2 ms·

While the ads in question should have been banned, I find it interesting that it is Meta's responsibility to stop civil protest in some countries, and also its

While the ads in question should have been banned, I find it interesting that it is Meta's responsibility to stop civil protest in some countries, and also its responsibility to be the platform for civil unrest in others. This is a very concerning problem, as the media outlets so concerned with Facebook's role in the US and Brazil were openly encouraging the development of such features when it comes to things like the Arab Spring. Now, these countries are not comparable, but one should think wisely when encouraging social platforms to do X in country Y, because thing X might happen in your country too.

killingtime74 4y ago
It’s not. It’s responsible for policing ads and content on its own site. That’s it.
- anon291 4y ago
  I'm not responding to the main thrust of the article. As I said, I believe the ads in question should be banned. I'm responding to this part of the organization behind it as written in the article: > In its press release, Global Witness seems to suggest that Facebook is not taking the Brazil attacks as seriously as the social platform took the US attacks last year when the company implemented “break-glass measures” to prevent civil unrest from spreading on Facebook. It is not actually Meta's responsibility to stop civil unrest. Companies shouldn't be in the business of telling the populace how to respond to their government, and insofar as they fail to meet this ideal, democratic watchdogs should not be blessing this unholy alliance of corporations and government.
  - otikik 4y ago
    The way I read it is “they did it in the US but not in Brazil” > It is not actually Meta's responsibility to stop civil unrest Not their responsibility. Their interest. I am not a Brazilian law expert but in my country facilitating unrest is a crime. Facebook needs to abide to the laws of the countries it wants to operate in. If it doesn’t, it risks facing sanctions or even a national ban.
- sieabahlpark 4y ago
  [dead]
watwut 4y ago
Facebook is not asked to stop or promote civil unrest as a nebulous category. It is asked to police content based on actual content of messages in question.
- anon291 4y ago
  I would encourage you to read the article in which ars technica indeed makes the claim that the organization responsible for these ads believes that it is indeed's meta's job. As for the particular content of this ad, I would encourage you to re-read my comment, which is prefaced with: > While the ads in question should have been banned

killingtime74 4y ago

It’s not. It’s responsible for policing ads and content on its own site. That’s it.

anon291 4y ago
I'm not responding to the main thrust of the article. As I said, I believe the ads in question should be banned. I'm responding to this part of the organization behind it as written in the article: > In its press release, Global Witness seems to suggest that Facebook is not taking the Brazil attacks as seriously as the social platform took the US attacks last year when the company implemented “break-glass measures” to prevent civil unrest from spreading on Facebook. It is not actually Meta's responsibility to stop civil unrest. Companies shouldn't be in the business of telling the populace how to respond to their government, and insofar as they fail to meet this ideal, democratic watchdogs should not be blessing this unholy alliance of corporations and government.
- otikik 4y ago
  The way I read it is “they did it in the US but not in Brazil” > It is not actually Meta's responsibility to stop civil unrest Not their responsibility. Their interest. I am not a Brazilian law expert but in my country facilitating unrest is a crime. Facebook needs to abide to the laws of the countries it wants to operate in. If it doesn’t, it risks facing sanctions or even a national ban.
sieabahlpark 4y ago
[dead]

watwut 4y ago

Facebook is not asked to stop or promote civil unrest as a nebulous category. It is asked to police content based on actual content of messages in question.

anon291 4y ago
I would encourage you to read the article in which ars technica indeed makes the claim that the organization responsible for these ads believes that it is indeed's meta's job. As for the particular content of this ad, I would encourage you to re-read my comment, which is prefaced with: > While the ads in question should have been banned