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

341–350 of 512 posts

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

#341

Post by Ajedi32 »

echoangle wrote: post #324
Ajedi32 wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I don’t think that’s what amoral means. It’s not malicious but doing something that hurts others just because you gain money from it isn’t amoral just because you’re not doing it just to inflict pain. Hyperbolic example: If your boss tells you to kill the next customer or you won’t get paid, doing the killing isn’t amoral.

Good point. Even if Facebook is being threatened they're still ultimately responsible for their actions. Maybe amoral isn't the right word to describe this.

I guess it just feels like a lot to me to expect a company to break the law on purpose, even in the service of a greater moral duty. But maybe it shouldn't. Obviously if they did pull out of the UAE and Saudi Arabia over this rather than comply that would be a laudable stand.

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

#342

Post by j-bos »

logicchains wrote: post #299
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

People here all complain about social American social media companies defying the law when they refuse to cooperate with EU censorship, then they complain about them not defying the law with Saudi censorship, it's a double standard.

Could be goomba fallacy, but listening to people irl, maybe not.

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

#343

Post by flawn »

pear01 wrote: post #235
mohamedkoubaa wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The transnational private sector is neither morally consistent nor geopolitically neutral. The transnational private sector is neither morally consistent nor geopolitically neutral. The transnational private sector is neither morally consistent nor geopolitically neutral.

But is it not consistent to be consistently inconsistent? But is it not consistent to be consistently inconsistent? But is it not consistent to be consistently inconsistent?

That would mean regulation of social media companies seems appropriate.

That would mean regulation of social media companies seems appropriate.

That would mean regulation of social media companies seems appropriate.

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

#344

Post by dotcoma »

EA-3167 wrote: post #339
slg wrote: post #336

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

There were times when NASA went to space, not incredibly wealthy individuals…

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

#345

Post by slg »

EA-3167 wrote: post #339
slg wrote: post #336

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

The "proven track record" part of your question is shortsighted. We shouldn't restrict future political thought by past political thoughts. We'd never see any progress that way.

If you're asking which one of the three I think we should focus our attention for change, I think the obvious answer from both a moral and logical standpoint is capitalism. The combination of democracy and free speech means money is political power. Allowing individuals to amass this much political power is both unjust and destabilizing. That goes for companies as well. If companies are going to be amorally motivated purely by money, we need to do a better job of pricing in externalities to put reins on that amorality.

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

#347

Post by fluffybucktsnek »

pessimizer wrote: post #216
jjulius wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

[flagged]

One of the points of consumer articulation is to prevent incentives to being "unable to file without facebook". And, where I live, taxis still exist, although as expensive as before.

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

#348

Post by Ray20 »

bdangubic wrote: post #335
Ray20 wrote: post #332

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> or alternatively, we can add some tax to companies that are net negative to society

Or alternatively, we can leave Ray20 alone and not force him to pay for the treatment of a 200 kg fatties with the illegal motorcycle racing and wingsuit jumping hobbies.

> companies that are net negative to society

It is fatties who are net negative to society, not companies.

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

#349

Post by idle_zealot »

pibaker wrote: post #244
idle_zealot wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 u…

Right now you can in fact express pro LGBT or anti fascist opinions despite the administration's efforts to stop you precisely because there are no such regulations. Had a previous US administration thought that the US is a stable and functional democracy that can be entrusted with such a law, you will be in trouble.

It's not for a lack of laws granting the necessary powers; anti-terror laws passed in the wake of 9/11 allow for basically arbitrary use of warrantless surveillance and specifying any enemy as a terrorist. The reason this admin hasn't been successful in vindictively prosecuting its enemies is because they've only captured the Supreme Court, not the majority of the legislature. It's up to judges to interpret the law and decide if it's being applied appropriately. If you write an anti-psyop law it's far from impossible to make clear in the text what sort of organization it is meant to apply to. That's the case for all laws. Where it breaks down is when the legislature changes its interpretation standards. And at that point any law can be interpreted to mean anything and rule of law breaks down, so it doesn't really matter what laws you have or don't have on the books.
Post reply on HN