4 ms·

Facebook deletes Ethiopia PM's post that urged citizens to 'bury' rebels

23 points by dsr12 5y ago

mc32 5y ago
I don't know much about the situation in Ethiopia, but if the PM is telling his constituents to defend themselves from rebels, sure, it is an invitation to use violence but it's to defend against violence. It's not too dissimilar from say a mother or father telling their daughter if they are in imminent danger, use a weapon against an attacker. Yes, it's condoning violence but it's to counter other violence. Ethiopia should demand FB have an office there that will answer to their local laws. FB should not set the rules for the whole world form a campus in MP.
- LurkingPenguin 5y ago
  > I don't know much about the situation in Ethiopia... Perhaps you should educate yourself. Here's a good primer: https://www.cnn.com/2021/11/03/africa/ethiopia-tigray-explainer-2-intl/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2021/11/03/africa/ethiopia-tigray-explai... > Ethiopia should demand FB have an office there that will answer to their local laws. I think if you read the article I linked to above, you would see that it's simply not that straightforward. The issue of how a US-based company that provides services to people all over the world through the internet complies with local laws is a complex one, but suffice to say there are places in the world where complying with "local laws" essentially entails being complicit in actions that violate international law. In this case, what's happening in Tigray has been described by some observers as genocide, and the UN has specifically raised the possibility of war crimes. Do we really want companies like Facebook to be compliant with "local laws" (read: whatever the authorities in a given place say the rules are) to the extent that Facebook could directly aid in genocide and war crimes?
  - ergocoder 5y ago
    But what should FB do? Comply with local laws? Wrong. Not comply with local laws? Also, Wrong. I'm not sure why we push the responsibility of geopolitics to FB. If US wants to sanction Ethiopia or wants FB to do something, US should make a court/executive order. Otherwise I would prefer FB stay neutral (e.g. not taking any action).
    - LurkingPenguin 5y ago
      First, can you indicate what specific Ethiopian law Facebook violated by deleting the prime minister's post? Second, since to my knowledge Facebook doesn't maintain a physical presence in Ethiopia, can you explain how and why it is subject to Ethiopia's local laws? If Ethiopia feels that Facebook is in violation of its local laws, it can block access to its services. > Otherwise I would prefer FB stay neutral (e.g. not taking any action). Facebook has a policy against posts that incite violence. There is a reasonable moral basis for not staying "neutral" when a user calls for violence against others. Even if that user is the prime minister of a country.
    - x86_64Ubuntu 5y ago
      So FB should stand by while a state commits genocide? Who does "neutrality" help in this situation?
      - ergocoder 5y ago
        From your opinion, a social network should be able to determine whether something is a genocide and stop the genocide? What next? Maybe chipotle should stop Taiwan invasion? Taco bell to stop a drug lord in Mexico? US government refuses to stop genocide. Period. If US wants to stop something, it can issue a court/executive order to do so. Or even just tell the company to do so without court order For example, US government told twitter to not go down (which was a ridiculous request) during Iran election in 2008. https://www.google.com/amp/s/mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSWBT01137420090616 https://www.google.com/amp/s/mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/... But ordering Facebook to help stop genocide? That's a hard no for US government, yo.
        x86_64Ubuntu 5y ago
        None of your comments and scenarios make any sense. Chipotle isn't being used by China, and Taco Bell isn't being used to facilitate the drug wars in Mexico.
        ergocoder 5y ago
  - mc32 5y ago
    Some cases may be clear-cut. And you may be right here. But what should we do about Iranian ayatollahs who say bury America or death to America or Israel, do we take down those snippets? Or are they in your estimation not actual threats and how would you determine that? Do news stations not carry any media with those phrases because they incite violence? Can no military or police say they will prosecute attackers and hunt them down, say Nigeria and their guerillas, or any government against any irregulars because that is violence? How do they tell who the bad girl and who the good boy is? I don't think it's the business of a company to set the standards of communication world wide.
    - LurkingPenguin 5y ago
      > I don't think it's the business of a company to set the standards of communication world wide. Facebook isn't setting the "standards of communication world wide." It's a privately-held company headquartered in the US. If it doesn't want ayatollahs in Iran posting virtual "death to America!" chants, it doesn't have to let them post them. If Facebook moderates content in ways that authorities in other countries don't like, but Facebook doesn't actually have a physical legal presence in those countries, that's basically tough luck. Realistically, those authorities have little choice but to accept it, block Facebook or find a way to convince Facebook to give them what they want.
tamaharbor 5y ago
Now I know what to do with the rebels. Thanks, BBC!
drnonsense42 5y ago
Just to clarify, haven’t seen it in others’ post, Ethiopia’s PM, Abiy Ahmed, has escalated rounding up ethnic Tigrayans to be slaughtered/sent to concentration camps over the past week after a major city was captured nearing the capital. He’s currently nearing the end of a war that he appears to have been fantasizing about long before he (mostly) instigated it. It’s blown up in his face, and you may as well start a pool as to when he flees the country at this point. So, I think an ivory tower debate over what Facebook has a right to do is a little over the top here. Honestly, Facebook may have saved lives by deleting posts like this, and the a$&hat who is largely to blame for destroying his country will not be PM for much longer, so the concern is mostly moot.

23 points by dsr12 5y ago

mc32 5y ago

I don't know much about the situation in Ethiopia, but if the PM is telling his constituents to defend themselves from rebels, sure, it is an invitation to use violence but it's to defend against violence. It's not too dissimilar from say a mother or father telling their daughter if they are in imminent danger, use a weapon against an attacker. Yes, it's condoning violence but it's to counter other violence. Ethiopia should demand FB have an office there that will answer to their local laws. FB should not set the rules for the whole world form a campus in MP.

LurkingPenguin 5y ago
> I don't know much about the situation in Ethiopia... Perhaps you should educate yourself. Here's a good primer: https://www.cnn.com/2021/11/03/africa/ethiopia-tigray-explainer-2-intl/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2021/11/03/africa/ethiopia-tigray-explai... > Ethiopia should demand FB have an office there that will answer to their local laws. I think if you read the article I linked to above, you would see that it's simply not that straightforward. The issue of how a US-based company that provides services to people all over the world through the internet complies with local laws is a complex one, but suffice to say there are places in the world where complying with "local laws" essentially entails being complicit in actions that violate international law. In this case, what's happening in Tigray has been described by some observers as genocide, and the UN has specifically raised the possibility of war crimes. Do we really want companies like Facebook to be compliant with "local laws" (read: whatever the authorities in a given place say the rules are) to the extent that Facebook could directly aid in genocide and war crimes?
- ergocoder 5y ago
  But what should FB do? Comply with local laws? Wrong. Not comply with local laws? Also, Wrong. I'm not sure why we push the responsibility of geopolitics to FB. If US wants to sanction Ethiopia or wants FB to do something, US should make a court/executive order. Otherwise I would prefer FB stay neutral (e.g. not taking any action).
  - LurkingPenguin 5y ago
    First, can you indicate what specific Ethiopian law Facebook violated by deleting the prime minister's post? Second, since to my knowledge Facebook doesn't maintain a physical presence in Ethiopia, can you explain how and why it is subject to Ethiopia's local laws? If Ethiopia feels that Facebook is in violation of its local laws, it can block access to its services. > Otherwise I would prefer FB stay neutral (e.g. not taking any action). Facebook has a policy against posts that incite violence. There is a reasonable moral basis for not staying "neutral" when a user calls for violence against others. Even if that user is the prime minister of a country.
  - x86_64Ubuntu 5y ago
    So FB should stand by while a state commits genocide? Who does "neutrality" help in this situation?
    - ergocoder 5y ago
      From your opinion, a social network should be able to determine whether something is a genocide and stop the genocide? What next? Maybe chipotle should stop Taiwan invasion? Taco bell to stop a drug lord in Mexico? US government refuses to stop genocide. Period. If US wants to stop something, it can issue a court/executive order to do so. Or even just tell the company to do so without court order For example, US government told twitter to not go down (which was a ridiculous request) during Iran election in 2008. https://www.google.com/amp/s/mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSWBT01137420090616 https://www.google.com/amp/s/mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/... But ordering Facebook to help stop genocide? That's a hard no for US government, yo.
      - x86_64Ubuntu 5y ago
        None of your comments and scenarios make any sense. Chipotle isn't being used by China, and Taco Bell isn't being used to facilitate the drug wars in Mexico.
        ergocoder 5y ago
- mc32 5y ago
  Some cases may be clear-cut. And you may be right here. But what should we do about Iranian ayatollahs who say bury America or death to America or Israel, do we take down those snippets? Or are they in your estimation not actual threats and how would you determine that? Do news stations not carry any media with those phrases because they incite violence? Can no military or police say they will prosecute attackers and hunt them down, say Nigeria and their guerillas, or any government against any irregulars because that is violence? How do they tell who the bad girl and who the good boy is? I don't think it's the business of a company to set the standards of communication world wide.
  - LurkingPenguin 5y ago
    > I don't think it's the business of a company to set the standards of communication world wide. Facebook isn't setting the "standards of communication world wide." It's a privately-held company headquartered in the US. If it doesn't want ayatollahs in Iran posting virtual "death to America!" chants, it doesn't have to let them post them. If Facebook moderates content in ways that authorities in other countries don't like, but Facebook doesn't actually have a physical legal presence in those countries, that's basically tough luck. Realistically, those authorities have little choice but to accept it, block Facebook or find a way to convince Facebook to give them what they want.

tamaharbor 5y ago

Now I know what to do with the rebels. Thanks, BBC!

drnonsense42 5y ago

Just to clarify, haven’t seen it in others’ post, Ethiopia’s PM, Abiy Ahmed, has escalated rounding up ethnic Tigrayans to be slaughtered/sent to concentration camps over the past week after a major city was captured nearing the capital. He’s currently nearing the end of a war that he appears to have been fantasizing about long before he (mostly) instigated it. It’s blown up in his face, and you may as well start a pool as to when he flees the country at this point. So, I think an ivory tower debate over what Facebook has a right to do is a little over the top here. Honestly, Facebook may have saved lives by deleting posts like this, and the a$&hat who is largely to blame for destroying his country will not be PM for much longer, so the concern is mostly moot.