Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Meta blocks human rights accounts from reaching audiences in Saudi Arabia, UAE

alqst.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 512 posts

Re: Meta blocks human rights accounts from reaching audiences in Saudi Arabia, UAE

#171

Post by 0x5FC3 »

pear01 wrote: post #150
0x5FC3 wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I hear you, there are countless problems to solve. My "..in a just world.." was doing a lot of heavy lifting. > I mean at least they are giving you a free service and you essentially take part in a transaction. Yes, it is akin to a transaction, but we cannot ignore the power imbalance between the user and the corporation. They actively engineer their platforms to keep you glued to the screen. It is far from free. You…

Fair enough, I appreciate the response. Just note in this case I think the precedent should not be private company can ignore public demand. If they can unilaterally ignore the demands of the Saudi government then why not any liberal government? If you operate in a country you should have to follow their rules. If the rules themselves are bad that is a different question. The remedy in that case then would not be a t…

The export control angle is interesting. I was treating addiction, radicalization, capitulation to authoritarian govts, abetting human rights violations, productivity loss, etc., as the symptom of a common cause: the hyper-optimized engagement model and curbing it with a policy. You're right that some of these harms might warrant categorical exclusions rather than pricing the whole business model out.

I may have had an overly optimistic ideal of people running small federated mastodon servers for friends and family for free/donations being the only type of "social media".

Re: Meta blocks human rights accounts from reaching audiences in Saudi Arabia, UAE

#172

Post by cmiles74 »

SoftTalker wrote: post #146
diydsp wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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.

My preference would be that they choose not to operate in areas where local law and policies make them complicit in hurting people.

Re: Meta blocks human rights accounts from reaching audiences in Saudi Arabia, UAE

#173

Post by Ajedi32 »

reaperducer wrote: post #159
dpoloncsak wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Just ban the lot of them and move on. How do you define social network, though? Is Facebook a social network, even though it includes a marketplace? Is HN a social network? Is Newgrounds a social network....? Seems difficult to stomp out effectively

Seems difficult to stomp out effectively So just give up because something is hard? Sounds like the tech industry and its never-ending quest for low-hanging fruit. "We've tried nothing, and we're all out of ideas."

[dead]

Re: Meta blocks human rights accounts from reaching audiences in Saudi Arabia, UAE

#174

Post by dpoloncsak »

reaperducer wrote: post #159
dpoloncsak wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Just ban the lot of them and move on. How do you define social network, though? Is Facebook a social network, even though it includes a marketplace? Is HN a social network? Is Newgrounds a social network....? Seems difficult to stomp out effectively

Seems difficult to stomp out effectively So just give up because something is hard? Sounds like the tech industry and its never-ending quest for low-hanging fruit. "We've tried nothing, and we're all out of ideas."

I'm sorry if my comment came off dismissive, I was just remarking the idea of banning social media seems like we're going down the wrong alley. I like other commenter's ideas of outlawing the underlying tech. I'm more-so just asking how to make a distinction between a post on Reddit (commonly called social media) and a post on Stack-Overflow (not commonly referred to as social media). Discord vs Teams...etc.

I think user 0x5FC3 correctly identifies the root of the issue, and any (if implemented) regulation should be based on the algorithmic serving, but I hold a firm belief that you cannot and should not try to outlaw math. From my first glance at this issue, it seems tricky

Re: Meta blocks human rights accounts from reaching audiences in Saudi Arabia, UAE

#175

Post by stephenhuey »

SoftTalker wrote: post #146
diydsp wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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.

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-zuck...

It was on the hoodie!

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-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-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

Re: Meta blocks human rights accounts from reaching audiences in Saudi Arabia, UAE

#176

Post by pants2 »

0x5FC3 wrote: post #18

Social media companies post record earnings year after year from their ads business while increasingly proving to be harmful to society. They do the bare minimum in terms of content moderation and bots while priming the algorithms to maximize revenue. The good ol' privatized profits, socialized harm model. In a just world, would social media platforms be taxed higher on corporate revenue and how would that pan out? M…

In a just world all companies would be taxed on their overall impact and not just revenue. Coca Cola would be taxed for their contribution to obesity and plastic waste. Exxon would be taxed for their emissions. Meta would be taxed for its harmful impacts on society and childhood development.

Re: Meta blocks human rights accounts from reaching audiences in Saudi Arabia, UAE

#177

Post by philipallstar »

rileymat2 wrote: post #53
philipallstar wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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.

The platform deciding to obey local laws is not "on the platform". It's on the local laws.

Re: Meta blocks human rights accounts from reaching audiences in Saudi Arabia, UAE

#179

Post by drowntoge »

tejohnso wrote: post #71
p-e-w wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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…

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.
Post reply on HN