2 ms·

Before you think this is just Facebook making an arbitrary decision: > Germany’s domestic intelligence agency has put some Querdenker adherents under surveilla

Before you think this is just Facebook making an arbitrary decision: > Germany’s domestic intelligence agency has put some Querdenker adherents under surveillance as the movement has become increasingly radicalized and its protests have attracted neo-Nazis and other right-wing extremists. The article does not say anything about the German government making any kind of formal request so this just seems like Facebook is going to be proactive is blocking things countries don't like rather than wait for legislation or a legally binding request. Pretty harmless in this case but I wonder if Facebook would do the same in countries with speech censorship and human rights violations. Countries may not even need to build a GFW or filter Facebook since they would rather voluntarily comply than be regulated.

TMWNN 5y ago
>Pretty harmless in this case No! It's worse. If a democratic government mandates something that some view as unreasonable, they can always hope that the ballot box and elected representatives can at some point reverses the action. If a private company "anticipates" a government's actions in an unreasonable way, what appeal is there? >but I wonder if Facebook would do the same in countries with speech censorship and human rights violations. Countries may not even need to build a GFW or filter Facebook since they would rather voluntarily comply than be regulated. I don't disagree. But I suspect that Facebook by and large isn't allowed in such countries in the first place (China, for example).
- KingMachiavelli 5y ago
  The government acting could mean that all social media companies would have to do X action. See India as an example. If Facebook does something on its own then people can use other platforms or make their own. In any case I said harmless because the banned groups were breaking other rules as well and aren't going to be missed.

TMWNN 5y ago

>Pretty harmless in this case No! It's worse. If a democratic government mandates something that some view as unreasonable, they can always hope that the ballot box and elected representatives can at some point reverses the action. If a private company "anticipates" a government's actions in an unreasonable way, what appeal is there? >but I wonder if Facebook would do the same in countries with speech censorship and human rights violations. Countries may not even need to build a GFW or filter Facebook since they would rather voluntarily comply than be regulated. I don't disagree. But I suspect that Facebook by and large isn't allowed in such countries in the first place (China, for example).

KingMachiavelli 5y ago
The government acting could mean that all social media companies would have to do X action. See India as an example. If Facebook does something on its own then people can use other platforms or make their own. In any case I said harmless because the banned groups were breaking other rules as well and aren't going to be missed.