4 ms·

Not true, there’s a third option: Stop operating in those countries. Which used to be a common choice for tech companies, until it somehow became unthinkable fo

by p-e-w 5mo ago

Not true, there’s a third option: Stop operating in those countries. Which used to be a common choice for tech companies, until it somehow became unthinkable for some reason.

strictnein 5mo ago
Is it better for human rights for a channel of communication to exist only if every single person can use it? Or is it a net positive for these communication channels to exist, albeit in an imperfect form?
- p-e-w 5mo ago
  Communication channels like Meta are a strict negative for human rights everywhere (including in the West), because they funnel all communication into a single channel that is easy to surveil and censor.
  - Pay08 5mo ago
    What would the alternative be? Radio?
microtonal 5mo ago
Meta has also been regularly nuking/blocking rights-related accounts in countries that do support human rights. E.g. in The Netherlands. First they did a mass block last December, then again in April: https://www.at5.nl/artikelen/237924/meta-verwijdert-instagram-accounts-van-queerorganisaties-je-voelt-je-kwetsbaar https://www.at5.nl/artikelen/237924/meta-verwijdert-instagra... Some were reinstated again, but not all and not after they have been offline for to long.
- p-e-w 5mo ago
  The Netherlands supports precisely those human rights that aren’t inconvenient for them. Just like every other country. There is no fundamental distinction here.
  - microtonal 5mo ago
    Which is relevant to my comment how? (The Dutch government certainly rejects LGBTQ censorship.)
- genghisjahn 5mo ago
  I don't know if everything in the book "Careless People" is accurate, but there's a lot of quoted emails saying that this is all part of Meta's playbook.
ZetsuBouKyo 5mo ago
Operating in these countries helps gather information in them.
ReptileMan 5mo ago
It's called shareholders. When you need a single person with a single share to be able to sue the company for not doing its fiduciary duty that is the result.
tejohnso 5mo ago
Meta is not a political or moral entity, it's a for profit tech company. I don't see why it would be expected to make judgement calls on government requirements. Are we expecting Meta to take a political stance for or against specific policies in every country in which it operates? How would its politics be determined? I think the sensible thing for the corporation to do is to operate as widely as possible and follow the rules where it operates. Governments suppress information all the time. We know of a huge list of thousands of documents and terabytes of video implicating people in child abuse and as important as that is, we aren't getting all of the information. That's the government position. Redact and suppress. It's up to the people to demand transparency from their government and if they don't demand it and fight for it, they won't get it. Corporations like Meta aren't there to help fight the power.
- drowntoge 5mo ago
  Being a for-profit company does not automatically give you a free pass to do anything in the name of profit and claim immunity if your actions harm certain people. Individuals can (and will) expose and condemn for-profits for policies they believe cause them harm in order to attach some semblance of accountability to a corporation that would otherwise completely ignore their interests. This is effectively a way of exerting some form of voting power over the decision-making algorithm of the profit-driven body. And something that might make an entity solely focused on profit reconsider running over the concerns of those affected, precisely because they made taking that route less profitable for it. This is not only perfectly legitimate, it is also one of the most powerful ways for consumers to challenge plutocratic forces.
  - tejohnso 5mo ago
    > Being a for-profit company does not automatically give you a free pass to do anything in the name of profit and claim immunity Okay but that's not what were talking about. We're talking about Meta following the rules specified by the government of a country in which they operate. They don't need immunity to follow the rules.
- pesus 5mo ago
skeledrew 5mo ago
That 3rd choice is invalid because it assumes Meta (or any other large enough company) cares about a given tiny subset of its users. A company exists to make profit, with care about users only a by-product of that, in as much as showing care increases user affinity and more users means more profit. And there's a far less negative effect on profit to be rid of a few users than get into the bad books of an entire country.

by p-e-w 5mo ago

Not true, there’s a third option: Stop operating in those countries. Which used to be a common choice for tech companies, until it somehow became unthinkable for some reason.

strictnein 5mo ago

Is it better for human rights for a channel of communication to exist only if every single person can use it? Or is it a net positive for these communication channels to exist, albeit in an imperfect form?

p-e-w 5mo ago
Communication channels like Meta are a strict negative for human rights everywhere (including in the West), because they funnel all communication into a single channel that is easy to surveil and censor.
- Pay08 5mo ago
  What would the alternative be? Radio?

microtonal 5mo ago

Meta has also been regularly nuking/blocking rights-related accounts in countries that do support human rights. E.g. in The Netherlands. First they did a mass block last December, then again in April: https://www.at5.nl/artikelen/237924/meta-verwijdert-instagram-accounts-van-queerorganisaties-je-voelt-je-kwetsbaar https://www.at5.nl/artikelen/237924/meta-verwijdert-instagra... Some were reinstated again, but not all and not after they have been offline for to long.

p-e-w 5mo ago
The Netherlands supports precisely those human rights that aren’t inconvenient for them. Just like every other country. There is no fundamental distinction here.
- microtonal 5mo ago
  Which is relevant to my comment how? (The Dutch government certainly rejects LGBTQ censorship.)
genghisjahn 5mo ago
I don't know if everything in the book "Careless People" is accurate, but there's a lot of quoted emails saying that this is all part of Meta's playbook.

ZetsuBouKyo 5mo ago

Operating in these countries helps gather information in them.

ReptileMan 5mo ago

It's called shareholders. When you need a single person with a single share to be able to sue the company for not doing its fiduciary duty that is the result.

tejohnso 5mo ago

Meta is not a political or moral entity, it's a for profit tech company. I don't see why it would be expected to make judgement calls on government requirements. Are we expecting Meta to take a political stance for or against specific policies in every country in which it operates? How would its politics be determined? I think the sensible thing for the corporation to do is to operate as widely as possible and follow the rules where it operates. Governments suppress information all the time. We know of a huge list of thousands of documents and terabytes of video implicating people in child abuse and as important as that is, we aren't getting all of the information. That's the government position. Redact and suppress. It's up to the people to demand transparency from their government and if they don't demand it and fight for it, they won't get it. Corporations like Meta aren't there to help fight the power.

drowntoge 5mo ago
Being a for-profit company does not automatically give you a free pass to do anything in the name of profit and claim immunity if your actions harm certain people. Individuals can (and will) expose and condemn for-profits for policies they believe cause them harm in order to attach some semblance of accountability to a corporation that would otherwise completely ignore their interests. This is effectively a way of exerting some form of voting power over the decision-making algorithm of the profit-driven body. And something that might make an entity solely focused on profit reconsider running over the concerns of those affected, precisely because they made taking that route less profitable for it. This is not only perfectly legitimate, it is also one of the most powerful ways for consumers to challenge plutocratic forces.
- tejohnso 5mo ago
  > Being a for-profit company does not automatically give you a free pass to do anything in the name of profit and claim immunity Okay but that's not what were talking about. We're talking about Meta following the rules specified by the government of a country in which they operate. They don't need immunity to follow the rules.
pesus 5mo ago

skeledrew 5mo ago

That 3rd choice is invalid because it assumes Meta (or any other large enough company) cares about a given tiny subset of its users. A company exists to make profit, with care about users only a by-product of that, in as much as showing care increases user affinity and more users means more profit. And there's a far less negative effect on profit to be rid of a few users than get into the bad books of an entire country.