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

Facebook is blocking Canadians’ posts on the assassination of a BC Sikh leader

pressprogress.ca

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 282 posts

Re: Facebook is blocking Canadians’ posts on the assassination of a BC Sikh leader

#201

Post by EGreg »

emptysongglass wrote: post #175
throwaway75 wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Every single time anyone posts anything that puts one nation in a bad light, someone comes in with this. Can we please not do this? Your nation will have its chance in the sun too. Hijacking threads like this to say, "well, what about your nation?" is childish to say the absolute least.

Honestly I have come to see the concept of “whataboutism” as harmful because it allows people to engage in extreme double standards while shaming others into supporting any policy no matter how unfair. I have outlined exactly why here, in this post that got a lot comments and upvotes before it was flagged and buried:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31571324

It’s like if all humans fart, but then someone points out that we must put someone in jail because they farted. It’s actually extremely appropriate to point to a broader group and say “everybody in that group farts, and it is unreasonable for you to expect zero farting”.

It becomes even worse when a person X who is #34 on the list of worst farting offenders is singled out while the other 33 above them are not mentioned. The anti-X people say “well, you gotta start somewhere”. But they paint targets around the arrow X all day long.

I am not saying everyon who makes a criticism does that, but apples-to-apples comparison and having consistent standards isn’t “whataboutism”.

Re: Facebook is blocking Canadians’ posts on the assassination of a BC Sikh leader

#202

Post by ulchar »

mabbo wrote: post #48

To those saying "But Bill C-18" - it's not the Canadian government taking things down. It's the Indian government, taking down articles and posts that accuse them of assassinating a Canadian citizen on Canadian soil. C-18 is a problem. We need to deal with it. That's not relevant to the issue at hand. And to those saying "Well he was a terrorist..." we, in Canada, have something called the Rule of Law. You have to pr…

Look up Omar Khadr [1]. If the United States couldn't get an extradition for that kid, could India get one for Nijjar? I doubt it. Not saying as justification for the alleged actions of the Indian government, not in the slightest. I only suggest that Canada wouldn't necessarily co-operate eagerly.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omar_Khadr#

Re: Facebook is blocking Canadians’ posts on the assassination of a BC Sikh leader

#203

Post by kelnos »

renewiltord wrote: post #113
gruez wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>The Khalistani perpetrators of the worst terrorist act on Canadian soil, second only to 9/11 in deaths, walked free. >I can't comment on Canada's justice system broadly. But when it comes to holding terrorists accountable, Canada's track record is a joke. The wikipedia article says the Canadian government spent $130M prosecuting the accused, but was unable to secure a conviction. If these people can't be convicted,…

That's exactly it, isn't it? Claiming you have rule of law while being unable to secure prosecutions makes it a farce.

Quite the opposite. The bar for depriving someone of their freedom through force of law should be very high. Sure, the ideal is that all actual criminals are convicted, and all innocent people are acquitted (or aren't even charged in the first place). But until we have a magical system that can achieve perfection, I would much rather the occasional criminal goes free than an innocent person has their life ruined.

If the prosecution fails to make their case, either through incompetence, or simply being outwitted by the defense, that's life. That's how the system as a whole should function. That is rule of law.

Re: Facebook is blocking Canadians’ posts on the assassination of a BC Sikh leader

#204

Post by blululu »

shkkmo wrote: post #160
blululu wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are two differences: First, American law does not apply globally and makes no demands to apply globally. If companies do so it is a matter of convenience and not policy. While companies may petition the US government to apply pressure on allied countries to influence policy there is no presumption that American law will apply in a foreign country outside of what is circumscribed by treaties. Second there is the…

> First, American law does not apply globally and makes no demands to apply globally. This is completely false. There is no country that is more well versed on imposing their laws on other countries than the USA. This is done via sanctions, limiting access to the international US dollar based financial system, and by holding a dominant position in trade negotiations that often allows the USA to literally dictate the…

No. Those are political and diplomatic considerations and not legal considerations. Pressuring countries to adopt treaties and comply with American law is a diplomatic and political act and it is ultimately up to the governments in question to apply these laws (there are plenty of examples where countries reject American law). But regardless, this is an extralegal practice and Congress does not pass laws under the assumption that they will have global application. The Indian law in question is a law that applies everywhere regardless of jurisdiction and the Canadian government was never even notified that a foreign power was attempting to regulate its media. It would be like if C-18 applied to links in India.

Re: Facebook is blocking Canadians’ posts on the assassination of a BC Sikh leader

#205

Post by pseudo0 »

JohnMakin wrote: post #194
pseudo0 wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, but it would be similarly ridiculous if someone described Muslims as "some of the most peace loving people on planet earth" like the post above.

No it wouldn't. Muslims != radical terrorism. It'd be like saying Timothy Mcveigh represents christian ideals.

Trying to stereotype a group of millions or billions of people as "some of the most peace loving people on planet earth" is ridiculous. That was my point. I would not characterize Christians that way either.

Re: Facebook is blocking Canadians’ posts on the assassination of a BC Sikh leader

#206

Post by kelnos »

Zak wrote: post #34
JStanton617 wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

India (among other countries) have passed so called "hostage-taking laws" that require large social media companies to have in-country employees that can be strong-armed from ways small to large (threats of being convicted of treason and executed). This is a specific policy to allow them to enforce their censorship laws in other countries.

Do they have options to enforce that other than blocking access to the service in question?

I think the option you mention is quite potent.

"Either have employees in-country so we can intimidate them so you'll do what we want, or we block your service."

Sounds pretty effective? Sure, some people will get around the blocks, but it'll be a relatively small percentage (especially if the government makes circumventing these blocks illegal, most people won't find it worth any risk to do it anyway), and your service will be effectively destroyed in that country.

Re: Facebook is blocking Canadians’ posts on the assassination of a BC Sikh leader

#207

Post by mabbo »

ulchar wrote: post #202
mabbo wrote: post #48

To those saying "But Bill C-18" - it's not the Canadian government taking things down. It's the Indian government, taking down articles and posts that accuse them of assassinating a Canadian citizen on Canadian soil. C-18 is a problem. We need to deal with it. That's not relevant to the issue at hand. And to those saying "Well he was a terrorist..." we, in Canada, have something called the Rule of Law. You have to pr…

Look up Omar Khadr [1]. If the United States couldn't get an extradition for that kid, could India get one for Nijjar? I doubt it. Not saying as justification for the alleged actions of the Indian government, not in the slightest. I only suggest that Canada wouldn't necessarily co-operate eagerly. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omar_Khadr#

Really, Khadr?

The guy was brainwashed as a child by his lunatic father and dragged to Afghanistan to resist American's invasion. There was some kind of firefight, he nearly died, and the Americans decided that since he survived he was guilty of all the crimes.

He was 15. A kid. A child soldier, by international law.

He was held for a decade in Guantanamo Bay, a US military facility, without any real trial.

The US already had him. They abused his rights and ignored international law. Why should Canada give him back to them?

Re: Facebook is blocking Canadians’ posts on the assassination of a BC Sikh leader

#208

Post by kelnos »

shkkmo wrote: post #160
blululu wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are two differences: First, American law does not apply globally and makes no demands to apply globally. If companies do so it is a matter of convenience and not policy. While companies may petition the US government to apply pressure on allied countries to influence policy there is no presumption that American law will apply in a foreign country outside of what is circumscribed by treaties. Second there is the…

> First, American law does not apply globally and makes no demands to apply globally. This is completely false. There is no country that is more well versed on imposing their laws on other countries than the USA. This is done via sanctions, limiting access to the international US dollar based financial system, and by holding a dominant position in trade negotiations that often allows the USA to literally dictate the…

I think that's a fine (and correct) distinction that doesn't matter to what the GP was talking about (who perhaps worded their post in a bit of an unfortunate way that has you focusing on an mostly-irrelevant detail).

Sure, the US government pressures other countries though various means to adopt certain legal regimes. But in the absence of that pressure (or the absence of a foreign country caving to that pressure), US law does not apply in that other country (well, except to US citizens traveling there; the US can and will arrest US citizens who break US federal law while abroad, upon their return).

The overarching point is that US-based companies will often apply US law to their operations in other countries, even when they are not obligated to (by any law, US or otherwise). Likely this is for consistency and simplicity reasons: it's easier to have one policy than hundreds.

Of course in this case it's the reverse: India strong-arming Facebook into following India's censorship initiatives. Seems they can do this by requiring Facebook employ people who reside in India, who the Indian government can threaten in order to get Facebook to comply. As lame as I think that is, that's life, and capitalism. Facebook seems plenty happy to accept all the revenue generated by their Indian user base, in exchange for complying with questionable (or worse) local laws.

Re: Facebook is blocking Canadians’ posts on the assassination of a BC Sikh leader

#209

Post by dirtyid »

meowtimemania wrote: post #180
dirtyid wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Western citizenship being inviolable golden passports for sheltering/weaponizing dissidents of foreign states is not going to be sustainable forever. The west providing sanctuary for enemies of other states is going to end when other states possess power/leverage to do something about it.

Who are the enemies of foreign states that are being sheltered?

All those persecuated one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighters etc, political asylum west provides foreign dissidents (or what foreign actors consider dissidents) out of human rights. Frequently they settle in west and move on with their lives. The issue arises when these people organize and create movements or organizations to influence foreign policy of new host country to go against interest of where they fled, or independantly meddle to undermine. Many so far assumed western influence, more or less depending on functional immunity from extradition allows them to operate unmolested. IMO more countries with reach realizing it's fine to meddle in western sovereignty as long as west allows their citizens/diasphora to meddle in theirs under excuse of liberalism/free speech/association etc. And obviously people in "free" societies with right to influence foreign policy, may still, but govs ability to protect them from motivated actors will likely decline.

Re: Facebook is blocking Canadians’ posts on the assassination of a BC Sikh leader

#210

Post by fzil »

inSenCite wrote: post #179

Trudeau obviously grasping at the chance of winning over some Sikh votes. Whether the allegations are credible or not is irrelevant to him, and likely will not be found out until after elections anyway. On the other hand, Facebook is much more likely to err on the side of India given the much larger population and associated $ potential and THE BILL. Canada is not exactly an espionage expert relative to places like I…

Sikhs make up <2% of Canada. Even less when you account for that fact that not all of them are of age to vote. Do you really think a PM of Canada would throw away relationship with a potentially large trading partner for a few thousand votes?
Post reply on HN