4 ms·

The egregious part is the amplification part. Profit derives from that. Transmission and protection are neutral and they are necessary for all information espe

by mc32 2mo ago

The egregious part is the amplification part. Profit derives from that. Transmission and protection are neutral and they are necessary for all information especially if there is a history of freedom of expression; though of course some governments and others like regulating permissible expression.

thisislife2 2mo ago
Don't forget the politics too behind it: - Facebook and Genocide: How Facebook contributed to genocide in Myanmar and why it will not be held accountable - https://systemicjustice.org/article/facebook-and-genocide-how-facebook-contributed-to-genocide-in-myanmar-and-why-it-will-not-be-held-accountable/ https://systemicjustice.org/article/facebook-and-genocide-ho... - UN: Facebook had a ‘role’ in Rohingya genocide - https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2018/3/13/un-facebook-had-a-role-in-rohingya-genocide https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2018/3/13/un-facebook-had-a-r... - Rohingya refugees sue Facebook over genocide - https://www.dw.com/en/rohingya-refugees-file-lawsuit-against-facebook-over-genocide/a-60038553 https://www.dw.com/en/rohingya-refugees-file-lawsuit-against...
- basilgohar 2mo ago
  And Gaza: - https://www.thecanary.co/global/world-analysis/2024/12/20/facebook-meta-censoring-palestine/ https://www.thecanary.co/global/world-analysis/2024/12/20/fa... - https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20240921-big-techs-complicity-in-genocide-the-unforgivable-silence-of-online-platforms/ https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20240921-big-techs-complic... - https://progressive.international/wire/2025-08-26-un-calls-out-google-and-amazon-for-abetting-gaza-genocide/en/ https://progressive.international/wire/2025-08-26-un-calls-o...
- gagan2020 2mo ago
  Facebook is doing that in India as well. They are becoming Government Lap dog and do as its comfortable to their profits. Government of India able to suppress many dissent in recent years because of social media suppression. BTW Current government control News Channels by other means, we have term for Indian news channel as Godi Media. "Godi" in hindi literally means lap.
wpietri 2mo ago
Transmission and protection are not neutral. They're a choice. Facebook has freedom of association and is allowed not to host content they believe harmful. Something they already do extensively. [1] [1] https://transparency.meta.com/policies/community-standards/ https://transparency.meta.com/policies/community-standards/
- deleted 2mo ago
  [deleted]
- fc417fc802 2mo ago
  They are a choice, yes, the same way anything is. They are neutral choices in the same way roads and other infrastructure "permitting" criminals to use them are. The fact that Meta does not choose to be neutral in all such cases is not an argument against that.
  - actionfromafar 2mo ago
    It's more like explicitly building infra for criminals.
  - wpietri 2mo ago
    It is definitely a valid argument. "Facebook should allow all content" is a consistent position if ultimately a stupid one. But once they decide to intervene all of the downstream choices are valid to question.
    - fc417fc802 2mo ago
      They were always valid to question regardless but that doesn't mean intervention is inherently good (nor bad). We actively work to prevent anyone with a suspended license from using the road, so does it follow that failing to do the same for convicted rapists is a bad thing? I don't think "Facebook should allow all content that is within the bounds of the law of the local jurisdiction" is stupid at all. Ideally that's how infrastructure-esque operations should conduct themselves.
consensus1 2mo ago
Yes, but that is perfectly ok because we live in a society with not only freedom of speech but also freedom of the press, so it necessarily follows that it is ok to distribute speech that you don't like to a willing audience and also to profit from it. If that isn't ok, then neither is HN or the New York Times.
- fc417fc802 2mo ago
  "Legal" and "perfectly okay" (aka socially acceptable or virtuous in some other way) are different things. If HN started paying people to post socially divisive content that wouldn't be okay at all (though it would almost certainly be legal).

by mc32 2mo ago

thisislife2 2mo ago

Don't forget the politics too behind it: - Facebook and Genocide: How Facebook contributed to genocide in Myanmar and why it will not be held accountable - https://systemicjustice.org/article/facebook-and-genocide-how-facebook-contributed-to-genocide-in-myanmar-and-why-it-will-not-be-held-accountable/ https://systemicjustice.org/article/facebook-and-genocide-ho... - UN: Facebook had a ‘role’ in Rohingya genocide - https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2018/3/13/un-facebook-had-a-role-in-rohingya-genocide https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2018/3/13/un-facebook-had-a-r... - Rohingya refugees sue Facebook over genocide - https://www.dw.com/en/rohingya-refugees-file-lawsuit-against-facebook-over-genocide/a-60038553 https://www.dw.com/en/rohingya-refugees-file-lawsuit-against...

basilgohar 2mo ago
And Gaza: - https://www.thecanary.co/global/world-analysis/2024/12/20/facebook-meta-censoring-palestine/ https://www.thecanary.co/global/world-analysis/2024/12/20/fa... - https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20240921-big-techs-complicity-in-genocide-the-unforgivable-silence-of-online-platforms/ https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20240921-big-techs-complic... - https://progressive.international/wire/2025-08-26-un-calls-out-google-and-amazon-for-abetting-gaza-genocide/en/ https://progressive.international/wire/2025-08-26-un-calls-o...
gagan2020 2mo ago
Facebook is doing that in India as well. They are becoming Government Lap dog and do as its comfortable to their profits. Government of India able to suppress many dissent in recent years because of social media suppression. BTW Current government control News Channels by other means, we have term for Indian news channel as Godi Media. "Godi" in hindi literally means lap.

wpietri 2mo ago

Transmission and protection are not neutral. They're a choice. Facebook has freedom of association and is allowed not to host content they believe harmful. Something they already do extensively. [1] [1] https://transparency.meta.com/policies/community-standards/ https://transparency.meta.com/policies/community-standards/

deleted 2mo ago
[deleted]
fc417fc802 2mo ago
They are a choice, yes, the same way anything is. They are neutral choices in the same way roads and other infrastructure "permitting" criminals to use them are. The fact that Meta does not choose to be neutral in all such cases is not an argument against that.
- actionfromafar 2mo ago
  It's more like explicitly building infra for criminals.
- wpietri 2mo ago
  It is definitely a valid argument. "Facebook should allow all content" is a consistent position if ultimately a stupid one. But once they decide to intervene all of the downstream choices are valid to question.
  - fc417fc802 2mo ago
    They were always valid to question regardless but that doesn't mean intervention is inherently good (nor bad). We actively work to prevent anyone with a suspended license from using the road, so does it follow that failing to do the same for convicted rapists is a bad thing? I don't think "Facebook should allow all content that is within the bounds of the law of the local jurisdiction" is stupid at all. Ideally that's how infrastructure-esque operations should conduct themselves.

consensus1 2mo ago

Yes, but that is perfectly ok because we live in a society with not only freedom of speech but also freedom of the press, so it necessarily follows that it is ok to distribute speech that you don't like to a willing audience and also to profit from it. If that isn't ok, then neither is HN or the New York Times.

fc417fc802 2mo ago
"Legal" and "perfectly okay" (aka socially acceptable or virtuous in some other way) are different things. If HN started paying people to post socially divisive content that wouldn't be okay at all (though it would almost certainly be legal).