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

481–490 of 512 posts

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

#481

Post by mannanj »

runtime_terror wrote: post #269
mannanj wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I see. So you employ the Ad Hominem style fallacies to attack my credibility. No thank you. Unlike you, I listen with an open mind and curiosity. It's led me to an obsession in my health practices as a nearly full-time job for about 10 years, I don't just blindly follow what I'm spoon fed by a doctor or some authority figure. And neither do I blindly call forth the label of "science" to win approval and credibility.

Science is literally the path towards understanding of the world around us through hypothesis, experimentation and study. That's definitionally being open minded and curious. Your statements imply that we can't trust scientists because of their "authority" and that they just use that position as scientists to nefariously control you? Why should anyone trust you? "Curiosity", having an "open mind" and "a nearly full-t…

hi runtime, thank you for attempting to engage in good faith.

when I said I don't blindly follow authority or blindly call "science" as a credibility shield, I think you demonstrated bad faith of my argument by saying:

> Your statements imply that we can't trust scientists because of their 'authority' and that they just use that position as scientists to nefariously control you?

I never implied scientists can't be trusted or that they're nefarious. This is both a straw man and attacking me as some sort of person wishing ill intent on others.

When you said > I don't see any other way humans can get a clear understanding of the world other than the scientific process

Again via bad faith, or straw man, you imply I have rejected the scientific process.

Do you know what circular framing is? Do you see any circular reasoning issues in your response? I thank you for your engagement, though I can see we aren't aligned in intent in having an open-minded, scientific conversation.

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

#482

Post by mannanj »

jazzypants wrote: post #91
mannanj wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I see. So you employ the Ad Hominem style fallacies to attack my credibility. No thank you. Unlike you, I listen with an open mind and curiosity. It's led me to an obsession in my health practices as a nearly full-time job for about 10 years, I don't just blindly follow what I'm spoon fed by a doctor or some authority figure. And neither do I blindly call forth the label of "science" to win approval and credibility.

You were talking about your personal experience, were you not? How can I avoid Ad Hominem when we are literally talking about you? I definitely could have phrased my question better, but I genuinely don't understand why you think that a public forum run by a private company should be required to publish unverified "health practices" in the midst of a global pandemic. I'm not going to pretend that the CDC did a good j…

I think you should look at your tone, have a neutral party look at the assumptions, logical fallacies, and general bad faith you demonstrate. I can't see how we can continue when I am assuming good faith, and you are assuming bad faith. Indeed in a hostile interaction which I don't desire, the conversation is over.

Cheers!

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

#483

Post by nailer »

somenameforme wrote: post #338
nailer wrote: post #275

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 tr…

> 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:

Here's the video - parent is right this is incredibly mild:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IUk5CB9kaBY

From the article: "he was charged with endangering state security under a 2012 cybercrimes law that tightened penalties for challenging authorities." "Cassim has been in the maximum security prison at Abu Dhabi since June. In December, he was convicted and sentenced to one year in prison, a fine and deportation."

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

#484

Post by neop1x »

cebert wrote: post #430
NewCzech wrote: post #219

I'm in the UAE right now. The site www.alqst.org is blocked here. I had to turn on a VPN to read the article. Here, it's not even allowed to read about what's not allowed!

Aren’t you afraid of using a VPN and their being ramifications?

Currently the best VPN-alternative seem to be Project X https://xtls.github.io/en/ It is flexible and well tested in China but configuring it properly is quite difficult.

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

#485

Post by echoangle »

usrnm wrote: post #472
dgellow wrote: post #460

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Depending on the country, for sure yes. Working for Russia military is definitely immoral IMHO

The purpose of every military in the world is hurting people. It's, like, the whole point of their existence, either hurting people right now or preparing to hurt people in the future.

Hurting people that are invading you isn’t necessarily immoral, hurting other people to gain money or land is.

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

#486

Post by Ajedi32 »

platevoltage wrote: post #426
FloorEgg wrote: post #412

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

No. Anarchism is an extension of nature, and a better analogy would be blaming an engine for only Rolls Royces having seatbelts.

Capitalism is fully compatible with anarchism. (Though certainly it functions better under a system where your neighbor can't just kill you and take your stuff.)

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

#487

Post by neop1x »

0x5FC3 wrote: post #123
dpoloncsak wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Just ban the lot of them and move on. How do you define social network, though? Is Facebook a social network, even though it includes a marketplace? Is HN a social network? Is Newgrounds a social network....? Seems difficult to stomp out effectively

We can come up with a definition and refine it. Maybe something like: algorithmic content suggestions trying to maximize engagement and time on app (leave out chronological + explicit follow). Banning is not the way to go about things. India is always ban happy -> a competitive exam in a state? Take down internet in the whole state to curb cheating. Outright banning hard to deal with stuff sets a bad precedent.

Exaclty, the main problem is that they are deciding what content to serve you. They are often mixing posts from accounts which I don't follow with posts from accounts I follow without asking. Then thr are pushing auto-play and infinite scrolling. It would have been a completely different experience if they just showed posts from people I follow and showed them sorted by date.

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

#488

Post by slg »

mnau wrote: post #465
slg wrote: post #351

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Meta is not people, it's a publicly traded company that's practically legally required to make money and grow infinitely. Has a company ever faced any sort of legal repercussions for sacrificing profit for moral reasons? That isn't rhetorical. I'm not aware of this ever happening, so I'm dubious of your claim.

That was basically what Ford vs Dodge was about. Ford lost and had to change direction. If C-suite does not operate in that direction, they can sue and will win. There is no point in going in different direction, courts already quite clearly said you will lose. > My ambition is to employ still more men, to spread the benefits of this industrial system to the greatest possible number, to help them build up their lives…

>If C-suite does not operate in that direction, they can sue and will win. There is no point in going in different direction, courts already quite clearly said you will lose.

If this is true, it should be easy to point to some examples from the last hundred years. Because that Wikipedia article you linked makes it very clear that the conclusion you're drawing is highly debated. The disagreement is important enough to be mentioned in the second sentence in that article. The first source on the page is the actual case and the next two are both criticisms of the interpretation that you seem to very confident in.

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

#489

Post by za3faran »

bongoman42 wrote: post #477
za3faran wrote: post #423

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Begin a billionaire is not inherently unethical. It's about how the money was acquired and how it is spent. This notion that it is evil is mainly a western one.

The Islamic system literally permits slavery, including sexual slavery. It is far worse than capitalism any day.

The slavery it permits (yet heavily restricts) is different than the one in your head that europeans and americans engaged in, so that's a straw man. Sex slavery is not permitted.

When you read history, you would see that many Mawali were scholars, and you can read about the Mamluki empire. This was never seen anywhere in human history.

As discussed elsewhere in this thread, the slavery that you're thinking of is still permitted in capitalist america, not to mention other forms that exist today in broad daylight, but are more subtle, so people don't say anything (and those are prohibited by Islam).

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

#490

Post by jfil »

ticulatedspline wrote: post #334
arandomhuman wrote: post #320

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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]

There's no legal requirement to maximize profits. That's a common misconception.
Post reply on HN