8 ms·

This is the exact opposite of what you think. The problem is the governments in those places, and not the private company. The private company would gladly conn

This is the exact opposite of what you think. The problem is the governments in those places, and not the private company. The private company would gladly connect everyone.

rileymat2 5mo ago
Not opposite, a different problem. If you remove one viewpoint because of government mandate, while still carrying the other, your platform is creating a biased viewpoint to influence people, that’s on the platform.
- philipallstar 5mo ago
  The platform deciding to obey local laws is not "on the platform". It's on the local laws.
  - rileymat2 5mo ago
    The choices between not operating in that jurisdiction, accepting the legal consequences that jurisdiction can enforce or obeying the laws in that jurisdiction is certainly on a choice of the platform. And the resulting product is their responsibility and a reflection on them for better or worse. There have been numerous cases of companies ignoring local law for both good and bad.
throwaw12 5mo ago
> The problem is the governments in those places, and not the private company. Do you think Meta will comply if North Korea or Iran requests same censorship? If your answer is "No, they will not comply", then problem is the company
- lotsofpulp 5mo ago
  Does Meta do business in either of those jurisdictions? If the answer is “No”, then it makes sense they would not follow laws they do not have to.
- nixon_why69 5mo ago
  It's more complicated than that. The US government is currently at war with Iran, alongside UAE and the Saudis as allies. Meta is a US company. I'd say the US government is more important to Meta than either the UAE or Saudi government. What do you think US government people are saying to Meta about this?
- marcosdumay 5mo ago
  They can't operate there. AFAIK, that's the only difference. A company can not operate in a country and not follow its rules.
- Aurornis 5mo ago
  > Do you think Meta will comply if North Korea or Iran requests same censorship? Those countries don’t allow Meta to operate at all. > If your answer is "No, they will not comply", then problem is the company I don’t understand what point you’re trying to make. Large companies comply with the laws of countries they operate in. It’s not optional. If you have a presence there you either comply with their laws or they shut you down. In some of these countries they might even arrest any employees of the company they can get their hands on to send a message, even if they didn’t have decision making authority. That’s not something you subject your employees to.
- 8note 5mo ago
  i dont think meta does business in those two countries? thats not a very relevant comparison.
bayindirh 5mo ago
Connecting more than none is an admirable goal, but if a company is not objecting this policy in covert and overt ways, they're being just complicit for monies. Being complicit is something, but being complicit while trying to sugarcoat or hide it is something else.
cmiles74 5mo ago
Strong disagree on this one! The problem is the company will do anything to stay operational in these repressive countries, including helping them hide human rights abuses (among other things). The logic that if the local government was more open about their repressive policies then Meta would happily help spread that information is probably true but I don't think anyone has ever disagreed with that.
- diydsp 5mo ago
  Yep. The worst of both worlds.. 1. Whatever the govt wants 2. Their own mods to max profit. Corporations were conceived specifically to remove responsibility. They should not be this widely available.
  - Barbing 5mo ago
    Force Zuck to take FB to a sole proprietorship Only if we want a utopia
  - SoftTalker 5mo ago
    Not sure what anyone expects Meta to do differently here. Meta has basically two choices: they can obey the local law in places where they operate, or they can choose to not operate there.
    - cmiles74 5mo ago
      My preference would be that they choose not to operate in areas where local law and policies make them complicit in hurting people.
    - stephenhuey 5mo ago
      So why not make the positive choice? Zuckerberg claimed time and time again he wanted to connect the world, and it was part of the earliest mission statements: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/sep/02/mark-zuckerberg-files-facebook-public-statements?utm_source=chatgpt.com https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/sep/02/mark-zuck... It was on the hoodie! https://www.cnet.com/culture/zuckerberg-hoodie-makes-mountains-of-molehills/ https://www.cnet.com/culture/zuckerberg-hoodie-makes-mountai... Mark said, "But there’s this mission belief that connecting the world is really important, and that is something that we want to do. That is why Facebook is here on this planet." https://www.thedrum.com/news/ads-not-short-term-solution-internetorg-funding-says-zuckerberg?utm_source=chatgpt.com https://www.thedrum.com/news/ads-not-short-term-solution-int... He also said he wanted to make an impact, but I always felt like this was misguided, because what matters is whether the impact is positive or negative. https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2017/05/mark-zuckerbergs-speech-as-written-for-harvards-class-of-2017/ https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2017/05/mark-zuckerbe... If we give him the benefit of the doubt that he actually wanted to achieve something positive, maybe he sadly became subdued by having to make an outsized return from VC money. I don't know that we should give him the benefit of the doubt, but imagine if he had sold to Yahoo for a paltry billion dollars and then created a site to truly connect people with a foundation or some other entity that gave him more freedom to ignore profit. Meta has more luxury of choice than most companies. They can choose to make positive impacts if they so choose. "He chose poorly" and "You have chosen wisely" comes to mind from the the ancient knight in the 3rd Indiana Jones film: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n-_BH7x7Dl8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n-_BH7x7Dl8
b65e8bee43c2ed0 5mo ago
>The private company would gladly connect everyone. they do plenty of completely arbitrary censorship voluntarily. no government had mandated the frenzied erasure of certain viewpoints during certain events of 2020-2023, for example.
- chadgpt3 5mo ago
  Which viewpoints?
  - b65e8bee43c2ed0 5mo ago
    the ones that corporate eunuchs had implicitly decreed to be banned.
  - tadfisher 5mo ago
    The ones that got a million Americans killed
tclancy 5mo ago
Public companies want only one thing, and it’s disgusting. But seriously, they would gladly connect three people and leave everyone else out if it were most profitable. The fact freedom, such as it still is, is unevenly distributed is no excuse and we are not obligated to shrug and go, “Eh, what do you want this super valuable corporation to do?” We make it valuable as human beings. It should have a responsibility toward us. The fact it does not is a flaw in the system, not a fact of life.
mohamedkoubaa 5mo ago
The transnational private sector is neither morally consistent nor geopolitically neutral. The transnational private sector is neither morally consistent nor geopolitically neutral. The transnational private sector is neither morally consistent nor geopolitically neutral.
- AlexandrB 5mo ago
  So what? Very few organizations are morally consistent or geopolitically neutral. Especially in 2026 where political polarization is the norm. Despite Meta's self serving actions here their morals are significantly better than those of Saudi Arabia or the UAE.
  - pear01 5mo ago
    Very few? Try none. Unless the moral position is something akin to realist self interest, in which case the apparent "inconsistency" is actually internally quite consistent. Perhaps the lack of consistent moral positions in competing paradigms is less an interesting phenomena to point out and more a tell that someone is laboring under an extremely naive conception of human morality.
  - mohamedkoubaa 5mo ago
    I'm not complaining about it I'm just pointing out that widely held assumptions are false
- pear01 5mo ago
  But is it not consistent to be consistently inconsistent? But is it not consistent to be consistently inconsistent? But is it not consistent to be consistently inconsistent?
  - flawn 5mo ago
    That would mean regulation of social media companies seems appropriate. That would mean regulation of social media companies seems appropriate. That would mean regulation of social media companies seems appropriate.
marricks 5mo ago
One could (naively) hope that goliath corporations used their massive lobbying power for good. There was a time, long, long, ago, Google refused to operate in China because it refused to censor itself. Since no matter how much power they have they won't behave good let's go ahead and regulate the shit out of them and tear them into tiny mangable pieces. If we had a thousand different smaller federated platforms it would be harder for governments to impose rules on them anyways.
autoexec 5mo ago
> The private company would gladly connect everyone. They'll gladly connect everyone except those people/places they personally don't like, or anyone their friends/business partners don't like, or anyone they are paid/bribed to leave disconnected, or anyone who it isn't profitable to connect, or anyone who is profitable to connect but not profitable enough to be worth the bother, etc.

This is the exact opposite of what you think. The problem is the governments in those places, and not the private company. The private company would gladly connect everyone.

rileymat2 5mo ago

Not opposite, a different problem. If you remove one viewpoint because of government mandate, while still carrying the other, your platform is creating a biased viewpoint to influence people, that’s on the platform.

philipallstar 5mo ago
The platform deciding to obey local laws is not "on the platform". It's on the local laws.
- rileymat2 5mo ago
  The choices between not operating in that jurisdiction, accepting the legal consequences that jurisdiction can enforce or obeying the laws in that jurisdiction is certainly on a choice of the platform. And the resulting product is their responsibility and a reflection on them for better or worse. There have been numerous cases of companies ignoring local law for both good and bad.

throwaw12 5mo ago

> The problem is the governments in those places, and not the private company. Do you think Meta will comply if North Korea or Iran requests same censorship? If your answer is "No, they will not comply", then problem is the company

lotsofpulp 5mo ago
Does Meta do business in either of those jurisdictions? If the answer is “No”, then it makes sense they would not follow laws they do not have to.
nixon_why69 5mo ago
It's more complicated than that. The US government is currently at war with Iran, alongside UAE and the Saudis as allies. Meta is a US company. I'd say the US government is more important to Meta than either the UAE or Saudi government. What do you think US government people are saying to Meta about this?
marcosdumay 5mo ago
They can't operate there. AFAIK, that's the only difference. A company can not operate in a country and not follow its rules.
Aurornis 5mo ago
> Do you think Meta will comply if North Korea or Iran requests same censorship? Those countries don’t allow Meta to operate at all. > If your answer is "No, they will not comply", then problem is the company I don’t understand what point you’re trying to make. Large companies comply with the laws of countries they operate in. It’s not optional. If you have a presence there you either comply with their laws or they shut you down. In some of these countries they might even arrest any employees of the company they can get their hands on to send a message, even if they didn’t have decision making authority. That’s not something you subject your employees to.
8note 5mo ago
i dont think meta does business in those two countries? thats not a very relevant comparison.

bayindirh 5mo ago

Connecting more than none is an admirable goal, but if a company is not objecting this policy in covert and overt ways, they're being just complicit for monies. Being complicit is something, but being complicit while trying to sugarcoat or hide it is something else.

cmiles74 5mo ago

Strong disagree on this one! The problem is the company will do anything to stay operational in these repressive countries, including helping them hide human rights abuses (among other things). The logic that if the local government was more open about their repressive policies then Meta would happily help spread that information is probably true but I don't think anyone has ever disagreed with that.

diydsp 5mo ago
Yep. The worst of both worlds.. 1. Whatever the govt wants 2. Their own mods to max profit. Corporations were conceived specifically to remove responsibility. They should not be this widely available.
- Barbing 5mo ago
  Force Zuck to take FB to a sole proprietorship Only if we want a utopia
- SoftTalker 5mo ago
  Not sure what anyone expects Meta to do differently here. Meta has basically two choices: they can obey the local law in places where they operate, or they can choose to not operate there.
  - cmiles74 5mo ago
    My preference would be that they choose not to operate in areas where local law and policies make them complicit in hurting people.
  - stephenhuey 5mo ago
    So why not make the positive choice? Zuckerberg claimed time and time again he wanted to connect the world, and it was part of the earliest mission statements: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/sep/02/mark-zuckerberg-files-facebook-public-statements?utm_source=chatgpt.com https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/sep/02/mark-zuck... It was on the hoodie! https://www.cnet.com/culture/zuckerberg-hoodie-makes-mountains-of-molehills/ https://www.cnet.com/culture/zuckerberg-hoodie-makes-mountai... Mark said, "But there’s this mission belief that connecting the world is really important, and that is something that we want to do. That is why Facebook is here on this planet." https://www.thedrum.com/news/ads-not-short-term-solution-internetorg-funding-says-zuckerberg?utm_source=chatgpt.com https://www.thedrum.com/news/ads-not-short-term-solution-int... He also said he wanted to make an impact, but I always felt like this was misguided, because what matters is whether the impact is positive or negative. https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2017/05/mark-zuckerbergs-speech-as-written-for-harvards-class-of-2017/ https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2017/05/mark-zuckerbe... If we give him the benefit of the doubt that he actually wanted to achieve something positive, maybe he sadly became subdued by having to make an outsized return from VC money. I don't know that we should give him the benefit of the doubt, but imagine if he had sold to Yahoo for a paltry billion dollars and then created a site to truly connect people with a foundation or some other entity that gave him more freedom to ignore profit. Meta has more luxury of choice than most companies. They can choose to make positive impacts if they so choose. "He chose poorly" and "You have chosen wisely" comes to mind from the the ancient knight in the 3rd Indiana Jones film: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n-_BH7x7Dl8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n-_BH7x7Dl8

b65e8bee43c2ed0 5mo ago

>The private company would gladly connect everyone. they do plenty of completely arbitrary censorship voluntarily. no government had mandated the frenzied erasure of certain viewpoints during certain events of 2020-2023, for example.

chadgpt3 5mo ago
Which viewpoints?
- b65e8bee43c2ed0 5mo ago
  the ones that corporate eunuchs had implicitly decreed to be banned.
- tadfisher 5mo ago
  The ones that got a million Americans killed

tclancy 5mo ago

Public companies want only one thing, and it’s disgusting. But seriously, they would gladly connect three people and leave everyone else out if it were most profitable. The fact freedom, such as it still is, is unevenly distributed is no excuse and we are not obligated to shrug and go, “Eh, what do you want this super valuable corporation to do?” We make it valuable as human beings. It should have a responsibility toward us. The fact it does not is a flaw in the system, not a fact of life.

mohamedkoubaa 5mo ago

The transnational private sector is neither morally consistent nor geopolitically neutral. The transnational private sector is neither morally consistent nor geopolitically neutral. The transnational private sector is neither morally consistent nor geopolitically neutral.

AlexandrB 5mo ago
So what? Very few organizations are morally consistent or geopolitically neutral. Especially in 2026 where political polarization is the norm. Despite Meta's self serving actions here their morals are significantly better than those of Saudi Arabia or the UAE.
- pear01 5mo ago
  Very few? Try none. Unless the moral position is something akin to realist self interest, in which case the apparent "inconsistency" is actually internally quite consistent. Perhaps the lack of consistent moral positions in competing paradigms is less an interesting phenomena to point out and more a tell that someone is laboring under an extremely naive conception of human morality.
- mohamedkoubaa 5mo ago
  I'm not complaining about it I'm just pointing out that widely held assumptions are false
pear01 5mo ago
But is it not consistent to be consistently inconsistent? But is it not consistent to be consistently inconsistent? But is it not consistent to be consistently inconsistent?
- flawn 5mo ago
  That would mean regulation of social media companies seems appropriate. That would mean regulation of social media companies seems appropriate. That would mean regulation of social media companies seems appropriate.

marricks 5mo ago

One could (naively) hope that goliath corporations used their massive lobbying power for good. There was a time, long, long, ago, Google refused to operate in China because it refused to censor itself. Since no matter how much power they have they won't behave good let's go ahead and regulate the shit out of them and tear them into tiny mangable pieces. If we had a thousand different smaller federated platforms it would be harder for governments to impose rules on them anyways.

autoexec 5mo ago

> The private company would gladly connect everyone. They'll gladly connect everyone except those people/places they personally don't like, or anyone their friends/business partners don't like, or anyone they are paid/bribed to leave disconnected, or anyone who it isn't profitable to connect, or anyone who is profitable to connect but not profitable enough to be worth the bother, etc.