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

411–420 of 512 posts

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

#411

Post by FloorEgg »

slg wrote: post #368
FloorEgg wrote: post #361

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unrestricted capitalism doesn't exist anywhere in the world.

Neither does democracy nor free speech. It's interesting that you felt the need to quibble over only one of those three definitions. I used those words in the context of the rise of companies like Meta and people like Zuckerberg. I trusted the people reading what I wrote to know that. A response telling me the US is a republic adds nothing to the conversation but allowing an individual to bask in their own pedantry.

Uhh...

The idea that democracy doesn't exist in the world is not something that I currently agree with. Did you mean to say direct democracy?

Very similar take on free speech vs absolute free speech. Did your definition mean to include exceptions for libel, fraud, child exploitation? Etc.?

You seem to be insinuating something about me by saying "it's interesting you felt..." But you are the one who put the "unrestricted" qualifier next to capitalism and no such extreme anchors on the other two concepts.

It's also interesting that you chose to imply something about my character instead of reflect on your own choice of words and their objective meanings.

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

#412

Post by FloorEgg »

irishcoffee wrote: post #390
slg wrote: post #345

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Someone smarter than me can weight on this part, but I don't think it was/is capitalism per se. Moving off the gold standard, and allowing the Dodge Brothers to win the case saying stock holders were more important than paying workers were a 1-2 gut punch to capitalism. I don't believe our forefathers would be very proud of us if they saw this mess.

Capitalism is an extension of nature. Nature can be cruel, but it's still nature.

Blaming capitalism for what's happening in America is like blaming an engine for a car not having seatbelts.

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

#413

Post by hamdingers »

jorvi wrote: post #396
fnordpiglet wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, I don’t. I remember when the internet would (it did!) and Usenet would (it did!) and irc and open source and the web (they did!) but social media was always about entertainment and (one way or another) monetization of those technologies. It’s the cancer of our collective mind and achievements.

Social media was about staying in touch. Whether that was about your friends and family (Facebook) or your city / neighborhood (Twitter). Algorithmic feeds are what poisoned the well.

You're thinking of social networking. Social media is about consumption.

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

#414

Post by FloorEgg »

selfhoster1312 wrote: post #371
FloorEgg wrote: post #361

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unrestricted capitalism doesn't exist anywhere in the world.

Depending on your definition, it may actually exist in many places around the world. As long as criminal CEOs/executives/engineers are not prosecuted under the laws they break everyday, one could argue "unrestricted" is the norm here in France, or in the USA. Two small examples out of a widespread issue: - tobacco company execs lied under oath in the USA and killed millions for profit https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Op…

Some words are new and their definitions haven't settled. "Unrestricted" is not one of them.

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

#415

Post by tomhow »

ssalka wrote: post #293
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

[flagged]

Please don't attribute false quotes to people on HN.

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

#416

Post by abernard1 »

mnewme wrote: post #310
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 do. twitter followed way less requests than X does

[flagged]

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

#417

Post by gigatree »

voakbasda wrote: post #284
gigatree wrote: post #262

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Shhh if you say too much you’re gonna rattle their “the government will save us if we vote hard enough” worldview

They should be rattled. The US didn’t vote its way to independence from the England. Freedom never comes without a cost paid in blood, but people don’t want to admit that anymore.

You should look up how the rest of Britain’s colonies got independence :)

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

#418

Post by slg »

FloorEgg wrote: post #411
slg wrote: post #368

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Neither does democracy nor free speech. It's interesting that you felt the need to quibble over only one of those three definitions. I used those words in the context of the rise of companies like Meta and people like Zuckerberg. I trusted the people reading what I wrote to know that. A response telling me the US is a republic adds nothing to the conversation but allowing an individual to bask in their own pedantry.

Uhh... The idea that democracy doesn't exist in the world is not something that I currently agree with. Did you mean to say direct democracy? Very similar take on free speech vs absolute free speech. Did your definition mean to include exceptions for libel, fraud, child exploitation? Etc.? You seem to be insinuating something about me by saying "it's interesting you felt..." But you are the one who put the "unrestric…

Like I said, I don't think quibbling over specific word choices is productive. So what are you hoping to accomplish with your comments here? Because you're coming off like someone trying to score points in a high school debate rather than someone trying to have a conversation. I would consider that interpretation as giving you the benefit of the doubt, because the only alternative is a judgment of your intellect.

To end any possible confusion, "unrestricted capitalism" meant capitalism without enough restrictions. It was used to cover a range of related concepts and ideologies such as laissez-faire, Anglo-Saxon, and neoliberalism. It was used to indicate that my problem was not with more basic capitalistic ideals like private property and competitive markets.

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

#419

Post by HDBaseT »

jexe wrote: post #207

It's clear time and again that having short-term growth at all costs means you can't have principles.

I'm confused on the "short term growth" comment. Meta (Facebook) has been around for two decades at this point and I cannot remember the last time morals were even in the discussion with Meta/Facebook.

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

#420

Post by mxkopy »

pibaker wrote: post #181
yojo wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m taking it as a given that any sufficiently large social network is a gigantic propaganda machine of interest to domestic and foreign nation-state actors. Entertaining the thought experiment where all the normies join the fediverse: now you’ve got a big juicy target maintained by hobbyists. When it’s Lazarus Group vs Randall, the over-worked sys admin who stood up a node in his spare time, who do you think wins? S…

You are worrying about domestic nation state actors, and you are calling social media to be banned by whom? Some mysterious administrative entity that is surely not a part of the domestic nation state doing the very propaganda you are railing against? Surely the people with the power to ban the lot of social media don't have their own propaganda to shove down your throat. Surely they will only ban the bad ones where…

So what, we shouldn’t even try? What is the point of this argument?
Post reply on HN