4 ms·

The issue is not that Facebook obeys local laws. The issue is Zuckerberg shouting "I am Charlie" while simultaneously building the machinery of censorship. ht

by panarky 12y ago

The issue is not that Facebook obeys local laws. The issue is Zuckerberg shouting "I am Charlie" while simultaneously building the machinery of censorship. https://www.facebook.com/zuck/posts/10101844454210771 https://www.facebook.com/zuck/posts/10101844454210771 If you think some censorship is better than an outright ban, fine. I don't agree, but I understand your rationale. But don't build the tools of repression and ride the "I am Charlie" bandwagon at the same time. FB is blocking the same class of content that Charlie Hebdo gave their lives to publish. Zuckerberg n'est définitivement pas Charlie. C'est écœurant.

dethstar 12y ago
The whole I am Charlie thing is full of hypocrites. i.e anyone who talks free speech to promote their agenda.
- agentultra 12y ago
  The existence of hypocrites does not invalidate the movement. Democracy suffers them and remains a valuable form of governance. It could always be better and we should strive to make it that way. It's unfortunate that hypocrites do raise the noise and wash out the message... we could be doing this better.
chc 12y ago
There is a big difference between the Charlie Hebdo attacks and what Facebook is doing here. Charlie Hebdo wasn't legally censored. They weren't even breaking the law. They were just attacked by people who wanted to shut them up. One can support people's ability to say what they want without fear of mob violence and still not want to break the law.
- mercurial 12y ago
  It's about the crackdown following the attack. There has been various cases of people supporting (or seen as supporting) what the terrorists did being fined or condemned to prison.
  - chc 12y ago
    Really? I was pretty sure the "Je suis Charlie" slogan was meant to indicate support for Charlie Hebdo, not for the people who wanted to kill them.
    - mercurial 12y ago
      To clarify, I'm refering to > I find France's own crackdown on non-protected free speech during and shortly after their legendary march for free speech to be much more ironic than a business obeying local law.
      - chc 12y ago
        I think you misread which comment I was replying to. That was the grandparent of my comment, while the one I was disagreeing with was basically saying that it was hypocritical of Zuckerberg to obey local laws after saying "Je suis Charlie." I don't think the idea "People shouldn't be killed for what they say" is necessarily incompatible with following local laws about what a Web service may publish.
        mercurial 12y ago
        Right.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
nashashmi 12y ago
The "I am Charlie" drumbeat is a demonstration of unity that everyone is the same here regardless of what side you are on. It has nothing to do with Facebook following local laws. And it does not mean Facebook or Zuck agrees with saying the things Charlie Hebdo says.
discardorama 12y ago
"The issue is Zuckerberg shouting "I am Charlie" while simultaneously building the machinery of censorship." LOL... hyperbole much? "Building the machinery"?!? Every content provider has the ability to not show a page if they get a court order to not do so. It's part of doing business.

by panarky 12y ago

dethstar 12y ago

The whole I am Charlie thing is full of hypocrites. i.e anyone who talks free speech to promote their agenda.

agentultra 12y ago
The existence of hypocrites does not invalidate the movement. Democracy suffers them and remains a valuable form of governance. It could always be better and we should strive to make it that way. It's unfortunate that hypocrites do raise the noise and wash out the message... we could be doing this better.

chc 12y ago

There is a big difference between the Charlie Hebdo attacks and what Facebook is doing here. Charlie Hebdo wasn't legally censored. They weren't even breaking the law. They were just attacked by people who wanted to shut them up. One can support people's ability to say what they want without fear of mob violence and still not want to break the law.

mercurial 12y ago
It's about the crackdown following the attack. There has been various cases of people supporting (or seen as supporting) what the terrorists did being fined or condemned to prison.
- chc 12y ago
  Really? I was pretty sure the "Je suis Charlie" slogan was meant to indicate support for Charlie Hebdo, not for the people who wanted to kill them.
  - mercurial 12y ago
    To clarify, I'm refering to > I find France's own crackdown on non-protected free speech during and shortly after their legendary march for free speech to be much more ironic than a business obeying local law.
    - chc 12y ago
      I think you misread which comment I was replying to. That was the grandparent of my comment, while the one I was disagreeing with was basically saying that it was hypocritical of Zuckerberg to obey local laws after saying "Je suis Charlie." I don't think the idea "People shouldn't be killed for what they say" is necessarily incompatible with following local laws about what a Web service may publish.
      - mercurial 12y ago
        Right.

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

nashashmi 12y ago

The "I am Charlie" drumbeat is a demonstration of unity that everyone is the same here regardless of what side you are on. It has nothing to do with Facebook following local laws. And it does not mean Facebook or Zuck agrees with saying the things Charlie Hebdo says.

discardorama 12y ago

"The issue is Zuckerberg shouting "I am Charlie" while simultaneously building the machinery of censorship." LOL... hyperbole much? "Building the machinery"?!? Every content provider has the ability to not show a page if they get a court order to not do so. It's part of doing business.