Facebook begins censoring images of prophet Muhammad(washingtonpost.com)
washingtonpost.com
Facebook begins censoring images of prophet Muhammad
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2015/01/27/two-weeks-after-zuckerberg-said-je-suis-charlie-facebook-begins-censoring-images-of-prophet-muhammad/?tid=sm_tw
20 comments
> Here's a question: what are the conditions under which Facebook will censor the content in the US/European market?
Breast-feeding mothers in Europe and US have had their images removed.
EDIT: Not sure if that still happens, but it's easy enough to find articles on WWW about it.
Breast-feeding mothers in Europe and US have had their images removed.
EDIT: Not sure if that still happens, but it's easy enough to find articles on WWW about it.
Also in the current news is a Frenchman suing Facebook for closing his account for posting Courbet's L'Origine du Monde, an artwork which depicts a certain part of the female anatomy very prominently.
Several years ago an image of a friend I (re)posted was subject to FB policy-based deletion. I'm not sure whether this was because reposting other people's images was frowned on at that time or the sight of the top of a male ass wearing female underwear poking out from jeans in a group called the "ass appreciation society" was a bit too racy (I can't find the email I received about it, and I believe the original pic is still there) but I'm convinced it was several orders of magnitude less likely to have caused anyone offence than a Muhammed-cartoon-meme.
Several years ago an image of a friend I (re)posted was subject to FB policy-based deletion. I'm not sure whether this was because reposting other people's images was frowned on at that time or the sight of the top of a male ass wearing female underwear poking out from jeans in a group called the "ass appreciation society" was a bit too racy (I can't find the email I received about it, and I believe the original pic is still there) but I'm convinced it was several orders of magnitude less likely to have caused anyone offence than a Muhammed-cartoon-meme.
Good piece in The Economist about how Facebook's "arbitrary and capricious" censorship policies are inconsistent, invisible, unaccountable, and affect far more people than, say, the US Supreme Court.
Should pages that advocate violence be removed? What if it's political, like "Death to Israel"?
http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2014/08/fa...
Should pages that advocate violence be removed? What if it's political, like "Death to Israel"?
http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2014/08/fa...
>What if it's political, like "Death to Israel"?
Or what if it's in line with official US policy? Like "death to ISIS," or "death to Boko Haram."
Or what if it's in line with official US policy? Like "death to ISIS," or "death to Boko Haram."
Then it will get tons of likes, and funnel through data aggregation channels to later be part of a bar graph of patriotic support for the war effort.
Who said Facebook's censorship was arbitrary?
Who said Facebook's censorship was arbitrary?
Ha, I didn't know about that-- that is really insane.
Naively, we can now say Facebook views breasts as "offensive" as pictures of Mohammad or decapitation videos.
Naively, we can now say Facebook views breasts as "offensive" as pictures of Mohammad or decapitation videos.
Articles like this appear pretty much every month. Anything from gay activists to artists to mainstream political parties have been subjected to Facebook's puritan censorship.
It's become a bit of a running joke.
It's become a bit of a running joke.
I've had comments around 'how to pirate adobe software' removed from FB.
Facebook doesn't sell user data (it sells targeted ads, advertisers don't get access to the data).
Blocking access to pages from countries where the court order was issued seems entirely reasonable to me. GitHub does the same[1].
The censorship here is the responsibility of the Turkish government, not Facebook. It's supposedly a democratic country so maybe even represents the will of the people living there.
And anyway, when social sites block "objectionable" pages on their own or under criticism, but with no involvement of the legal system, anyone who complains about censorship is quickly shut down with arguments that it's a private company under no obligation to protect free speech. Why expect them to defy sovereign states when they usually can't handle a little outrage on Twitter?
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8703650
The censorship here is the responsibility of the Turkish government, not Facebook. It's supposedly a democratic country so maybe even represents the will of the people living there.
And anyway, when social sites block "objectionable" pages on their own or under criticism, but with no involvement of the legal system, anyone who complains about censorship is quickly shut down with arguments that it's a private company under no obligation to protect free speech. Why expect them to defy sovereign states when they usually can't handle a little outrage on Twitter?
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8703650
A year ago, YouTube and Twitter refused to take down content that the Turkish government didn't like, and they were both blocked.
YouTube - http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/mar/27/google-youtube-...
Twitter - http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2014/03/21...
I was in Istanbul at the time, and I'm certain the Streisand effect more than offset the censorship, and badly damaged Erdoğan's reputation at home and abroad.
Banning popular sites shines a bright light on repression. Resistance can be more effective than collaboration.
YouTube - http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/mar/27/google-youtube-...
Twitter - http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2014/03/21...
I was in Istanbul at the time, and I'm certain the Streisand effect more than offset the censorship, and badly damaged Erdoğan's reputation at home and abroad.
Banning popular sites shines a bright light on repression. Resistance can be more effective than collaboration.
>Blocking access to pages from countries where the court order was issued seems entirely reasonable to me. //
Shouldn't you just let that country block for itself what it doesn't want?
If you have products available in your country that are unlawful in another then you wouldn't stop individuals from that country from buying them in your country, you'd let the other country police the import, surely? Seems analogous to me.
Shouldn't you just let that country block for itself what it doesn't want?
If you have products available in your country that are unlawful in another then you wouldn't stop individuals from that country from buying them in your country, you'd let the other country police the import, surely? Seems analogous to me.
The censorship here is the responsibility of the Turkish government, not Facebook.
Sounds like a blanket rationalization that can be applied to virtually any kind of corporate-powered environmental or human rights abuse at the hands of despotic regimes everywhere:
"Abusive practice X is the responsibility of government Y, not hapless company Z, which would surely perish if it did it did not bend over and fulfill government Y's every whim and fancy."
GitHub does the same.
GitHub doesn't put out puffy and patently false statements about being "committed to building an environment where you can speak freely without fear of violence."
Sounds like a blanket rationalization that can be applied to virtually any kind of corporate-powered environmental or human rights abuse at the hands of despotic regimes everywhere:
"Abusive practice X is the responsibility of government Y, not hapless company Z, which would surely perish if it did it did not bend over and fulfill government Y's every whim and fancy."
GitHub does the same.
GitHub doesn't put out puffy and patently false statements about being "committed to building an environment where you can speak freely without fear of violence."
I still find the supposition that Facebook was supposed to defy a court order hilarious. Yes, I understand it's a court order from Turkey, not America, but you can't just flagrantly break the law in other countries simply because yours believes differently.
Or put another way: As much as Americans like to act like it, we can't enforce our ideals around the world without significant investment that I don't think anyone wants us making after the last couple of times.
Or put another way: As much as Americans like to act like it, we can't enforce our ideals around the world without significant investment that I don't think anyone wants us making after the last couple of times.
In the worst case, Turkey could ban Facebook. Would they really do that? It's nowhere near certain.
Google left China rather than submit to their censorship regime, and the Chinese market is like 18 Turkeys.
And if you do remove content, you can make that action transparent on Chilling Effects[1]. Facebook doesn't do that, either.
There are alternatives.
And if you decide to build censorship tools to stay in the good graces of the regime, then don't say "I am Charlie" while you're doing it.
[1] https://www.chillingeffects.org/
Google left China rather than submit to their censorship regime, and the Chinese market is like 18 Turkeys.
And if you do remove content, you can make that action transparent on Chilling Effects[1]. Facebook doesn't do that, either.
There are alternatives.
And if you decide to build censorship tools to stay in the good graces of the regime, then don't say "I am Charlie" while you're doing it.
[1] https://www.chillingeffects.org/
> censorship
China wanted to censor inconvenient history. Turkey wants to censor offensive (to them) religious images. I think that's the important comparison, not the size of the market.
China wanted to censor inconvenient history. Turkey wants to censor offensive (to them) religious images. I think that's the important comparison, not the size of the market.
The Turkish legal code has a clause against "insulting Turkishness", which has been used to censor mentions of the Armenian genocide, so they're clearly not against history-related censorship.
I doubt that's really the worst case, although it is pretty bad since Facebook is very popular in Turkey. I think being fined heavily would be worse. For example, Yahoo was threatened by the US government with $250,000 fine per day if it did not comply with demands to turn over data.
> Facebook is very popular in Turkey
This means Facebook has a lot of power to resist censorship.
Make repression costly for the regime in terms of widespread public outrage and international pariah status.
Maybe Erdoğan will pay those costs, maybe he won't.
But if you make censorship free then you're certain to get a lot more of it.
This means Facebook has a lot of power to resist censorship.
Make repression costly for the regime in terms of widespread public outrage and international pariah status.
Maybe Erdoğan will pay those costs, maybe he won't.
But if you make censorship free then you're certain to get a lot more of it.
I'd be a fan of them doing more for sure(especially the Chilling Effects site addition). But many here are ignoring any possibility of compliance while filing objection, which this is exactly.
If this were used instead as an opportunity to get Facebook to make censorship moves like this more transparent, I'd be in full support.
If this were used instead as an opportunity to get Facebook to make censorship moves like this more transparent, I'd be in full support.
Most countries, including USA, have "censhorship regimes". They just vary in scope and targeting.
Many companies could decide not to operate in USA due to the snooping, gagged court orders, civil rights attacks, selective and repressive law enforcement, etc.
I get this is a hard issue to speak in "western" sites because many see it as "us vs them" but let me tell you, I could easily subdivide "us" many times and make your portion "them".
Many companies could decide not to operate in USA due to the snooping, gagged court orders, civil rights attacks, selective and repressive law enforcement, etc.
I get this is a hard issue to speak in "western" sites because many see it as "us vs them" but let me tell you, I could easily subdivide "us" many times and make your portion "them".
Which characters' images from history are censored in the West?
I don't know.
You're ignoring all my other examples of censorship, though.
I knew it was going to be a hard issue so the downvotes are not unexpected.
You're ignoring all my other examples of censorship, though.
I knew it was going to be a hard issue so the downvotes are not unexpected.
It happens all the time with a lot of characters. Most recently, criticism of Chris Kyle (the real life sniper/camper/coward) has been censored on Youtube for offending the sensibilities of pro-war, pro-violence folks.
Citation please.
Most definitely: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wOZCLQ8q968
This guy's video titled "Chris Kyle was a pussy" is not censored on YouTube.
Maybe it got flagged off temporarily by his adversaries, but it's fully available now.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Iypq11_n2I
Maybe it got flagged off temporarily by his adversaries, but it's fully available now.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Iypq11_n2I
>I still find the supposition that Facebook was supposed to defy a court order hilarious.
For me at least: it's the idea of making a public pronouncement that you support some political view (because that's easy). Then you do something that, at least on the face of it, goes against that position when there could be business repercussions (because that's hard).
Why not just keep your mouth shut?
For me at least: it's the idea of making a public pronouncement that you support some political view (because that's easy). Then you do something that, at least on the face of it, goes against that position when there could be business repercussions (because that's hard).
Why not just keep your mouth shut?
Because this is the real world, and no matter what the internet tells you, nuance matters. I don't like Mark Zuckerberg. I think his business practices regularly register as complete bullshit, and furthermore I can't quite tell what the hell they spend their time doing because since about 2009 Facebook has consistently become more and more of something I don't want anything to do with.
But there is not one bit of me that doesn't believe Mark really does support free speech everywhere. He didn't have to say that, but he did. He made that effort, even though he knew it opened his flank. And of course he knew that, because he's not a complete idiot.
This is the real world. Where while complying with the law, you protest it, because that's how you act in a civilized society.
But there is not one bit of me that doesn't believe Mark really does support free speech everywhere. He didn't have to say that, but he did. He made that effort, even though he knew it opened his flank. And of course he knew that, because he's not a complete idiot.
This is the real world. Where while complying with the law, you protest it, because that's how you act in a civilized society.
>Where while complying with the law, you protest it, because that's how you act in a civilized society.
Lots of talk in your comment about the "real world", without a hint of irony that our "civilized society" only exists in its current form thanks to revolutions and wars.
The idea that protests should only occur within the confines of the law tells me you have a bit to learn about the "real world".
>He made that effort
I know the Facebook crowd might think so, but saying "Je Suis Charlie" takes effort?
Lots of talk in your comment about the "real world", without a hint of irony that our "civilized society" only exists in its current form thanks to revolutions and wars.
The idea that protests should only occur within the confines of the law tells me you have a bit to learn about the "real world".
>He made that effort
I know the Facebook crowd might think so, but saying "Je Suis Charlie" takes effort?
Compliance with protest equals compliance and a certainty that you will keep complying and eventually grow tired of protesting.
"How you act in a civilized society" leads to normalization and eventual acceptance of problems caused by compliance.
"How you act in a civilized society" leads to normalization and eventual acceptance of problems caused by compliance.
>
I still find the supposition that Facebook was supposed to defy a court order hilarious. Yes, I understand it's a court order from Turkey, not America, but you can't just flagrantly break the law in other countries simply because yours believes differently.
Does Facebook have any offices, servers or employees in Turkey? If not, they aren't required to do a thing. Even if they did, they just don't store that content on those servers (and maybe compartmentalise dealing with such data away from any employees based there) and they're fine. If that wasn't the case, then any random tinpot dictatorship (such as turkey) could make arbitrary things illegal for anyone in the world, and expect compliance from every single person in the world.
I'm sure turkey would want anyone in the world they could force to be to be brought under sharia law too, not just facebook. Does that mean we should even if we don't live there and don't visit? I for one, don't think so.
Does Facebook have any offices, servers or employees in Turkey? If not, they aren't required to do a thing. Even if they did, they just don't store that content on those servers (and maybe compartmentalise dealing with such data away from any employees based there) and they're fine. If that wasn't the case, then any random tinpot dictatorship (such as turkey) could make arbitrary things illegal for anyone in the world, and expect compliance from every single person in the world.
I'm sure turkey would want anyone in the world they could force to be to be brought under sharia law too, not just facebook. Does that mean we should even if we don't live there and don't visit? I for one, don't think so.
>I'm sure turkey would want anyone in the world they could force to be to be brought under sharia law too, not just facebook
lol, what are you talking about? I suggest you remove your head from your arse and read a bit more about Turkey
lol, what are you talking about? I suggest you remove your head from your arse and read a bit more about Turkey
Majority muslim nation, cult of personality, widespread corruption, oppressive government, evidence of rigged elections, suppression of free speech. Seems clear-cut to me.
None of that is sharia. In fact, there's a huge contraindication which you conveniently left out - a constitutionally mandated secular government.
That's as much of a token gesture/joke as Pol Pot's Cambodia calling itself 'Democratic', or the first amendment in the US.
Argentina's constitution says they own the Falkland Islands, yet they don't either. The US constitution guarantees freedom of speech, protection from unlawful searches and surveillance, probable cause for any search, and separation of church and state, yet the actual reality is almost the direct opposite of all of those.
As such, Turkey going "hey, look, we're secular" is worthless when they act like a psychotic dictatorship.
Argentina's constitution says they own the Falkland Islands, yet they don't either. The US constitution guarantees freedom of speech, protection from unlawful searches and surveillance, probable cause for any search, and separation of church and state, yet the actual reality is almost the direct opposite of all of those.
As such, Turkey going "hey, look, we're secular" is worthless when they act like a psychotic dictatorship.
If your claims about the US are any clue, I don't think there's any reason to trust the accuracy of your knowledge of Turkey either.
<rolleyes>
Really? I would imagine that just serving the content to Turkish visitors would be enough for Turkey to see it as violating the law and put any servers or employees there at risk.
That is a silly comment. Of course you can and often should break laws you don't agree with, even when you're an individual versus a nation. Or would you be fine complying with sharia because some backwater on the other side of the globe said so?
They are only complying within Turkey right? The consequence of not complying with local laws you disagree with is being shut out of many countries and not being a global brand.
Maybe standing up for universal values would strengthen a global brand that's built on communication.
YouTube and Twitter refused to take down material in Turkey, and they were both banned for two months.
If anything, their principles enhanced their brands in Turkey and around the world.
YouTube and Twitter refused to take down material in Turkey, and they were both banned for two months.
If anything, their principles enhanced their brands in Turkey and around the world.
Would you be fine with being imprisoned/executed for refusing to comply while residing in said backwater?
It's not that complying with the law would be noble or right, but it's not really reasonable to expect everyone in a country to be a martyr.
It's not that complying with the law would be noble or right, but it's not really reasonable to expect everyone in a country to be a martyr.
Yes? I feel like you are missing the point. The Friendship Nine broke a law they disagreed with where they lived, they were in the right, and their convictions are finally about to be overturned more than 50 years later. Do you think they shouldn't have broken a stupid law?
That's apples to oranges to sharia law.
I disagree, and I'm obviously not going to change your mind, so I'd prefer not to argue any further if that's all right with you.
It all comes down to jurisdiction. If jurisdiction can be enforced then you can't really break a law without facing the consequences.
If I disagree with the TSA and decide to go through without caring about their scans they're going to detain me. It doesn't matter if I "shouldn't do it".
If I disagree with the TSA and decide to go through without caring about their scans they're going to detain me. It doesn't matter if I "shouldn't do it".
...without significant investment that I don't think anyone wants us making after the last couple of times.
A service choosing not to censor, and then potentially being censored in turn by ISPs in another nation, could be costly, sure. It wouldn't seem to be in the same ballpark as a military invasion of another nation? (Honestly though, when has a USA military invasion ever actually been about enforcing ideals?)
When this issue was discussed yesterday, I pointed out that it's not Zuck's actions that surprise us, because money. Rather, we're surprised by what he says while taking those actions. It's incongruous to appropriate the rhetoric of freedom while happily making money undermining freedom.
A service choosing not to censor, and then potentially being censored in turn by ISPs in another nation, could be costly, sure. It wouldn't seem to be in the same ballpark as a military invasion of another nation? (Honestly though, when has a USA military invasion ever actually been about enforcing ideals?)
When this issue was discussed yesterday, I pointed out that it's not Zuck's actions that surprise us, because money. Rather, we're surprised by what he says while taking those actions. It's incongruous to appropriate the rhetoric of freedom while happily making money undermining freedom.
Once you've accepted the conceit that Facebook will say and do whatever has the best return, it's hardly incongruous for Facebook to hitch a ride on a free, positive PR train.
The only incongruity is on the part of people who believed Zuck when they have plenty of data that they shouldn't.
The only incongruity is on the part of people who believed Zuck when they have plenty of data that they shouldn't.
Zuck: Yeah so if you ever need info about anyone at Harvard
Zuck: Just ask
Zuck: I have over 4,000 emails, pictures, addresses, SNS
[Redacted Friend's Name]: What? How'd you manage that one?
Zuck: People just submitted it.
Zuck: I don't know why.
Zuck: They "trust me"
Zuck: Dumb fucks
Zuck: Just ask
Zuck: I have over 4,000 emails, pictures, addresses, SNS
[Redacted Friend's Name]: What? How'd you manage that one?
Zuck: People just submitted it.
Zuck: I don't know why.
Zuck: They "trust me"
Zuck: Dumb fucks
I still find the supposition that Facebook was supposed to defy a court order hilarious. Yes, I understand it's a court order from Turkey, not America, but you can't just flagrantly break the law in other countries simply because yours believes differently.
I think you're missing a major point: unless FB has something like a CDN physically located inside of Turkey -- or has some other corporate presence there -- then it is under no legal obligation to comply with its laws (or court orders) whatsoever. The reality is that FB is complying with the Turkish government's requests for no other reason than that it chooses to, because it considers the (perceived) business advantages to be more important than the social and human costs of doing so.
I think you're missing a major point: unless FB has something like a CDN physically located inside of Turkey -- or has some other corporate presence there -- then it is under no legal obligation to comply with its laws (or court orders) whatsoever. The reality is that FB is complying with the Turkish government's requests for no other reason than that it chooses to, because it considers the (perceived) business advantages to be more important than the social and human costs of doing so.
It's not so crazy; imagine you're running a business that operates in both the US and an Arab League nation such as Lebanon.
The laws of Lebanon require you to observe a boycott of any products and services that originate in or transit through Israel. Meanwhile the laws of the US forbid you from observing the Arab Boycott of Israel. What do you do?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_League_boycott_of_Israel
The laws of Lebanon require you to observe a boycott of any products and services that originate in or transit through Israel. Meanwhile the laws of the US forbid you from observing the Arab Boycott of Israel. What do you do?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_League_boycott_of_Israel
Detect where the traffic comes from and apply the law thusly?
Unfortunately in this case, that won't work if you're a US corporation because the law applies to US corporations globally, regardless of what country the actual operations take place in. So the US law requires that you disobey the foreign law even in the foreign country.
Does Facebook have a physical presence in Turkey?
They have a .tr domain but I doubt they incorporated there.
Facebook Inc.
Buyukdere Cad. Maya Akar Center No:100-102
B Blok K:18 Esentepe
Istanbul, Turkey
[email protected]
+90-212-2726364
+90-212-2726365it seems they don't have offices in Turkey[1]
[1] https://www.facebook.com/careers#locations
[1] https://www.facebook.com/careers#locations
> Yes, I understand it's a court order from Turkey, not America, but you can't just flagrantly break the law in other countries simply because yours believes differently.
Yes, you absolutely can. Jurisdiction: As long as you're following the laws of your own country, and you don't plan to live in, visit, or do business in some other country, you have no obligation whatsoever to respect that country's laws.
In this case, it sounds like Facebook cares about doing business in Turkey (specifically, continuing to reach the citizens of Turkey).
Yes, you absolutely can. Jurisdiction: As long as you're following the laws of your own country, and you don't plan to live in, visit, or do business in some other country, you have no obligation whatsoever to respect that country's laws.
In this case, it sounds like Facebook cares about doing business in Turkey (specifically, continuing to reach the citizens of Turkey).
"you can't just flagrantly break the law in other countries simply because yours believes differently."
Isn't that Uber's basic approach?
Isn't that Uber's basic approach?
I personally don't have very much faith in Uber's long term business prospects, but that's all for its own discussion. But this is just one of many reasons I do think that way.
That depends on whether Facebook has significant operations in Turkey. It's not Facebook's job to deny residents of Turkey access to Facebook, or parts of Facebook. It's the Turkish government's job to balkanize the Internet, with all the bad side effects on the tech industry in Turkey, if that is their desire.
What are you talking about, we love forcing our ideals down other's throats, because it's always easier to criticize and tear down others than to look at the pile of shit behind us.
I find this argument hilarious, especially in this context.
> you can't just flagrantly break the law in other countries simply because yours believes differently
Facebook, and many American tech companies like it, have no problem breaking the law in other countries when it suits their bottom line. Primary battlefield: privacy rights.
> As much as Americans like to act like it, we can't enforce our ideals around the world
Facebook, and many American tech companies like it, enforce their puritan values around the world by fanatically censoring all kinds of harmless content (mostly, "boobies") on their services.
These companies are clearly willing and able to make both commercial and ideological choices with complete disregard for local laws and values.
> you can't just flagrantly break the law in other countries simply because yours believes differently
Facebook, and many American tech companies like it, have no problem breaking the law in other countries when it suits their bottom line. Primary battlefield: privacy rights.
> As much as Americans like to act like it, we can't enforce our ideals around the world
Facebook, and many American tech companies like it, enforce their puritan values around the world by fanatically censoring all kinds of harmless content (mostly, "boobies") on their services.
These companies are clearly willing and able to make both commercial and ideological choices with complete disregard for local laws and values.
What country's privacy laws are being broken again? Because I've not heard of it.
And your argument about enforcing their values around the world is enforcing THEIR values, not American ones. Yes, their values are influenced by their being American no doubt, but it's facetiously cynical to imply the two are related in any way, shape, or form.
And your argument about enforcing their values around the world is enforcing THEIR values, not American ones. Yes, their values are influenced by their being American no doubt, but it's facetiously cynical to imply the two are related in any way, shape, or form.
I find France's own crackdown on non-protected free speech during and shortly after their legendary march for free speech to be much more ironic than a business obeying local law.
The issue is not that Facebook obeys local laws.
The issue is Zuckerberg shouting "I am Charlie" while simultaneously building the machinery of censorship.
https://www.facebook.com/zuck/posts/10101844454210771
If you think some censorship is better than an outright ban, fine. I don't agree, but I understand your rationale.
But don't build the tools of repression and ride the "I am Charlie" bandwagon at the same time. FB is blocking the same class of content that Charlie Hebdo gave their lives to publish.
Zuckerberg n'est définitivement pas Charlie.
C'est écœurant.
The issue is Zuckerberg shouting "I am Charlie" while simultaneously building the machinery of censorship.
https://www.facebook.com/zuck/posts/10101844454210771
If you think some censorship is better than an outright ban, fine. I don't agree, but I understand your rationale.
But don't build the tools of repression and ride the "I am Charlie" bandwagon at the same time. FB is blocking the same class of content that Charlie Hebdo gave their lives to publish.
Zuckerberg n'est définitivement pas Charlie.
C'est écœurant.
The whole I am Charlie thing is full of hypocrites. i.e anyone who talks free speech to promote their agenda.
The existence of hypocrites does not invalidate the movement. Democracy suffers them and remains a valuable form of governance. It could always be better and we should strive to make it that way. It's unfortunate that hypocrites do raise the noise and wash out the message... we could be doing this better.
The "I am Charlie" drumbeat is a demonstration of unity that everyone is the same here regardless of what side you are on.
It has nothing to do with Facebook following local laws.
And it does not mean Facebook or Zuck agrees with saying the things Charlie Hebdo says.
It has nothing to do with Facebook following local laws.
And it does not mean Facebook or Zuck agrees with saying the things Charlie Hebdo says.
[deleted]
There is a big difference between the Charlie Hebdo attacks and what Facebook is doing here. Charlie Hebdo wasn't legally censored. They weren't even breaking the law. They were just attacked by people who wanted to shut them up. One can support people's ability to say what they want without fear of mob violence and still not want to break the law.
It's about the crackdown following the attack. There has been various cases of people supporting (or seen as supporting) what the terrorists did being fined or condemned to prison.
Really? I was pretty sure the "Je suis Charlie" slogan was meant to indicate support for Charlie Hebdo, not for the people who wanted to kill them.
To clarify, I'm refering to
> I find France's own crackdown on non-protected free speech during and shortly after their legendary march for free speech to be much more ironic than a business obeying local law.
> I find France's own crackdown on non-protected free speech during and shortly after their legendary march for free speech to be much more ironic than a business obeying local law.
I think you misread which comment I was replying to. That was the grandparent of my comment, while the one I was disagreeing with was basically saying that it was hypocritical of Zuckerberg to obey local laws after saying "Je suis Charlie." I don't think the idea "People shouldn't be killed for what they say" is necessarily incompatible with following local laws about what a Web service may publish.
Right.
"The issue is Zuckerberg shouting "I am Charlie" while simultaneously building the machinery of censorship."
LOL... hyperbole much? "Building the machinery"?!? Every content provider has the ability to not show a page if they get a court order to not do so. It's part of doing business.
LOL... hyperbole much? "Building the machinery"?!? Every content provider has the ability to not show a page if they get a court order to not do so. It's part of doing business.
So all local law should be followed by internet companies? Lets say there's a political group that's anonymous but uses facebook. Turkey's PM signs an executive order telling Facebook to give up their identities and FB, by your argument, is "forced" to comply. Now this hypothetical horrible regime has information it needs to perform a politically motivated arrest.
All this gen-y moral relativism is pretty depressing. Zuck's recent catering to autocratic, theocratic, and dictator-led regimes is concerning. You can't have this platform of "give us all your personal info for social sharing - its fun and safe" at the same time you're at the beck and call of every horrible regime.
Marketshare vs ethics is a thorny issue, but I hope this is a wake-up call to those in countries with unfriendly governments about using US web based services. We will sell you out and not care one wit. We are not an idealistic people. The truth here is that the west is enabling these terrible regimes, the same way Cisco largely built the Great Firewall of China. I don't think its fair or wise to just throw our hands in the air and say, "Meh, local law" as we build oppression machines.
Its also amusing how incredibly statist libertarians become when it comes to following the law, regardless of its merit. I guess protest and ideals are for leftists only. This also has me greatly concerned about the future of the Oculus Rift. If we're going to be so friendly with censorship, what does that say about the future of things like the fabled metaverse? Can my friend from Turkey visit my home in the metaverse if I have "wrong" materials inside of it? Will I need to give Zuck read/write access to all my virtual things to make sure no theocrat in Turkey is being offended?
Its sad that geekdom, in general, has shifted from an Abbie Hoffman style "screw the man" to a very conservative "follow the man" as we realized we could make a lot of money from bits and bytes. Its weird seeing people who just a few years ago were completely outraged at the Bush administration, but seem to have no problem with Erdogan. As if Erdogan's party speaks for all Turks the same way Bush hypothetically spoke for all Americans.
Regardless, its a sad day for the millions in Turkey still fighting for their secular values.
All this gen-y moral relativism is pretty depressing. Zuck's recent catering to autocratic, theocratic, and dictator-led regimes is concerning. You can't have this platform of "give us all your personal info for social sharing - its fun and safe" at the same time you're at the beck and call of every horrible regime.
Marketshare vs ethics is a thorny issue, but I hope this is a wake-up call to those in countries with unfriendly governments about using US web based services. We will sell you out and not care one wit. We are not an idealistic people. The truth here is that the west is enabling these terrible regimes, the same way Cisco largely built the Great Firewall of China. I don't think its fair or wise to just throw our hands in the air and say, "Meh, local law" as we build oppression machines.
Its also amusing how incredibly statist libertarians become when it comes to following the law, regardless of its merit. I guess protest and ideals are for leftists only. This also has me greatly concerned about the future of the Oculus Rift. If we're going to be so friendly with censorship, what does that say about the future of things like the fabled metaverse? Can my friend from Turkey visit my home in the metaverse if I have "wrong" materials inside of it? Will I need to give Zuck read/write access to all my virtual things to make sure no theocrat in Turkey is being offended?
Its sad that geekdom, in general, has shifted from an Abbie Hoffman style "screw the man" to a very conservative "follow the man" as we realized we could make a lot of money from bits and bytes. Its weird seeing people who just a few years ago were completely outraged at the Bush administration, but seem to have no problem with Erdogan. As if Erdogan's party speaks for all Turks the same way Bush hypothetically spoke for all Americans.
Regardless, its a sad day for the millions in Turkey still fighting for their secular values.
"All this gen-y moral relativism is pretty depressing."
I am shocked by the massive irony of me saying "Follow Law" and you turning around and accusing me of moral relativism.
Stop using buzzwords you don't understand! If you wish to ignore the laws of a land based on your subjective judgement of them, then you are the ethically relative, not me.
Even Jesus was outspoken about rendering unto Ceasar, among other phrases supporting the idea that local government should be respected. There is NOTHING morally relative about following local law, it is a tenant that is literally enshrined in most major religions and moral systems that have survived for millennia.
The ability of people to reject basic social ethics that have existed since near pre-history using trendy buzzwords is pretty depressing.
You honestly think "follow local laws" is gen-y? That no society on earth ever insisted you follow their local law until millennials came around?
How depressing that one of the most basic tenets of civilized society, respecting local law, is now considered "moral relativism" and is blamed on the youth of today.
I am shocked by the massive irony of me saying "Follow Law" and you turning around and accusing me of moral relativism.
Stop using buzzwords you don't understand! If you wish to ignore the laws of a land based on your subjective judgement of them, then you are the ethically relative, not me.
Even Jesus was outspoken about rendering unto Ceasar, among other phrases supporting the idea that local government should be respected. There is NOTHING morally relative about following local law, it is a tenant that is literally enshrined in most major religions and moral systems that have survived for millennia.
The ability of people to reject basic social ethics that have existed since near pre-history using trendy buzzwords is pretty depressing.
You honestly think "follow local laws" is gen-y? That no society on earth ever insisted you follow their local law until millennials came around?
How depressing that one of the most basic tenets of civilized society, respecting local law, is now considered "moral relativism" and is blamed on the youth of today.
"Moral relativism is the view that moral judgments are true or false only relative to some particular standpoint (for instance, that of a culture or a historical period) and that no standpoint is uniquely privileged over all others."
So "Follow the local Law" seems to me to be the very definition of moral relativism.
So "Follow the local Law" seems to me to be the very definition of moral relativism.
When a company blocks a page in the US due to a US court order: they're a respectable, law-abiding company.
When a company blocks a page in another country due to that country's court order: censorship! Where's the freedom of speech?!?!
I am an American, but: if my fellow Americans want to see censorship in play, take a look at the fight Al Jazeera had to get into cable networks (especially in the days after 9/11). And they had to start a subsidiary, Al Jazeera America, to get around some hurdles.
When a company blocks a page in another country due to that country's court order: censorship! Where's the freedom of speech?!?!
I am an American, but: if my fellow Americans want to see censorship in play, take a look at the fight Al Jazeera had to get into cable networks (especially in the days after 9/11). And they had to start a subsidiary, Al Jazeera America, to get around some hurdles.
> When a company blocks a page in the US due to a US court order: they're a respectable, law-abiding company.
Forgive my naivete. Is there precedence for this? Are there pages blocked in the US due to US court orders (and available elsewhere in the world)?
Forgive my naivete. Is there precedence for this? Are there pages blocked in the US due to US court orders (and available elsewhere in the world)?
See ICE's "Operation In Our Sites" and related domain seizures. See also: DMCA and ContentID abuse.
As egregious as those are, none are an example of a site being blocked after a court order.
Well, to be honest, they were blocked even without a court order...
For HN discussion, see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8951262
We censor hate speech. They regard images of Mohammed to be hate speech.
It's not hate speech. It's sin. It's religiously forbidden to depict Mohammed, neither pejoratively nor complimentarily, the teaching is that one shall not depict the prophet anyhow.
Citation please. Is this sin specified anywhere in the Koran?
Its a sin for Muslims. Why would it apply to non-muslims ?
In Islam, Muslims are to obey what the prophet says and follow how he behaves and lives (Qoran, Hashr 7, Nejm 3-5, Maaide 99, Neesa 13-14 [1]). So, sometimes some religious rules in modern Islam are rooted in hadiths, not directly the Qoran itself. There are hadiths that forbid depiction of the quick [2]. Also, some consider depiction and other forms of art to be sheerk[1], which means pretending or comparing oneself to God, trying to be godlike, which is sin (Hashr 24, Araph 11 can be interpreted to tell that creating and shaping are attributes of the God).
Thus there are various interpretations of Islam's allowance and tolerance of depiction of the things, the quick, the people, the prophecy and its particular prophet Mohammed. Sunnis, which are Turks and majority of Arabs as far as I know, loathe and are averse to depictions to some extent. More religious older people in Turkey refrain from being depicted anyhow, while some are fine with memorial pictures of themselves and relatives. Majority of the community is though, do not oppose any sort of picturing apart from Mohammed's, and they are taking and publishing pictures of themselves and other people and objects, animate or not, as everybody does. I have heard that Shiites are also lax regarding prophetical depictions, but I have not encountered personally the shiite culture, so, I do not really know.
So, it all boils down to the fact that when someone, Muslim or not, publishes visual material regarding Mohammed, and the God in an islamic context, they should be ready to face different reactions from different parts of the Islamic community. And, as we are living in the internet age, where information goes from Alaska to Iraq in the speed of light (figuratively), its no surprise that living in a non-muslim community does not matter at all in this context.
One would be offended when somebody tries to hurt or offend someone who he considers to be more worthy to him than himself, right? Well, the verse Ahzab 6 [1] says that Mohammed is more worthy to a Muslim than himself.
[1] I have tried to phonetically reproduce names of soorahs and religious terms, I do not guarantee they are correct.
[2] Now, I am not that familiar with hadiths and how these are really cited, but here are some citations nevertheless: Müslim 2107/96; Müslim 2107/90, 94; Buhari 5957, 5958; Müslim 2107/87, and others.
Thus there are various interpretations of Islam's allowance and tolerance of depiction of the things, the quick, the people, the prophecy and its particular prophet Mohammed. Sunnis, which are Turks and majority of Arabs as far as I know, loathe and are averse to depictions to some extent. More religious older people in Turkey refrain from being depicted anyhow, while some are fine with memorial pictures of themselves and relatives. Majority of the community is though, do not oppose any sort of picturing apart from Mohammed's, and they are taking and publishing pictures of themselves and other people and objects, animate or not, as everybody does. I have heard that Shiites are also lax regarding prophetical depictions, but I have not encountered personally the shiite culture, so, I do not really know.
So, it all boils down to the fact that when someone, Muslim or not, publishes visual material regarding Mohammed, and the God in an islamic context, they should be ready to face different reactions from different parts of the Islamic community. And, as we are living in the internet age, where information goes from Alaska to Iraq in the speed of light (figuratively), its no surprise that living in a non-muslim community does not matter at all in this context.
One would be offended when somebody tries to hurt or offend someone who he considers to be more worthy to him than himself, right? Well, the verse Ahzab 6 [1] says that Mohammed is more worthy to a Muslim than himself.
[1] I have tried to phonetically reproduce names of soorahs and religious terms, I do not guarantee they are correct.
[2] Now, I am not that familiar with hadiths and how these are really cited, but here are some citations nevertheless: Müslim 2107/96; Müslim 2107/90, 94; Buhari 5957, 5958; Müslim 2107/87, and others.
And once you decide that being offended > killing those who offend you, we see how truly horrible certain mindsets can be. It is disgusting in my opinion.
Religion holds the power to make people horrible. Yes, killings are horrible, but I also behold that hating people is similarly horrible, and not being tolerant is also similarly horrible. I'm an irreligious atheist, for I think that transcendent dogmas of faith make people horrible. And these dogmas made people horrible before the Charlie Hebdo incident and these dogmas will continue to make people horrible also after it. In the grandparent comment I sought to explain the phenomenon, not to justify it.
Sure, they might think that.
But I think it is highly relevant to distinguish "speech that offends" and "speech that incites hatred"
It might be useful to censor the latter and not the former. The purpose of a "hate speech" law might be to avoid/reduce the social breakdown of having a part of society discriminate against the other. In that sense, saying (for example) that "all arabs are terrorrists" is much worse than drawing mohhamad. The drawing offends muslins, but does not try to persuade me to treat them differently/believe they are different
(tl;dr you say they say 'it's relative'. I say it might not be relative, regardless of what people say.)
But I think it is highly relevant to distinguish "speech that offends" and "speech that incites hatred"
It might be useful to censor the latter and not the former. The purpose of a "hate speech" law might be to avoid/reduce the social breakdown of having a part of society discriminate against the other. In that sense, saying (for example) that "all arabs are terrorrists" is much worse than drawing mohhamad. The drawing offends muslins, but does not try to persuade me to treat them differently/believe they are different
(tl;dr you say they say 'it's relative'. I say it might not be relative, regardless of what people say.)
I'd agree with your distinction, but I think it's beyond dispute that an effect of mass posting cartoons of Muhammad has been the incitement of hatred, on both sides, and that a significant proportion of the people posting said cartoons are doing so purposefully to achieve that effect.
This is mistaken though. It's perfectly permissible under the first amendment. Just because it annoys Moslems in Turkey and other places doesn't mean it must be censored elsewhere.
I think when he says "we," he is probably from Europe, where hate speech laws are much stronger than in America, where they basically don't exist.
Fair point.
And it's a fairly reasonable argument. The main purpose of publishing these images is to say "fuck you" to Islam. Sure, it's done to protest blasphemy laws and such, but Muslims don't see it as "fuck censorship". They see it as "we hate you".
>The main purpose of publishing these images is to say "fuck you" to Islam. //
If that were true it would still be entirely lawful (in USA) wouldn't it?
I'd certainly argue it's more about criticism of Islam than intention to offend. If you want to silence criticism that uses visualisation then proclaiming the central figures in your ideology to be unlawful to represent in imagery is a perfect way forward.
If that were true it would still be entirely lawful (in USA) wouldn't it?
I'd certainly argue it's more about criticism of Islam than intention to offend. If you want to silence criticism that uses visualisation then proclaiming the central figures in your ideology to be unlawful to represent in imagery is a perfect way forward.
Muslim here. I do think the people who draw pictures of Muhammad do so fully knowing that it will offend Muslims. The only message they're trying to get across is "we don't like you".
This is actually a pretty good argument, I think.
I don't agree with this kind of coddling censorship because people don't have the right to not be offended, but it's undeniable that people who publish images of Mohammed are doing so with the full knowledge that it will (stupidly, immaturely) deeply offend Muslims, and that many will use this to intentionally target Muslims.
I don't agree with this kind of coddling censorship because people don't have the right to not be offended, but it's undeniable that people who publish images of Mohammed are doing so with the full knowledge that it will (stupidly, immaturely) deeply offend Muslims, and that many will use this to intentionally target Muslims.
Yeah, but that's a really stupid attitude. In what way are images of a person inciting hatred or calling people to violence?
Denying the Holocaust is a hell of a lot different than saying, "Hey! Look! Here's a picture of a person!"
Denying the Holocaust is a hell of a lot different than saying, "Hey! Look! Here's a picture of a person!"
If you carry out the request of an oppressive government, you are as much a part of it as the people physically performing atrocities. Facebook should be ashamed of themselves.
I'm curious what the legal consequences to Facebook would have been for ignoring the order. Would the Turkish government have sufficient authority to make local ISPs block the site? Would Turkey fine Facebook?
Enforcing any penalty would be a problem. If Facebook has no assets in Turkey, Turkey would need to go after Facebook's assets elsewhere, perhaps in California. U.S. courts probably wouldn't enforce a judgement of a Turkish Court that was at odds with the First Amendment in the U.S. Constitution, though the cases on this are mixed.
It's also interesting to compare this "graven images takedown" system the U.S.' DMCA takedown system. Here you can post some pretty offensive things on the 'net, but god help you if you post a picture of Mickey Mouse!
Enforcing any penalty would be a problem. If Facebook has no assets in Turkey, Turkey would need to go after Facebook's assets elsewhere, perhaps in California. U.S. courts probably wouldn't enforce a judgement of a Turkish Court that was at odds with the First Amendment in the U.S. Constitution, though the cases on this are mixed.
It's also interesting to compare this "graven images takedown" system the U.S.' DMCA takedown system. Here you can post some pretty offensive things on the 'net, but god help you if you post a picture of Mickey Mouse!
> Would the Turkish government have sufficient authority to make local ISPs block the site?
Yes. This has happened with Twitter during the country-wide protests in summer 2013 and with YouTube when sensitive political conversations were leaked just before presidential elections in march 2014.
Yes. This has happened with Twitter during the country-wide protests in summer 2013 and with YouTube when sensitive political conversations were leaked just before presidential elections in march 2014.
TL;DR: Facebook prevents images of Muhammad to be seen in Turkey.
It is silly to expect a company to not comply with local law. Do we expect Facebook to give up its business in the US if it decides tomorrow that it doesn't agree in principle with some aspect of American law?
If Facebook was censoring content in America to assuage Turkey, there would be a good reason to gripe about it. It is not doing that.
If Facebook was censoring content in America to assuage Turkey, there would be a good reason to gripe about it. It is not doing that.
how fb gonna ban pictures that nobody could verify it is him? every person who use his name? or just picture with m* string on it?
this is absolutely crazy and very uncommon sense.
so the image is him because people claim it is him, but in reality the truth is, it is not him, just bunch of ... perceive it is him.
this is absolutely crazy and very uncommon sense.
so the image is him because people claim it is him, but in reality the truth is, it is not him, just bunch of ... perceive it is him.
Je Suis Pragmatique
i quit facebook 12/31/2014. before doing so i explained to many of my friends and family why i was doing so. every single one of them, no exaggeration, agreed with my reasons, but said they couldn't because of (reason x, y, z). now that ello is patenting their ip i think it is especially important to begin thinking about ways to create public protocols for these type of services. what do you think it would require for most people to give up fb?
Why do they always call him 'prophet' Mohammed? The only people who think that he was a prophet would be Muslims (and maybe B'hais?).
What surprises me most about this article is how many censorship requests come out of India. What are they trying to censor?
A quick mention of the first comment; true, we Americans can't expect to be able to break the law overseas and get away with it...but, as anybody who's spent time in a Muslim world, etc, or perhaps has a ton of family from that tradition - it's easier to see why Je Suis Charlie could give Facebook a headache.
I can't sue a journalist overseas for slander that occured about three years ago and still exists; for the most part, I only recall it as an example of how the "international justice," issue cuts both ways. We have the United Nations for a good reason and in both Costa Rica and another country, some of my best friends worked there.
If another country, not the USA, wishes to use an invention of my people (the internet) to crap on me, well, they should also either suffer the consequences of American justice...OR, even better, we should all realize that living in one place doesn't and should never subject one to another place's definition of right and wrong.
I can't sue a journalist overseas for slander that occured about three years ago and still exists; for the most part, I only recall it as an example of how the "international justice," issue cuts both ways. We have the United Nations for a good reason and in both Costa Rica and another country, some of my best friends worked there.
If another country, not the USA, wishes to use an invention of my people (the internet) to crap on me, well, they should also either suffer the consequences of American justice...OR, even better, we should all realize that living in one place doesn't and should never subject one to another place's definition of right and wrong.
Just doing what's best for business and keeping costs down, nothing to see here.
Quite often, when companies are doing what's best for business and keeping costs down, very notable things are going on. Companies function in a legal, cultural and ethical context, and it can be interesting to view their actions in this light. Wouldn't you agree?
Of course one can view a company's actions through various lenses, and this one still comes down to money. Facebook doesn't want to be the catalyst that incites mass rioting because they became a poster child for free speech.
It's what is also best for their users. The site would simply be banned if they didn't comply with local laws.
Would that really be so bad for users in Turkey? Maybe a blanket ban of Facebook and other popular sites would encourage a change in government. This appeasement just enables authoritarian censorship.
A change in government because some sites are unavailable? That's ambitious -- we just need to look at China to see how well that idea works.
And why is it best for their users? Because more users = more money. As I said, business as usual.
So much for "disruption".
[deleted](1)
"Just this December, Facebook agreed to censor the page of Russia’s leading Putin critic, Alexei Navalny, at the request of Russian Internet regulators."
"Critics have previously accused the site of taking down pages tied to dissidents in Syria and China; the International Campaign for Tibet is currently circulating a petition against alleged Facebook censorship, which has been signed more than 20,000 times."
"“I’m committed to building a service where you can speak freely without fear of violence,” Zuckerberg said in his Hebdo statement."
The outlandishly egregious doublespeak of Zuck aside, Facebook is a data mining company devoted to making money from its users. The only terms on which it can be said to support free speech are the terms under which it is able to mine user data, then sell user data. In less polite terms, Facebook is a no-limits whore for anyone with cash, so we should expect to see exactly what we are seeing.
Here's a question: what are the conditions under which Facebook will censor the content in the US/European market? I guarantee you that it's coming, provided the right topics are being discussed and the right groups are interested in squashing discussion.