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

Facebook is censoring some posts on Indian Kashmir

washingtonpost.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 51 posts

Re: Facebook is censoring some posts on Indian Kashmir

#41

Post by zaidf »

j0e1 wrote: post #7
ProAm wrote: post #2

Facebook is not a news site, they can censor whatever they want. They are in the advertising sales business they'll tweak their product to maximize the returns on their business.

I agree. But I truly wish there was an open forum that wasn't influenced by government actors and with the same reach as Facebook. Maybe if Wikipedia had discussion rooms which were just as fancy and used by just as many people, it could prove vital during such times.

The open forums would be blocked. The choice for companies like fb is either censor or get banned completely. Both shitty choices.

Re: Facebook is censoring some posts on Indian Kashmir

#42

Post by int_19h »

debaserab2 wrote: post #23
triplesec wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

True as this may be in legal and business terms, facebook is also by its monopoly position a de facto news source and filter and ought to be held accountable for such to public standards of transparency.

what exactly is Facebook a monopoly of?

For many people, the source of information.

Yes, it does not match the nominal definition of a "monopoly", in a sense that those people are free to look for information elsewhere. But they don't, and so whatever narrative FB chooses to feed to them is what they will believe.

I guess you could call it a monopoly on attention.

Re: Facebook is censoring some posts on Indian Kashmir

#43

Post by gshulegaard »

ProAm wrote: post #18
gshulegaard wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is interesting...and actually brings up interesting questions when viewed in the context of states that place protections on freedom of speech. Don't really want to start a long debate...but for me I am not sure I believe that (at least in America), Facebook "can censor whatever they want." Not that I object to this application of censorship...just I don't think Facebook has carte blanche when it comes to censor…

Why not, its a private site, freedom of speech does not pertain to Facebook.

Well the obvious example is conflict of interest cases.

Take the hypothetical situation where someone writes a negative exposé on Facebook privacy policies and then plugs a competitor. Suppose in this contrived example that Facebook systematically removes all related content to this exposé and bans the creator.

On one hand Facebook is a private company. On the other they are built around a communication platform and communication is a constitutionally protect right in America. Moreover, this type of practice could be considered anti-competitive and subject to anti-trust regulation (a bit unusual, but there is precedent).

I am not trying to advocate one or another view on this issue...more of trying to frame what I think is an interesting question: Where is the line where private rights give way to public rights...if at all?

Re: Facebook is censoring some posts on Indian Kashmir

#45

Post by selimthegrim »

cardigan wrote: post #36
lazzlazzlazz wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As tempting as the "profit motive explains all behavior" argument is, their policy against promoting terrorism explains this adequately.

It's promoting terrorism if you're politically aligned with India. If you're instead politically aligned with most people living in Kashmir, it's not promoting terrorism, you see it instead as showing solidarity with the cause of freedom. It may be hard to understand, but most of the hundreds of thousands of people protesting in Kashmir right now are not in favor of terrorism. Instead they are incensed by what they s…

What was Burhan Wani doing partnering with Islamist groups who supported expulsion of Pandits among other things? Is it like as long as the group uses enough Arabic words there are no red lines on behavior?

Re: Facebook is censoring some posts on Indian Kashmir

#46

Post by smb06 »

ProAm wrote: post #2

Facebook is not a news site, they can censor whatever they want. They are in the advertising sales business they'll tweak their product to maximize the returns on their business.

Facebook is a company that carries out its business in a country where there is free speech. They can modify their business however they want but they will be held accountable for their actions that limit a constitutionally given right.

Re: Facebook is censoring some posts on Indian Kashmir

#47

Post by devdas »

cardigan wrote: post #36
lazzlazzlazz wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As tempting as the "profit motive explains all behavior" argument is, their policy against promoting terrorism explains this adequately.

It's promoting terrorism if you're politically aligned with India. If you're instead politically aligned with most people living in Kashmir, it's not promoting terrorism, you see it instead as showing solidarity with the cause of freedom. It may be hard to understand, but most of the hundreds of thousands of people protesting in Kashmir right now are not in favor of terrorism. Instead they are incensed by what they s…

> If you're instead politically aligned with most people living in Kashmir

That should really read as most Muslims in the Kashmir Valley (Jammu and Ladakh have clearly opted to stay in India, and the Kashmiri Pandits have been driven out under threat of genocide by Muslim terrorists, and the state is considerably bigger than the valley).

Re: Facebook is censoring some posts on Indian Kashmir

#48

Post by aylmao »

dmix wrote: post #35
bitchypat wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yep. And the news sites should report on Facebook's censorship so its users can make informed decisions on how and why they continue to use it. Seems like everything is working appropriately.

Market based equalization provides a balancing force - showing not everything requires gov regulation to correct bad behaviour :) Their popularity and role in influencing people has resulted in them getting even get more scrutiny than NYTimes and other media outlets who heavily shape and editorialize their coverage. If FB starts losing money because of outrage brought via media and loss of advertisers, then they will…

I don't think there can be enough outcry all at once to even dent facebook's profits at this point tbh. Can hardly see it.

Re: Facebook is censoring some posts on Indian Kashmir

#49

Post by Asooka »

rajathagasthya wrote: post #21
amyjess wrote: post #8

Facebook generally has a policy prohibiting the posting of gore. If pictures of dead bodies and/or graphic wounds are being posted, it's no surprise FB would remove it.

That's not why it was removed though. “Our Community Standards prohibit content that praises or supports terrorists, terrorist organizations or terrorism, and we remove it as soon as we’re made aware of it,” said a Facebook spokesman in India. If you have a bunch of people praising a dead leader of a terrorist group, it should come as no surprise that Facebook or any platform will ban them.

One person's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter.

Re: Facebook is censoring some posts on Indian Kashmir

#50

Post by cardigan »

devdas wrote: post #47
cardigan wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's promoting terrorism if you're politically aligned with India. If you're instead politically aligned with most people living in Kashmir, it's not promoting terrorism, you see it instead as showing solidarity with the cause of freedom. It may be hard to understand, but most of the hundreds of thousands of people protesting in Kashmir right now are not in favor of terrorism. Instead they are incensed by what they s…

> If you're instead politically aligned with most people living in Kashmir That should really read as most Muslims in the Kashmir Valley (Jammu and Ladakh have clearly opted to stay in India, and the Kashmiri Pandits have been driven out under threat of genocide by Muslim terrorists, and the state is considerably bigger than the valley).

I did say most people living in Kashmir. Last time I checked, Kashmir wasn't Jammu or Ladakh.
Post reply on HN