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

331–340 of 512 posts

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

#331

Post by like_any_other »

Many are saying Meta has to comply with local law, and, fair enough. But does anyone know - when someone in that region tries to view a blocked post or account - do they see the post, but the content is censored over with a black bar with "Censored by order of the UAE"? Do such censored posts show up in recommendation feeds, promoted at equal rates as non-censored content, so that it is obvious something is there that you are forbidden from seeing?

Or is the content simply absent, and unless you directly visit the banned accounts, you don't even know anything was censored?

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

#332

Post by Ray20 »

pants2 wrote: post #176
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.

> taxed for their contribution to obesity

It's always amazing how fatties can shift responsibility onto others. The calorie count for Cola is listed right on the bottle. Just don't drink it if you're to fat. And spend a few hours teaching your fat kids to read.

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

#333

Post by Ajedi32 »

8note wrote: post #313
Ajedi32 wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think someone accessing content on US servers run by a US company counts as "operating in" any country other than the US. But Meta is an international company, so maybe they have servers/staff in Saudi Arabia, in which case their only options are to leave the country or comply.

operating here is the buying and selling of ads

I'd argue doing business with a foreigner doesn't constitute "operating in" that person's country if you never set foot there. They came to you, not the other way around.

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

#334

Post by ticulatedspline »

arandomhuman wrote: post #320
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

>Do they have a choice? Yes, they absolutely have a choice. People can choose to not assist with transgressions against human rights in the year 2026 :)

[flagged]

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

#335

Post by bdangubic »

Ray20 wrote: post #332
pants2 wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> taxed for their contribution to obesity It's always amazing how fatties can shift responsibility onto others. The calorie count for Cola is listed right on the bottle. Just don't drink it if you're to fat. And spend a few hours teaching your fat kids to read.

> The calorie count for Cola is listed right on the bottle. Just don't drink it if you're to fat. And spend a few hours teaching your fat kids to read.

it is legal to drink Cola, yes? so I will drink it as I have no control over it... eventually I am going to have serious health issues... and Ray20 will pay for this from his taxes... or alternatively, we can add some tax to companies that are net negative to society and are causing Ray20's money to be spent on my fat asses healthcare, yes?

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

#336

Post by slg »

Ajedi32 wrote: post #190
dotcoma wrote: post #118

Remember when they told us that social media would "spread democracy" ?

Isn't that precisely why this is happening? Because it's doing exactly that, and the people in power in these countries don't like it?

At some point societies are going to have to reckon with the fact that democracy, free speech, and unrestricted capitalism simply aren't a sustainable mix. A system that allows people to amass incredible fortunes and use those fortunes to influence other people's beliefs and votes is simply a system that will eventually fall under the control of those ultrawealthy people.

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

#337

Post by Karrot_Kream »

pembrook wrote: post #321
bogota wrote: post #59

Is HN just reddit now? The comments on this are beyond stupid and add nothing of value or thought.

I've been saying this for the past year or so. Something happened during the pandemic where too many normies got hired into tech and then started larping around here. The quality of comments here is now just emotional mainstream nonsense, compared to the annoyingly autistic (but often intelligent) analysis that used to be commonplace.

It was probably the Reddit exodus. A lot of people from Reddit realized that HN has the same topics as Reddit and has the same upvote/downvote interface around the same time Reddit was having its API changes. The folks who did it were the kind who felt strongly enough about Reddit's leadership that they brought their strong opinions here.

Nothing you can do about open forums really. They all regress to the mean user who has enough time to spend hitting the up and downvote arrows on the website all day.

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

#338

Post by somenameforme »

nailer wrote: post #275
Georgelemental wrote: post #249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Russia and China can do that, but I am not sure Saudi and UAE reasonably could. Too small and too enmeshed with the US empire

Saudi could - I think people accept Saudi is a religious oligarchy - but the UAE is a playground of international people avoiding tax and ostensibly a first world country, Facebook being banned would highlight how ridiculous the government that did that is.

It's an authoritarian autocracy. I'm not using that as a slur against them as it seems like quite a nice place to stay for a while, but it's simply what it is. An American spent the better part of a year in a max security prison there for the high crime of making a video mocking youth culture. [1] I'm rather surprised to find out that Facebook isn't already banned! In looking it up turns out you can get into legal trouble there for things as small as using suggestive emojis, and they are watching. Kind of funny in a way.

Anyhow, yeah - Facebook being banned in UAE would surprise exactly nobody that's familiar with their government. People are willing to tolerate a whole lot of nonsense for 0% taxes!

[1] - https://apnews.com/general-news-4c1f57ed465940659eeb79b41447...

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

#339

Post by EA-3167 »

slg wrote: post #336
Ajedi32 wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't that precisely why this is happening? Because it's doing exactly that, and the people in power in these countries don't like it?

At some point societies are going to have to reckon with the fact that democracy, free speech, and unrestricted capitalism simply aren't a sustainable mix. A system that allows people to amass incredible fortunes and use those fortunes to influence other people's beliefs and votes is simply a system that will eventually fall under the control of those ultrawealthy people.

What’s your more effective, less flawed alternative with a proven track record?

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

#340

Post by tejohnso »

pesus wrote: post #311
tejohnso wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Meta lost the ability to claim they're not political when they donated to Trump, one of those child abusers you're talking about. They seem to have no problem taking a political stance when it benefits them.

That is not about taking a political or moral stance though. Although Trump is a political figure, it could be seen as a simple transaction to the new administration to gain favor. It's not Meta deciding it dislikes a certain viewpoint and playing activist, making moral judgments about population control mechanisms employed by foreign countries. I think there's a difference there. And Meta is expected to have a stance on things like content regulation and platform liability that are core to its operation. It's not completely apolitical. Almost any decision can be framed as being political.
Post reply on HN