4 ms·

Facebook is following laws of countries it operates in, truly shocking

by discobot1 6y ago

bitcharmer 6y ago
Not very uplifting if you account for who's ruling Turkey and establishing these laws, is it?
- carmen_sandiego 6y ago
  So... Zuckerberg should fund a coup in Turkey? There's an easy common argument for these things: restricted mass information/communication is better than none, or better than the lower amount you'd get with a home-grown platform. Seems a pretty good argument to me.
  - aranelsurion 6y ago
    One could look for good arguments to frame this in a better way, though I believe there might be a simpler way to explain: follow the money. Companies and people in the West don't care what happens elsewhere, they're just in for the money. There's money to be made in Turkey as well, and Facebook doesn't care about specifics of how. For the common people this all sounds fair and strategic on the surface level, though I'm skeptical of its sustainability. Just like how it's hard to be rich in a poor and sketchy neighbourhood, it could be hard to remain a free state in a planet where many of your neighbours aren't.
    - carmen_sandiego 6y ago
      It's possible that the choice that enriches Facebook is also good for other parties. Whether they even care about the latter or not.
    - notsureaboutpg 6y ago
      Do you realize that Facebook started off blocking and removing "terrorist" content in the US first and foremost? There are many groups and parties that only the US considers terrorists (maybe along with it's weaker allies only), especially various groups affiliated with Iran. And Facebook needs to block the speech of those groups in the US as well to comply with US law.
  - postingawayonhn 6y ago
    As a product of the United States you would hope that they would stand up for freedom of speech/expression as much as possible and take a principled stand occasionally.
    - nindalf 6y ago
      There's a thin line between taking a principled stand and forcefully exporting your values to some other culture. For example, Germany outlaws Holocaust denial. It's not a crime in the US. Should Facebook follow German laws by taking down posts denying the Holocaust? Obviously they should follow local laws, most of us would agree. Here's the thing - there's only two principled stands here. Either tech giants always follow US law exclusively, forcing it on every country in the world OR they follow local laws as applicable, even if they don't agree with the laws. If a person says that following Turkish law outlawing the YPG isn't ok but following the German Holocaust law is, that's inconsistent.
      - true_religion 6y ago
        Tech giants can’t force anything on anyone without being enabled by the local government. If Facebook does not follow German law, Germany will ban it and seize its German assets to pay the fines it owes.
        nindalf 6y ago
        That's fine. So the same thing applies to Turkish law?
    - carmen_sandiego 6y ago
      Given they can't change the government of Turkey, I would think maximizing the speech given to Turks within those constraints _is_ standing up for freedom of speech/expression. In theory, Facebook and others are subject to the same laws as a local company would be. In my experience (in China) though, what actually happens is the local companies will be much stricter, pre-emptively crushing speech they consider just 'risky' rather than actually illegal. Western companies, whose execs are somewhat insulated from local pressures, tend to do better. But only if they're allowed in the country in the first place, which means they have to commit to a certain minimum level of adherence.
  - mhh__ 6y ago
    There is no simple solution here, and we also really shouldn't just throw our arms when faced with moral questions - this is probably what these decades will be known for in the future.
- bayindirh 6y ago
  Considering YPG is considered a terrorist organization and is an extension of another terrorist organization recognized by many countries, including US, I'm not sure this is about the ruler of the country. YPG/PKK terrorism is something Turkey is trying to deal with for ~30 years now. Calling people killing Turkish citizens as Kurdish minorities is also overly romantic if it's unintentional.
- tinco 6y ago
  As much as I loathe Erdogan for being a fascist prick, he was democratically elected, and I don't think it's much disputed he holds popular support. Though I haven't been to Turkey recently so I can't say that with certainty. I'd love for Facebook to have some sort of ethical standard to adhere to, but we can't even get our own governments that we elect democratically to behave ethically, how could we expect it from corporations?
dalbasal 6y ago
Before you dismiss it, follow that wormhole a little. Should amazon and wikipedia restrict armenian genocide content in Turkey? I believe this is illegal too. How about random blogger or small publication... should they geoblock content by country? How about speaking disparagingly about a King? That's illegal in Saudi Arabia, Thailand & other monarchies. Should facebook do something about this? Layer on to this the fact that FB has a near monopoly on all internet use in many developing countries through facebook zero. At some point "just following the laws" acquires a pretty sinister smell. Content distribution isn't peripheral to what FB does. It's what FB is.
hnarn 6y ago
This is such a reductive argument. Are you saying that a private corporation is never responsible for its actions if they are compliant with a nations laws? Is there no limit to what you consider OK for a corporation to do within a nations borders, as long as the action is sanctioned by the government? Do all corporations have literally zero responsibility to uphold any kind of moral that isn’t enforced in local law?
- alienalp 6y ago
  YPG is terrorist organization according to Turkey and many relevant countries and even US officials don't deny its connections with PKK. They maybe freedom fighters for Biden but it is not seen that way in middle east. Especially to whom lost their kids in car bombs.
  - hnarn 6y ago
    I didn't mention YPG and neither did the comment I replied to, which is why I posed a general question.
    - alienalp 6y ago
      Okay then we have no problem :) But he is also not saying what you are asking if he is saying.
  - ryoshu 6y ago
    https://www.facebook.com/Proud-Boys-Canada-102480378379388/ https://www.facebook.com/Proud-Boys-Canada-102480378379388/
- SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
  I certainly would object if Facebook, like, handed over his location to a hit squad. This seems like it’s very far on the other side of the spectrum. If Facebook second-guessed an order from a duly elected government to remove purportedly terrorist content, I’d question whether there’s anything meaningful a government can make Facebook do if they don’t want to.
te_chris 6y ago
Account created 5hrs ago to post this...
- damontal 6y ago
  Not an argument

Facebook is following laws of countries it operates in, truly shocking

bitcharmer 6y ago

Not very uplifting if you account for who's ruling Turkey and establishing these laws, is it?

carmen_sandiego 6y ago
So... Zuckerberg should fund a coup in Turkey? There's an easy common argument for these things: restricted mass information/communication is better than none, or better than the lower amount you'd get with a home-grown platform. Seems a pretty good argument to me.
- aranelsurion 6y ago
  One could look for good arguments to frame this in a better way, though I believe there might be a simpler way to explain: follow the money. Companies and people in the West don't care what happens elsewhere, they're just in for the money. There's money to be made in Turkey as well, and Facebook doesn't care about specifics of how. For the common people this all sounds fair and strategic on the surface level, though I'm skeptical of its sustainability. Just like how it's hard to be rich in a poor and sketchy neighbourhood, it could be hard to remain a free state in a planet where many of your neighbours aren't.
  - carmen_sandiego 6y ago
    It's possible that the choice that enriches Facebook is also good for other parties. Whether they even care about the latter or not.
  - notsureaboutpg 6y ago
    Do you realize that Facebook started off blocking and removing "terrorist" content in the US first and foremost? There are many groups and parties that only the US considers terrorists (maybe along with it's weaker allies only), especially various groups affiliated with Iran. And Facebook needs to block the speech of those groups in the US as well to comply with US law.
- postingawayonhn 6y ago
  As a product of the United States you would hope that they would stand up for freedom of speech/expression as much as possible and take a principled stand occasionally.
  - nindalf 6y ago
    There's a thin line between taking a principled stand and forcefully exporting your values to some other culture. For example, Germany outlaws Holocaust denial. It's not a crime in the US. Should Facebook follow German laws by taking down posts denying the Holocaust? Obviously they should follow local laws, most of us would agree. Here's the thing - there's only two principled stands here. Either tech giants always follow US law exclusively, forcing it on every country in the world OR they follow local laws as applicable, even if they don't agree with the laws. If a person says that following Turkish law outlawing the YPG isn't ok but following the German Holocaust law is, that's inconsistent.
    - true_religion 6y ago
      Tech giants can’t force anything on anyone without being enabled by the local government. If Facebook does not follow German law, Germany will ban it and seize its German assets to pay the fines it owes.
      - nindalf 6y ago
        That's fine. So the same thing applies to Turkish law?
  - carmen_sandiego 6y ago
    Given they can't change the government of Turkey, I would think maximizing the speech given to Turks within those constraints _is_ standing up for freedom of speech/expression. In theory, Facebook and others are subject to the same laws as a local company would be. In my experience (in China) though, what actually happens is the local companies will be much stricter, pre-emptively crushing speech they consider just 'risky' rather than actually illegal. Western companies, whose execs are somewhat insulated from local pressures, tend to do better. But only if they're allowed in the country in the first place, which means they have to commit to a certain minimum level of adherence.
- mhh__ 6y ago
  There is no simple solution here, and we also really shouldn't just throw our arms when faced with moral questions - this is probably what these decades will be known for in the future.
bayindirh 6y ago
Considering YPG is considered a terrorist organization and is an extension of another terrorist organization recognized by many countries, including US, I'm not sure this is about the ruler of the country. YPG/PKK terrorism is something Turkey is trying to deal with for ~30 years now. Calling people killing Turkish citizens as Kurdish minorities is also overly romantic if it's unintentional.
tinco 6y ago
As much as I loathe Erdogan for being a fascist prick, he was democratically elected, and I don't think it's much disputed he holds popular support. Though I haven't been to Turkey recently so I can't say that with certainty. I'd love for Facebook to have some sort of ethical standard to adhere to, but we can't even get our own governments that we elect democratically to behave ethically, how could we expect it from corporations?

dalbasal 6y ago

Before you dismiss it, follow that wormhole a little. Should amazon and wikipedia restrict armenian genocide content in Turkey? I believe this is illegal too. How about random blogger or small publication... should they geoblock content by country? How about speaking disparagingly about a King? That's illegal in Saudi Arabia, Thailand & other monarchies. Should facebook do something about this? Layer on to this the fact that FB has a near monopoly on all internet use in many developing countries through facebook zero. At some point "just following the laws" acquires a pretty sinister smell. Content distribution isn't peripheral to what FB does. It's what FB is.

hnarn 6y ago

This is such a reductive argument. Are you saying that a private corporation is never responsible for its actions if they are compliant with a nations laws? Is there no limit to what you consider OK for a corporation to do within a nations borders, as long as the action is sanctioned by the government? Do all corporations have literally zero responsibility to uphold any kind of moral that isn’t enforced in local law?

alienalp 6y ago
YPG is terrorist organization according to Turkey and many relevant countries and even US officials don't deny its connections with PKK. They maybe freedom fighters for Biden but it is not seen that way in middle east. Especially to whom lost their kids in car bombs.
- hnarn 6y ago
  I didn't mention YPG and neither did the comment I replied to, which is why I posed a general question.
  - alienalp 6y ago
    Okay then we have no problem :) But he is also not saying what you are asking if he is saying.
- ryoshu 6y ago
  https://www.facebook.com/Proud-Boys-Canada-102480378379388/ https://www.facebook.com/Proud-Boys-Canada-102480378379388/
SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
I certainly would object if Facebook, like, handed over his location to a hit squad. This seems like it’s very far on the other side of the spectrum. If Facebook second-guessed an order from a duly elected government to remove purportedly terrorist content, I’d question whether there’s anything meaningful a government can make Facebook do if they don’t want to.

te_chris 6y ago

Account created 5hrs ago to post this...

damontal 6y ago
Not an argument