What about the US military's FB page? Didn't they cause thousands of innocent deaths in Iraq? I'm sure some Americans can somehow justify it, but I doubt the grieving Iraqi's will accept it.
The difference is the Myanmar military was killing their own citizens.
A country's military firing live rounds on their own citizens with seemingly no remorse is different than a country's military committing violence in foreign countries.
I'm certainly not condoning either example of military force presented here, but the duty of the military should ultimately be to preserve their citizens. Killing its own citizens and then using social media to lie about it is something I don't think the US military has done.
Its removal should be actively encouraged amongst the SJWs. FB backing itself, and being backed into, corner after corner helps reveal the hypocrisy more quickly.
There is a slight difference though. Myanmar military took over the government. The US military is led by the president of the United States and only the Congress has the power to declare war.
The outrage people have about censorship wouldn't be that big if those companies simply stated "we censor opinions we don't like, and we censor for political reasons" in their terms of service. Instead they create the outrage by having vague rules about what is allowed and not allowed on the platform and then, on top of that, start enforcing those rules selectively.
They won't because the Social Media platforms prerogative for bans isn't ideological, or to be consistent. Their sole purpose to do what's best for themselves. Therefore they benefit from having vague, ill-defined rules that allow for selective enforcement.
The argument regarding private platform freedom of speech/censorship isn't relevant for Facebook, where documented examples of the state/governments working with Facebook to censor opinions and restrict speech exist. The line between state/private is blurred at best, and disappearing.
A side-effect of actions like this is it makes it much easier for governments themselves to justify censorship or internet restrictions.
See, e.g., this interview by Der Spiegel w/ the president of Uganda:
> DER SPIEGEL: Observers complain that they have been denied access to social media.
> Museveni: If you're talking about the all-powerful rulers of Facebook, I can tell you it was the other way around. Facebook blocked my party's accounts. Is that freedom of expression? If the people at Facebook think they're silencing me, they're wrong.
> DER SPIEGEL: It wasn't just about Facebook. The entire internet was blocked in Uganda for days.
> Museveni: That was done for security reasons. The internet was misused to stir up trouble. The opposition spread misinformation about the election results. The block has long since been lifted.
Governments have been justifying internet restrictions since before Facebook was an idea. If Facebook had a policy of absolute tolerance of political speech in Uganda it would have been just as easy a segue to "security reasons... misinformation".
Even the developed and democratic world doesn't look to the US, still less US corporations, as an actual inspiration for its policies on speech.
For all the people oblivious to why Facebook did this:
Because Myanmar people lobbied for it, and because the Myanmar military is terrorizing its own people, then lying about it.
The military is shooting its own people, kidnapping them in the middle of the night, and torturing them.
Over 10 protestors dead and 50+ injured, as they are using live rounds on protestors. Over 500+ disappeared or kidnapped. Protestors killed include two teenagers shot in the head, one of them a medic. They also shot at ambulance. They’ve threatened to kill doctors, and kidnapped many of them. Stole the covid vaccination after beating doctors trying to stop them.
Last night they shot a neighborhood watchman in my neighborhood (we have neighborhood watch to try and prevent late night kidnapping/disappearing by military).
We lobbied hard to get Facebook to take down this page and others where the Tatmadaw are attempting to cover up the truth.
I try to understand how this decision came to be and I have no idea? A standardised set of rules would surely lead to many many more pages being taking down. And why now and not last week?
The military is shooting its own people, kidnapping them in the middle of the night, and torturing them.
Over 10 protestors dead and 50+ injured, as they are using live rounds on protestors. Over 500+ disappeared or kidnapped. Protestors killed include two teenagers shot in the head, one of them a medic. They also shot at ambulance. They’ve threatened to kill doctors. Stole the covid vaccination after beating doctors trying to stop them.
Last night they shot a neighborhood watchman in my neighborhood.
Facebook takes down main page of Myanmar Military.
Myanmar Military takes down main service of Facebook (eventually, if they didn't already do.)
The question here is: would (some) misinformation be worth it to avoid total blackout. And I mean this places other than North America and Western Europe.
In huge swathes of the world, internet and facebook are interchangeable. And where democratic values are strong enough, any government can take down the main channel of (free, non-governmental sanctioned) information for a whole country.
It really does seem that this time, it wasn’t the United States that was responsible for the coup. If we were responsible you would see a lot of high level politicians on both sides saying that they were pleased that the people of Myanmar had overthrown a terrible despot (we do this even when, and especially when, the previous “despot” was democratically elected). And then you would see previously unavailable resources being opened up to the west. But this is not what is happening here; it looks to be just a power play by Myanmar’s military leadership.
Interestingly, Costa Rica went as far as to disband their entire army because in a poor and unstable state, having any military can actually be a big liability in terms of having frequent coups.
Well, here goes another thread about free speech vs. ethical discourse, where atleast one side uncompromisingly refuses to put themselves in the shoes of the other.
Just to fast-forward this thread a bit for everyone:
- Free speech doesn't exist on some for-profit company's platform. Communities should be moderated on some ethical standard for the benefit of peace
- Free speech trumps ethics and peace -- without free speech, we have neither
>Free speech trumps ethics and peace -- without free speech, we have neither
I really don't understand the purpose of these fortune cookie slogans. First off, how does 'ethics' vanish if we curb free speech? Like is there a date where we solved ethics and now every moral framework that does not value freedom of speech highly is just invalid, like some sort of math problem?
Regarding peace it's just flat out wrong. Of course you can have peace without free speech, probably much more of it. Of course it's worthy asking if sacrificing speech for more peace is justified or not.
But in all seriousness can we stop being dogmatic and unthinking about free-speech, which is in itself kind of ironic? You can debate everything, just not whether free speech is debatable apparently.
The graph of freedom of speech versus personal liberty looks like the Laffer curve for government income vs tax rate.
One end is zero for obvious reasons; the other end is also zero because it is a power vacuum, one which e.g. charismatic narcissistic Machiavellian sociopaths exploit it to rise to power and they kick away the free speech ladder after they get it.
indeed. and it's pointless anyway to discuss this from an ideological perspective. FB is only looking out for their financial interests. they just make a bet with the best expected return. in this case it's pretty safe to bet on the side of the US, EU governments who oppose the coup. and they do something rather than nothing maybe to regain some favors with western countries or they feel they need to do it to claim consistency with past actions.
turn the tables to consider actual reality: if a country like the US would be at the receiving end of meddling and influence by a Myanmar social media business at the scale of facebook, then any key-employee of the company would have been declared a terrorist, taken to black sites or murdered by drones. That's about the level of hypocrisy that we deal with when discussing Facebook's actions in Myanmar over the past years.
It's horrible injustice Americans not only get away with war crimes and aren't held accountable by the IIC, but also technocrats and buerocrats working for these public companies are able to do so with impunity.
Facebook's "interference" in Myanmar consists of hosting comments supportive of the government whilst it was committing genocide and being criticised internationally for not intervening, and choosing to take down a single government propaganda outlet after a military coup.
Facebook has "interfered" more against the interests of sitting US presidents without a single black ops operation against its staff.
Facebook should really come down from their high horses and let legal entities decide of stuff like this. They're a utility. (not saying that in a bad way, becoming a utility is the ultimate startup achievement)
>Facebook should really come down from their high horses and let legal entities decide of stuff like this
If you've followed this conversation at all for the last 5-10 years, there's no way it makes sense to think that these decisions are somehow driven by Facebook'(or any tech company's) desires. Leaving aside the intense liberal values personally held by Zuckerbeg, Page, Brin, Dorsey, et al, the responsibility for speech policing is a can of worms that the tech platforms have been consistently and loudly opposed to. It's the baying of illiberal lunatics (primarily on the left, in recent years) and the associated PR and regulatory threats that have forced them into this position.
It's interesting, Aung San Suu Kyi (with a freedom nobel-price) is/was responsible for the expulsion, killing and raping of rohingya's. But when the military takes over that's a big nono.
BTW: Hitler was also democratically elected, wouldn't have been the worst thing if the Wehrmacht made a coup then, like for example "operation valkyrie".
She was not. AASK never had any authority over the military. At all. Military was legally above elected government before the coup, controls all the courts, legally guaranteed 25% of the legislature, wrote the constitution, and the comander-in-chief was never appointed by elected government. Military never answered to AASK or took orders from her or the president.
At best, you could call AASK an apologist for military. But that ignores that she was really their prisoner even while “free”, and the delicate negotiation she engaged in an attempt to build a civilian government, as flawed as it was.
Is it interesting? You leave out any argument for the implied statement that the democratically illegitimate government will be better for the Rohingya people. Presumably any coup is better than no coup.
I'm not sure she has much of choice. Had she gone up against the the military (who were behind the genocide). They would most likely have deposed of her earlier rather than waiting until now. At least in power she might have been able to "soften the blow" somewhat.
I'm in favor of Facebook taking down absolutely any page, whether it agrees with my political views or not. Why? Because Facebook's power comes from network effects. The more people, across the political spectrum, find their interests to be blocked on Facebook, the less people will find value in Facebook in general. Over time, this means Facebook is committing suicide. This is the best possible outcome for humanity.
I'm not sure this is a realistic worldview though. This supposes there will be a facebook competitor. As the decades march on, perhaps there will be, but it might not be till we're long gone. There still isn't a competitor to Google, for example.
Parler was a competitor to Twitter, and you saw how that played out. The next competitor is going to have to deal with that quandary.
I get what you are saying but don't you think that Facebook selectively taking down some pages based on political considerations actually increases their power and not decreases it?
aminozuur|5 years ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mukaradeeb_wedding_party_massa...
ArkanExplorer|5 years ago
The purpose is not to harm or pressure the Burmese military authorities -
Its to virtue signal to left-leaning activists in the USA and other Western Countries.
Technology companies have dug themselves into a hole of censorship and deplatforming, and they have no choice but to keep digging.
asxd|5 years ago
A country's military firing live rounds on their own citizens with seemingly no remorse is different than a country's military committing violence in foreign countries.
I'm certainly not condoning either example of military force presented here, but the duty of the military should ultimately be to preserve their citizens. Killing its own citizens and then using social media to lie about it is something I don't think the US military has done.
f6v|5 years ago
eplanit|5 years ago
ascold|5 years ago
unknown|5 years ago
[deleted]
unknown|5 years ago
[deleted]
wil421|5 years ago
kkoncevicius|5 years ago
daniellarusso|5 years ago
SonicScrub|5 years ago
goodluckchuck|5 years ago
EB-Barrington|5 years ago
federona|5 years ago
[deleted]
dilap|5 years ago
See, e.g., this interview by Der Spiegel w/ the president of Uganda:
> DER SPIEGEL: Observers complain that they have been denied access to social media.
> Museveni: If you're talking about the all-powerful rulers of Facebook, I can tell you it was the other way around. Facebook blocked my party's accounts. Is that freedom of expression? If the people at Facebook think they're silencing me, they're wrong.
> DER SPIEGEL: It wasn't just about Facebook. The entire internet was blocked in Uganda for days.
> Museveni: That was done for security reasons. The internet was misused to stir up trouble. The opposition spread misinformation about the election results. The block has long since been lifted.
https://www.spiegel.de/international/world/interview-with-ug...
notahacker|5 years ago
Even the developed and democratic world doesn't look to the US, still less US corporations, as an actual inspiration for its policies on speech.
georgebarnett|5 years ago
freeburma|5 years ago
jtdev|5 years ago
hshshs2|5 years ago
[deleted]
freeburma|5 years ago
Because Myanmar people lobbied for it, and because the Myanmar military is terrorizing its own people, then lying about it.
The military is shooting its own people, kidnapping them in the middle of the night, and torturing them.
Over 10 protestors dead and 50+ injured, as they are using live rounds on protestors. Over 500+ disappeared or kidnapped. Protestors killed include two teenagers shot in the head, one of them a medic. They also shot at ambulance. They’ve threatened to kill doctors, and kidnapped many of them. Stole the covid vaccination after beating doctors trying to stop them.
Last night they shot a neighborhood watchman in my neighborhood (we have neighborhood watch to try and prevent late night kidnapping/disappearing by military).
We lobbied hard to get Facebook to take down this page and others where the Tatmadaw are attempting to cover up the truth.
unknown|5 years ago
[deleted]
johnsmittyson|5 years ago
[deleted]
op03|5 years ago
Do they have people there?
Does that local manager have experience dealing with tanks driving into the parking lot?
5tefan|5 years ago
freeburma|5 years ago
The military is shooting its own people, kidnapping them in the middle of the night, and torturing them.
Over 10 protestors dead and 50+ injured, as they are using live rounds on protestors. Over 500+ disappeared or kidnapped. Protestors killed include two teenagers shot in the head, one of them a medic. They also shot at ambulance. They’ve threatened to kill doctors. Stole the covid vaccination after beating doctors trying to stop them.
Last night they shot a neighborhood watchman in my neighborhood.
ahmedfromtunis|5 years ago
The question here is: would (some) misinformation be worth it to avoid total blackout. And I mean this places other than North America and Western Europe.
In huge swathes of the world, internet and facebook are interchangeable. And where democratic values are strong enough, any government can take down the main channel of (free, non-governmental sanctioned) information for a whole country.
fallingfrog|5 years ago
Interestingly, Costa Rica went as far as to disband their entire army because in a poor and unstable state, having any military can actually be a big liability in terms of having frequent coups.
exacube|5 years ago
Just to fast-forward this thread a bit for everyone:
- Free speech doesn't exist on some for-profit company's platform. Communities should be moderated on some ethical standard for the benefit of peace
- Free speech trumps ethics and peace -- without free speech, we have neither
Barrin92|5 years ago
I really don't understand the purpose of these fortune cookie slogans. First off, how does 'ethics' vanish if we curb free speech? Like is there a date where we solved ethics and now every moral framework that does not value freedom of speech highly is just invalid, like some sort of math problem?
Regarding peace it's just flat out wrong. Of course you can have peace without free speech, probably much more of it. Of course it's worthy asking if sacrificing speech for more peace is justified or not.
But in all seriousness can we stop being dogmatic and unthinking about free-speech, which is in itself kind of ironic? You can debate everything, just not whether free speech is debatable apparently.
ben_w|5 years ago
The graph of freedom of speech versus personal liberty looks like the Laffer curve for government income vs tax rate.
One end is zero for obvious reasons; the other end is also zero because it is a power vacuum, one which e.g. charismatic narcissistic Machiavellian sociopaths exploit it to rise to power and they kick away the free speech ladder after they get it.
supergirl|5 years ago
baybal2|5 years ago
It's a man who proposed Xi Jinping to name his firstborn.
Him attacking some minor military junta is barely symbolic.
DyslexicAtheist|5 years ago
It's horrible injustice Americans not only get away with war crimes and aren't held accountable by the IIC, but also technocrats and buerocrats working for these public companies are able to do so with impunity.
notahacker|5 years ago
Facebook has "interfered" more against the interests of sitting US presidents without a single black ops operation against its staff.
bryanrasmussen|5 years ago
the-dude|5 years ago
dagorenouf|5 years ago
wutbrodo|5 years ago
If you've followed this conversation at all for the last 5-10 years, there's no way it makes sense to think that these decisions are somehow driven by Facebook'(or any tech company's) desires. Leaving aside the intense liberal values personally held by Zuckerbeg, Page, Brin, Dorsey, et al, the responsibility for speech policing is a can of worms that the tech platforms have been consistently and loudly opposed to. It's the baying of illiberal lunatics (primarily on the left, in recent years) and the associated PR and regulatory threats that have forced them into this position.
ergocoder|5 years ago
They want to be a utility for communication. They would much prefer government decide it.
But many people are like "government being the decider of truth" is bad.
So this is where we are at; the private companies can ban whomever it wants and play the decider of truth.
AwaAwa|5 years ago
unknown|5 years ago
[deleted]
nix23|5 years ago
BTW: Hitler was also democratically elected, wouldn't have been the worst thing if the Wehrmacht made a coup then, like for example "operation valkyrie".
freeburma|5 years ago
At best, you could call AASK an apologist for military. But that ignores that she was really their prisoner even while “free”, and the delicate negotiation she engaged in an attempt to build a civilian government, as flawed as it was.
phabora|5 years ago
I think that is interesting.
refurb|5 years ago
unknown|5 years ago
[deleted]
unknown|5 years ago
[deleted]
aerodog|5 years ago
mantap|5 years ago
kasperni|5 years ago
sep_field|5 years ago
Die Facebook, die.
sillysaurusx|5 years ago
Parler was a competitor to Twitter, and you saw how that played out. The next competitor is going to have to deal with that quandary.
Andrex|5 years ago
https://mattstoller.substack.com/p/facecrook-dealing-with-a-...
unknown|5 years ago
[deleted]
hntcz|5 years ago
hg35h4|5 years ago
Look at how attacked any right wing site is - they go after their ISPs, their CDNs, their DNS registrars, their hosting companies.
The Internet has got to the point that you cannot even operate a business if it goes against the "values" of big tech, or they chop all your arms off.
hshshs2|5 years ago
[deleted]
williesleg|5 years ago
[deleted]