn't matter that the private platform is the one doing the censoring.
    - grzm 6y ago
      There's always a risk of bad laws and bad regulations. And certainly we need to be vigilant and correct and improve them when they occur (and they most certainly do). Laws and regulation are not necessarily censorship. It's important to have transparency into how laws and regulations are developed and applied, but that's a separate issue.
- bun_at_work 6y ago
  Honest question: What happens to Facebook if the government that rules it collapses?
  - dcolkitt 6y ago
    Honest question: What is your probability estimate that the government of the United States collapses or is overthrown? Keep in mind that the S&P 500 is near record highs, which would be a tad irrational if we're on the verge anarchy implosion. If you honestly believe there's even the slightest risk of that, why aren't you buying deep out-of-the-money put options like mad.
    - bun_at_work 6y ago
      What is this question? First - I don't have a probability estimate. I simply recognize the fact that some significant part of the populating tried to overthrow the government. Second, you should be careful conflating Wall Street with the stability of the country. That's not how our monetary policy or economic system work.
cambalache 6y ago
> Facebook is not a country Facebook 2019 revenue was 71 billion or so, which would put it at number 70 worldwide if it were a country. Maybe we should start to treat it like one.
- root_axis 6y ago
  I don't follow your reasoning. Should we treat every billion dollar company as a country or just websites?
  - cambalache 6y ago
    If you are such a juggernaut maybe you cannot hide anymore behind the "we are a private company so we can do whatever we want" defense. At 70 billion revenue your impact in society is huge, you are effectively affecting millions of humans.
    - root_axis 6y ago
      > maybe you cannot hide anymore behind the "we are a private company so we can do whatever we want" defense No such defense exists. Should we treat every billion dollar company as a country?
      - cambalache 6y ago
        > No such defense exists No such defense exists? Have you read this site every time a new wave of social media cancellations happen? After every credit card processing company ban a group of polemical people? "They are a private company they can decide what to do" Well, maybe if you are extracting 70 billion a year from society it is not that simple as "I can decide who to do business with" I think the government would be very interested to initiate an investigation if Shell decided to not fill your tank because they discovered you are a neo-Keynesian, even if there is a Chevron station 3 miles away.
        root_axis 6y ago
BurningFrog 6y ago
This is why I said "de facto". I'm not implying the US government was behind this. I'm suggesting that the end results in US and China are similar in some ways, though implemented by different actors.
- root_axis 6y ago
  No, the result is not even remotely similar. This is an individual company removing content from their own website based on their own prerogatives, not a country-wide ban where citizens risk imprisonment or worse if they violate the rules. The differences are so incredibly vast that I'm struggling to believe you're actually making this argument in good faith.

dcolkitt 6y ago

Honest question: Is Facebook doing this out of genuine business interest? Or because they're concerned about legal and/or regulatory backlash?

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
grzm 6y ago
What’s the difference? Business interests include mitigating legal and regulatory exposure.
- dcolkitt 6y ago
  Because the latter would definitely be a form of government censorship. In fact it's essentially how most censorship in Russia, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey work. If you tell a newspaper that they'll be regulated out of existence if they publish a certain opinion, it doesn't matter that the private platform is the one doing the censoring.
  - grzm 6y ago
    There's always a risk of bad laws and bad regulations. And certainly we need to be vigilant and correct and improve them when they occur (and they most certainly do). Laws and regulation are not necessarily censorship. It's important to have transparency into how laws and regulations are developed and applied, but that's a separate issue.
bun_at_work 6y ago
Honest question: What happens to Facebook if the government that rules it collapses?
- dcolkitt 6y ago
  Honest question: What is your probability estimate that the government of the United States collapses or is overthrown? Keep in mind that the S&P 500 is near record highs, which would be a tad irrational if we're on the verge anarchy implosion. If you honestly believe there's even the slightest risk of that, why aren't you buying deep out-of-the-money put options like mad.
  - bun_at_work 6y ago
    What is this question? First - I don't have a probability estimate. I simply recognize the fact that some significant part of the populating tried to overthrow the government. Second, you should be careful conflating Wall Street with the stability of the country. That's not how our monetary policy or economic system work.

cambalache 6y ago

> Facebook is not a country Facebook 2019 revenue was 71 billion or so, which would put it at number 70 worldwide if it were a country. Maybe we should start to treat it like one.

root_axis 6y ago
I don't follow your reasoning. Should we treat every billion dollar company as a country or just websites?
- cambalache 6y ago
  If you are such a juggernaut maybe you cannot hide anymore behind the "we are a private company so we can do whatever we want" defense. At 70 billion revenue your impact in society is huge, you are effectively affecting millions of humans.
  - root_axis 6y ago
    > maybe you cannot hide anymore behind the "we are a private company so we can do whatever we want" defense No such defense exists. Should we treat every billion dollar company as a country?
    - cambalache 6y ago
      > No such defense exists No such defense exists? Have you read this site every time a new wave of social media cancellations happen? After every credit card processing company ban a group of polemical people? "They are a private company they can decide what to do" Well, maybe if you are extracting 70 billion a year from society it is not that simple as "I can decide who to do business with" I think the government would be very interested to initiate an investigation if Shell decided to not fill your tank because they discovered you are a neo-Keynesian, even if there is a Chevron station 3 miles away.
      - root_axis 6y ago

BurningFrog 6y ago

This is why I said "de facto". I'm not implying the US government was behind this. I'm suggesting that the end results in US and China are similar in some ways, though implemented by different actors.

root_axis 6y ago
No, the result is not even remotely similar. This is an individual company removing content from their own website based on their own prerogatives, not a country-wide ban where citizens risk imprisonment or worse if they violate the rules. The differences are so incredibly vast that I'm struggling to believe you're actually making this argument in good faith.