4 ms·

> 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/ethiop

> 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
        Drug lord eats taco bell, I'd bet. Ok, new example: McDonald. Providing food to drug lord definitely helps facilitate drug war. Why don't McDonald identify who is in a gang and stop serving them food? Why don't we yell at McDonald?
    - LurkingPenguin 5y ago
      Nobody has ordered Facebook to do anything. Not the US government. Not an international body. Facebook has a policy against content that incites violence. Facebook alone determined that the Ethiopian prime minister's post violated this policy and the company removed the post accordingly. Facebook does not have a physical presence in Ethiopia and therefore Ethiopia has few practical options for forcing Facebook to abide by its rules or "laws". Ethiopia could issue an order against Facebook, fine it, etc., and it would have a near impossible time enforcing the order, collecting a fine, etc. If Ethiopia and its likely soon-to-be former prime minister don't like Facebook's policies, the best they can do is block Facebook's services in Ethiopia. Various countries have blocked Facebook temporarily, and incidentally, some countries have used threats of blocks to negotiate deals with the company under which Facebook agrees to follow their rules. I doubt very much that the central government in Ethiopia would have much success doing that right now. https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Censorship_of_Facebook https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Censorship_of_Facebook
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.

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
      Drug lord eats taco bell, I'd bet. Ok, new example: McDonald. Providing food to drug lord definitely helps facilitate drug war. Why don't McDonald identify who is in a gang and stop serving them food? Why don't we yell at McDonald?
  - LurkingPenguin 5y ago
    Nobody has ordered Facebook to do anything. Not the US government. Not an international body. Facebook has a policy against content that incites violence. Facebook alone determined that the Ethiopian prime minister's post violated this policy and the company removed the post accordingly. Facebook does not have a physical presence in Ethiopia and therefore Ethiopia has few practical options for forcing Facebook to abide by its rules or "laws". Ethiopia could issue an order against Facebook, fine it, etc., and it would have a near impossible time enforcing the order, collecting a fine, etc. If Ethiopia and its likely soon-to-be former prime minister don't like Facebook's policies, the best they can do is block Facebook's services in Ethiopia. Various countries have blocked Facebook temporarily, and incidentally, some countries have used threats of blocks to negotiate deals with the company under which Facebook agrees to follow their rules. I doubt very much that the central government in Ethiopia would have much success doing that right now. https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Censorship_of_Facebook https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Censorship_of_Facebook

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.