> It's unbelievable that anyone can hate Facebook so much that they side with authoritarian regimes.
Who is doing that here? 2 Things can be bad at the same time. Just because people are critical of FB in the west it doesn't mean they support authoritarian regimes.
Facebook is an unstoppable entity we all "hope" will do the right thing by us. But, the reality is that it and all the people beholden to it will do whatever it takes to stay operating.
The funny thing is, Facebook CAN be stopped: if people don't use it, it vanishes. The existence of Facebook is 100% in the hands of the users. The problem is: 3 billion users with wildly varying options, beliefs, and attitudes. There's got to be a name for this paradox.
A corporation is much easier to get away from than a government. With a corporation you have a choice in whether you want to deal with them. Government not so much.
People have been confusingly propagandized about propaganda. That technique for manipulation has been around for a very long time, convincing people that your lies are priveledged secrets. It checks so many boxes for fufilling emotional needs with utter bullshit. It flatters the believer and gives a scapegoat to mean they don't need to try to understand nuanced issues, trade-offs and the cure being worse than the disease. It also provides an easy answer that doesn't mean admitting to yourself that your friends and family have frankly gone far beyond differences of opinion to become outright terrible people.
I have personally concluded that there is no practical difference between credulity and corruptability - both make it easy to get them to support and commit evil. I can only conclude that a lack of critical thinking is a moral flaw in itself as strange it may sound at first blush. But really if greed can get people to do bad things nobody would deny that it is a moral flaw so why should credulity be any different?
>"It's unbelievable that anyone can hate Facebook so much that they side with authoritarian regimes."
Who exactly is siding with an authoritarian regime here? The article indicates it was a unilateral decision on the part of the government. The article also states:
>I't has drawn a heated response from the Government's opponents, with Opposition leader Matthew Wale labelling the ban "pathetic" and unjust."
Freedom to spread false information indiscriminately does not work with an uneducated populace. Heck even the US can barely hold it together right now.
ramblerman|5 years ago
Who is doing that here? 2 Things can be bad at the same time. Just because people are critical of FB in the west it doesn't mean they support authoritarian regimes.
kordlessagain|5 years ago
SoSoRoCoCo|5 years ago
Jeff_Brown|5 years ago
forest_dweller|5 years ago
Nasrudith|5 years ago
I have personally concluded that there is no practical difference between credulity and corruptability - both make it easy to get them to support and commit evil. I can only conclude that a lack of critical thinking is a moral flaw in itself as strange it may sound at first blush. But really if greed can get people to do bad things nobody would deny that it is a moral flaw so why should credulity be any different?
mekoka|5 years ago
bogomipz|5 years ago
Who exactly is siding with an authoritarian regime here? The article indicates it was a unilateral decision on the part of the government. The article also states:
>I't has drawn a heated response from the Government's opponents, with Opposition leader Matthew Wale labelling the ban "pathetic" and unjust."
trianglem|5 years ago
nickpp|5 years ago
millsmob|5 years ago
[deleted]
kanox|5 years ago
oarabbus_|5 years ago
rightbyte|5 years ago