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

211–220 of 512 posts

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

#211

Post by Ajedi32 »

iAMkenough wrote: post #200
noname120 wrote: post #180

Do they have a choice? It’s either that or they are shown the door, in which case they will probably be replaced by worse local alternatives in terms of freedom of speech and gov influence

Yes, they have a choice. Profits are more important than values.

Right, but it should be acknowledged that this is likely an amoral decision on Facebook's part (or more charitably, a pragmatic decision) not an immoral one.

The governments that forced these changes in the first place are of course acting immorally, that's not in dispute.

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

#212

Post by aurareturn »

davorak wrote: post #204
aurareturn wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Meta should exit the US too because the US does {x} that I don't agree with. But Meta doesn't have a moral compass.

> Meta should exit the US too because the US does {x} that I don't agree with. This can be a real argument and conversation but we would need to know what {x} is and the causal chain that leads the world to be better after Meta leaves the US.

I agree it can be a real argument.

The question is, who determines whether Meta should exit the US? Is it @ornornor? Hacker News? The Guardian? Europeans? Saudis?

If it's any of the above, I think Meta would have needed to exit the US market a while ago. ;)

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

#213

Post by yieldcrv »

They can’t publish a gag order they receive from a United States authority either

I would take most of these comments seriously if the respondents acted like they knew that

But in the demand from the article, I agree that it would be helpful to know the rules behind the censorship requests, but if they are remotely similar to the rules in democracies and republics that people are inspired by, then it comes with a gag order

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

#214

Post by [deleted] »

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…

[deleted]

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

#215

Post by jjulius »

noname120 wrote: post #195
jjulius wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This shouldn't be downvoted, it's absolutely correct.

It’s off-topic.

It's not off-topic to suggest using something other than social media to communicate in a thread about social media silencing speech.

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

#217

Post by nish__ »

haritha-j wrote: post #34
graemep wrote: post #3

The title should read "Saudi Arabia". Cutting a country name in half (unless its an accepted way of abbreviating it) is not a good say of modifying a headline. What is next? Zealand ?

Some people I know from Saudi Arabia refer to it as Saudi, so maybe thats the better word? I've never heard anyone call it Arabia.

Yes. Say Saudi.

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

#218

Post by idle_zealot »

pibaker wrote: post #194
idle_zealot wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You investigate and punish groups found to be running psyops, simple as. No need to automate the whole process with ID checks, these organizations make and spend money so the tracks are there to find. If suspected drag them into discovery and gather evidence like you would for financial fraud or criminal conspiracy.

Sure, let's just give the state a pretext to jail anyone espousing opinions they don't like for running a psyop. Surely no government will abuse this power and brand anyone in their opposition as a psyop bot army that needs to be removed from the internet.

If they want to they'll do that under any pretense they can get away with. See the current administration declaring intent to treat pro-LGBT speech or anti-fascist speech as indicative of participation in terrorist groups.

You just can't let a government get this bad, and the set of rules and procedures you need to reign in a tyrant are pretty different from the ones you need to keep a system stable and functioning under normal operation.

Post reply on HN