431–440 of 555 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Even the policy positions listed there are literally factual and backed with sources from CNN, NYT and government websites. There is no remotely plausible reason for that site to be blacklisted by facebook.
Maybe Russians made it?
This isn't unique to WeChat. How do you think you receive free teleconferencing services from Google?
If there is none, please realize that a lot of companies use G Suite and pay for these services, which might allow Google to provide them for free to individuals. I don't know for sure that this is the case, but I have seen no evidence for your 'claim' either.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So? Are we really at the point where we can defend censorship of a website that doesn't have any illegal content, no links to illegal content, and the purpose of which is not to do anything illegal, but whose only purpose make ones political opinions known. On Facebook messenger, one of the biggest messaging apps in the world. This is honestly disgusting, and I think they are going to face backlash for it.
they're a private company and can do whatever they want
Did they say anything about legality? Facebook is free to do what it wants and the public is free to criticize it.
Legality isn't a magic shield against criticism.
It’s worth noting that Facebook Messenger also intercepts and filters messages. For example, it’s impossible to send a message containing the link “joebiden.info”. On the mobile app, it will simply say “failed to send.” On desktop, it will tell you the link violates its “community standards” and cannot be shared.
The differences are: (1) with Facebook it's a private company doing the censoring and there's no issue with that, no First Amendment issues at all, unlike WeChat where the censoring is heavily linked to the government; (2) Facebook at least tells you when a message can't be sent but WeChat fails silently.
Whether the company is private or not is immaterial. What matters is its scale, and how much you can actually avoid it.
Facebook is not easily avoided. I personally went under significant social pressure to get an account and actually use it. Getting out had a measurable cost (not being aware of events that mattered to me). That's not too bad, but even then I'm cheating: my SO has an account, and I regularly profit from that.
Same for YouTube: they have a near monopoly on most western audiences. If they block something, that's near censorship. Next to it, most alternatives might as well not exist at all.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not if you believe the US government, which says that it actually came from a lab in China.
One of the few bio safety level 4 labs in the world, but it's not simple as pointing a finger at a lab alone. The University of Wuhan and University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, have worked collaboratively on research on a SARS like novel coronavirus found in Chinese Horseshoe bats back in 2015 [1]. The research, as noted on the bottom of the report, was funded by grants from National Institute of Health (under…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't know what your service is but I simply wouldn't be able to use it as my only phone number is Google Voice. It's highly likely that prospective users just leave when encountering your restrictions and having their phone numbers rejected.
It’s a B2B service (“B2SB”?) - not targeting people/consumers - so it’s reasonable to assume they have a real phone number.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Considering how banned Google and Facebook products are in China, I'm not sure what you're getting at with this comment.
Not all Chinese people live in China. My comment might have made more sense before the post title changed. Just pointing out that American companies engage in similar sorts of surveillance and censorship that Chinese companies do, although admittedly the CCP is more heavy-handed and paternalistic in its approach.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We will give our freedoms away in name of preventing toxicity and hate speech. Won't you feel good you are helping squash bigots by giving your PII away
>We will give our freedoms away in name of preventing toxicity and hate speech. (I spent a good few minutes trying to come up with a politer response than the following. I failed.) Bullshit. I keep seeing this “free speech” slippery-slope claim. It’s simply not true. I don’t know of a single mainstream or even semi-mainstream us or eu-based site that demands PII to stock “hate speech”. They ask for two main reasons:…