Yeah, I mean, Meta being incompetent doesn’t exactly surprise me, but it’s not exactly a good look either way. (Since when does Meta do authoritarian governments’ censorship for them? Nations can make takedown requests on their citizens posting news they don’t like? On one hand, of course. Like a billion people live in India, Facebook will do whatever it can to keep that business. As much as alreadyI dislike Facebook, the idea had never crossed my mind before.)
Didn’t Facebook (among others) recently provide profile data on women who were being investigated under suspicion of having had abortions in the US? To them, it’s about whatever they can do to make the most money possible, and India is a major population centre.
My point was about them operating in countries under whatever rules apply in those countries. Put another way, Meta (like most corporations) will routinely follow authoritarian laws in any large market (such as those of the US and India) where they can stand to make a lot of money (from selling advertising). Generally if they don’t, it will be either directly or indirectly profit-related.
I get that intellectually, it’s just something that didn’t really click, before. If a corporation is subject to the laws of all countries it operates within, (even when those laws contradict) are they really subject to any laws? Only applying law based on user origin does sidestep that for the most part (even though virtual ‘spaces’ like Facebook and other social media do make that kind of weird), but mixups like this make that tension more obvious.
They’re not subject to all of the laws at the same time. They’re subject to the laws that apply to each user’s country in that user’s case. If user A engages in an interaction with user B that is illegal for both parties in user B’s country but legal in user A’s country, only user B could be affected, assuming the interaction gets noticed. It’s similar to how if you shop on an online store like Amazon or Etsy, they have to charge your local taxes and not the seller’s taxes.
Do you really want Frontline facebook moderation staff (or many levels between) having the ability to run the kinds of queries required to validate country of origin or other privacy-invading points of validations required?
I don’t.
And it takes time for those kinds of queries to reach the (very busy) desks of the purposefully constrained few, who can.
Assuming that this is all a decision that came from front line moderation, which I don’t accept but we’ll do so for the sake of this argument, yes, I think moderation staff should probably know whether a given post is actually subject to Indian law before removing it on those grounds.
Really? Data harvesting company Meta didn’t know which country these posts originated from, on their own site? I have my doubts, to say the least.
Yeah, I mean, Meta being incompetent doesn’t exactly surprise me, but it’s not exactly a good look either way. (Since when does Meta do authoritarian governments’ censorship for them? Nations can make takedown requests on their citizens posting news they don’t like? On one hand, of course. Like a billion people live in India, Facebook will do whatever it can to keep that business. As much as alreadyI dislike Facebook, the idea had never crossed my mind before.)
Didn’t Facebook (among others) recently provide profile data on women who were being investigated under suspicion of having had abortions in the US? To them, it’s about whatever they can do to make the most money possible, and India is a major population centre.
deleted by creator
My point was about them operating in countries under whatever rules apply in those countries. Put another way, Meta (like most corporations) will routinely follow authoritarian laws in any large market (such as those of the US and India) where they can stand to make a lot of money (from selling advertising). Generally if they don’t, it will be either directly or indirectly profit-related.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
I get that intellectually, it’s just something that didn’t really click, before. If a corporation is subject to the laws of all countries it operates within, (even when those laws contradict) are they really subject to any laws? Only applying law based on user origin does sidestep that for the most part (even though virtual ‘spaces’ like Facebook and other social media do make that kind of weird), but mixups like this make that tension more obvious.
They’re not subject to all of the laws at the same time. They’re subject to the laws that apply to each user’s country in that user’s case. If user A engages in an interaction with user B that is illegal for both parties in user B’s country but legal in user A’s country, only user B could be affected, assuming the interaction gets noticed. It’s similar to how if you shop on an online store like Amazon or Etsy, they have to charge your local taxes and not the seller’s taxes.
deleted by creator
Do you really want Frontline facebook moderation staff (or many levels between) having the ability to run the kinds of queries required to validate country of origin or other privacy-invading points of validations required?
I don’t.
And it takes time for those kinds of queries to reach the (very busy) desks of the purposefully constrained few, who can.
Assuming that this is all a decision that came from front line moderation, which I don’t accept but we’ll do so for the sake of this argument, yes, I think moderation staff should probably know whether a given post is actually subject to Indian law before removing it on those grounds.
deleted by creator
You should probably imagine differently, then. You seem to be bad at reading people.