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.
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.
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.
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.
> 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.
"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.
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."
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.
