[HN Gopher] Facebook blocked posts by a militia group opposed to...
___________________________________________________________________
Facebook blocked posts by a militia group opposed to the Turkish
government
Author : maltalex
Score : 330 points
Date : 2021-02-28 10:35 UTC (12 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.propublica.org)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.propublica.org)
| nyerp wrote:
| Facebook has been working on a clever solution to this kind of
| dispute: they have been installing a global network of
| indestructible monoliths with control panels which provide local
| governments complete authority to take down controversial content
| within a particular geographic location. Facebook no longer has
| to make a judgement call regarding whether a requester has a
| monopoly on violence within a particular region; control over the
| monolith implies genuine authority over the relevant area.
|
| (jk... I think.)
| notum wrote:
| You know what I find _really_ scary about this? The fact I no
| longer react strongly to these kinds of news.
| creddit wrote:
| Seems like you do react to it by being scared and then posting
| about that reaction on HN.
| notum wrote:
| You caught me in a loop.
| supergirl wrote:
| and? isn't FB doing the same everywhere, especially recently in
| the US? pretty sure they block whatever even smells like a pro
| Trump militia in the US.
| mensetmanusman wrote:
| Most Americans don't care if elected leaders get silenced. Why
| would they care about this?
| discobot1 wrote:
| Facebook is following laws of countries it operates in, truly
| shocking
| hnarn wrote:
| This is such a reductive argument. Are you saying that a
| private corporation is never responsible for its actions if
| they are compliant with _a_ nations laws?
|
| Is there no limit to what you consider OK for a corporation to
| do within a nations borders, as long as the action is
| sanctioned by the government? Do all corporations have
| literally zero responsibility to uphold any kind of moral that
| isn't enforced in local law?
| SpicyLemonZest wrote:
| I certainly would object if Facebook, like, handed over his
| location to a hit squad. This seems like it's very far on the
| other side of the spectrum. If Facebook second-guessed an
| order from a duly elected government to remove purportedly
| terrorist content, I'd question whether there's anything
| meaningful a government can make Facebook do if they don't
| want to.
| alienalp wrote:
| YPG is terrorist organization according to Turkey and many
| relevant countries and even US officials don't deny its
| connections with PKK. They maybe freedom fighters for Biden
| but it is not seen that way in middle east. Especially to
| whom lost their kids in car bombs.
| hnarn wrote:
| I didn't mention YPG and neither did the comment I replied
| to, which is why I posed a general question.
| alienalp wrote:
| Okay then we have no problem :) But he is also not saying
| what you are asking if he is saying.
| ryoshu wrote:
| https://www.facebook.com/Proud-Boys-Canada-102480378379388/
| te_chris wrote:
| Account created 5hrs ago to post this...
| damontal wrote:
| Not an argument
| bitcharmer wrote:
| Not very uplifting if you account for who's ruling Turkey and
| establishing these laws, is it?
| carmen_sandiego wrote:
| So... Zuckerberg should fund a coup in Turkey?
|
| There's an easy common argument for these things: restricted
| mass information/communication is better than none, or better
| than the lower amount you'd get with a home-grown platform.
| Seems a pretty good argument to me.
| mhh__ wrote:
| There is no simple solution here, and we also really
| shouldn't just throw our arms when faced with moral
| questions - this is probably what these decades will be
| known for in the future.
| aranelsurion wrote:
| One could look for good arguments to frame this in a better
| way, though I believe there might be a simpler way to
| explain: follow the money.
|
| Companies and people in the West don't care what happens
| elsewhere, they're just in for the money. There's money to
| be made in Turkey as well, and Facebook doesn't care about
| specifics of how.
|
| For the common people this all sounds fair and strategic on
| the surface level, though I'm skeptical of its
| sustainability. Just like how it's hard to be rich in a
| poor and sketchy neighbourhood, it could be hard to remain
| a free state in a planet where many of your neighbours
| aren't.
| notsureaboutpg wrote:
| Do you realize that Facebook started off blocking and
| removing "terrorist" content in the US first and
| foremost? There are many groups and parties that only the
| US considers terrorists (maybe along with it's weaker
| allies only), especially various groups affiliated with
| Iran. And Facebook needs to block the speech of those
| groups in the US as well to comply with US law.
| carmen_sandiego wrote:
| It's possible that the choice that enriches Facebook is
| also good for other parties. Whether they even care about
| the latter or not.
| postingawayonhn wrote:
| As a product of the United States you would hope that they
| would stand up for freedom of speech/expression as much as
| possible and take a principled stand occasionally.
| nindalf wrote:
| There's a thin line between taking a principled stand and
| forcefully exporting your values to some other culture.
| For example, Germany outlaws Holocaust denial. It's not a
| crime in the US. Should Facebook follow German laws by
| taking down posts denying the Holocaust? Obviously they
| should follow local laws, most of us would agree.
|
| Here's the thing - there's only two principled stands
| here. Either tech giants always follow US law
| exclusively, forcing it on every country in the world OR
| they follow local laws as applicable, even if they don't
| agree with the laws.
|
| If a person says that following Turkish law outlawing the
| YPG isn't ok but following the German Holocaust law is,
| that's inconsistent.
| true_religion wrote:
| Tech giants can't force anything on anyone without being
| enabled by the local government. If Facebook does not
| follow German law, Germany will ban it and seize its
| German assets to pay the fines it owes.
| nindalf wrote:
| That's fine. So the same thing applies to Turkish law?
| carmen_sandiego wrote:
| Given they can't change the government of Turkey, I would
| think maximizing the speech given to Turks within those
| constraints _is_ standing up for freedom of
| speech/expression.
|
| In theory, Facebook and others are subject to the same
| laws as a local company would be. In my experience (in
| China) though, what actually happens is the local
| companies will be much stricter, pre-emptively crushing
| speech they consider just 'risky' rather than actually
| illegal. Western companies, whose execs are somewhat
| insulated from local pressures, tend to do better. But
| only if they're allowed in the country in the first
| place, which means they have to commit to a certain
| minimum level of adherence.
| bayindirh wrote:
| Considering YPG is considered a terrorist organization and is
| an extension of another terrorist organization recognized by
| many countries, including US, I'm not sure this is about the
| ruler of the country.
|
| YPG/PKK terrorism is something Turkey is trying to deal with
| for ~30 years now.
|
| Calling people killing Turkish citizens as _Kurdish
| minorities_ is also overly romantic if it 's unintentional.
| tinco wrote:
| As much as I loathe Erdogan for being a fascist prick, he was
| democratically elected, and I don't think it's much disputed
| he holds popular support. Though I haven't been to Turkey
| recently so I can't say that with certainty.
|
| I'd love for Facebook to have some sort of ethical standard
| to adhere to, but we can't even get our own governments that
| we elect democratically to behave ethically, how could we
| expect it from corporations?
| dalbasal wrote:
| Before you dismiss it, follow that wormhole a little.
|
| Should amazon and wikipedia restrict armenian genocide content
| in Turkey? I believe this is illegal too. How about random
| blogger or small publication... should they geoblock content by
| country?
|
| How about speaking disparagingly about a King? That's illegal
| in Saudi Arabia, Thailand & other monarchies. Should facebook
| do something about this?
|
| Layer on to this the fact that FB has a near monopoly on all
| internet use in many developing countries through facebook
| zero.
|
| At some point "just following the laws" acquires a pretty
| sinister smell. Content distribution isn't peripheral to what
| FB does. It's what FB is.
| mountainb wrote:
| Hey man, but what if the CIA needs YPG to recruit more so it can
| put terrorist pressure on Turkey to, uh, defend NATO or
| something? Someone should check on the spooks to make sure that
| they're all OK and not suffering from some kind of collective
| degenerative brain disease.
| the_why_of_y wrote:
| Good to remind us that YPG has defended NATO quite valiantly
| from Daesh advancing on its borders in the past. And what
| happened next? NATO threw them to the wolves. The Afrin
| district that used to be the most peaceful place in Syria is
| now occupied by mercenaries and ethnically cleansed.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afrin_District
| cblconfederate wrote:
| Topic being overrun by expat turks who are Erdogan apologizers.
| Not the first, not the last, but thankfully the truth is not
| subject to upvotes
| alienalp wrote:
| Actually being exposed to western media and attitude what makes
| Turkish immigrant pro-gov. Simply you are taking sides of
| terrorists from the point of a Turk. Thankfully truth is not
| subject to you.
| mclightning wrote:
| This shallow understanding of Turkish politics, is gonna come
| to impact western influence in middle east adversely very soon.
| More so European interests in short term, and US influence
| globally on the long run.
|
| I have been reading comments similar to yours. Your view is
| nothing but naive / pure romanticism. There is a large amount
| of us (Turks of all opinions), just reading silently. Yet you
| are confident enough to straw-man whole Turkish side of the
| story into your shallow view.
|
| This is very common. Turkey has a bad PR, and it's been useful
| to a certain extent for the West. But there is a point where
| unrealistic bad PR, causes ignorance like seen above. This is a
| divide between West and Turkey.
|
| If this is an orchestrated divide. I don't mind West being so
| ignorant of Turkey.
|
| "Never Interrupt Your Enemy When He Is Making A Mistake" Sun
| Tzu
| LegitShady wrote:
| >If this is an orchestrated divide. I don't mind West being
| so ignorant of Turkey.
|
| The west is so deep in turkey they know what color underwear
| edrogan wears each morning. You're mistaking PR with reality.
| The west misunderstanding turkey is much more likely to hurt
| turkey in the long run, than hurt the west.
| mclightning wrote:
| Erdogan is not Turkey... A bigger power loses more from any
| conflict threatening the status quo. Turkey is a key player
| in protection of status quo surrounding the region shaped
| heavily by western influence.
|
| Turkey siding with Russia/China, leaving NATO would be end
| of any US influence in mideast + eastern mediterranean.
| Guess why Putin is giving so many nice toys to Erdogan. He
| wants to make Turkey confident and stand up for itself by
| conflict instead of diplomacy. Meanwhile West is doing the
| opposite game. I think we all know where this goes.
|
| Remind you, Turkey is 80M in population. Any all out war or
| a civilian war, will be 4 times worse than Syria, 2 times
| worse than Iraq. Europe/West had to redefine itself in face
| of refugee crisis from Syria. We will be talking about a
| whole different "Western values" if such a crisis happens.
| And if that happens, CCP won't look so bad to most of the
| world.
| toiletfuneral wrote:
| So how's that whole ethnic purging of the Kurds going these
| days?
| egeozcan wrote:
| As a Turkish immigrant in Germany, I really find the word
| "expat" irritating. Why should I make it explicitly clear that
| my immigration happened on my own terms?
|
| Apart from that, the sheer amount of Turkish immigrants who
| left the country in the last decade (including me) are not
| Erdogan supporters. However, many of us refrain from heavy
| criticism as we occasionally go to Turkey to visit our
| relatives and we don't want some specific person having a bad
| day destroying our lives.
|
| So you usually hear the other side and may mistakenly think
| that "expat Turks" support Erdogan big time. The majority of
| votes he gets from Turkish immigrants are the Turks who left
| the country more than a couple of decades ago and partly, their
| children. The "why" has a complicated answer that touches
| religion, demographic dynamics and acceptance in society.
| cblconfederate wrote:
| > many of us refrain from heavy criticism
|
| If the people who can speak up don't speak up then how is
| change ever to be expected? This is btw not what usually
| happens in such situations (immigrants fleeing
| authoritarianism are generally vocal against it)
| Ozzie_osman wrote:
| I definitely know Turks who are vocal against their regime,
| but I understand that many cannot afford to be. This isn't
| like the old days, before social media. Now, anything you
| say on social media can get you or your relatives back home
| on trouble.
|
| PS Not Turkish but from another country with a regime that
| retaliates against critics.
| cblconfederate wrote:
| I agree with that, and this is a huge regression we
| didn't even have 3 decades ago. It should be talked more
| waheoo wrote:
| An American making statements about standing up and
| speaking out against oppression and free speech is fucking
| laughable these days.
|
| You're all stuck in a bubble and can't even see that your
| entire tech industry is pulling a fast one over liberty and
| democracy.
| LegitShady wrote:
| The greatest threat to liberty and democracy today are
| the big tech companies, agreed.
| treszkai wrote:
| > immigrants fleeing authoritarianism are generally vocal
| against it
|
| There's a huge selection bias here (the immigrants most
| visible are those who speak up), so I wouldn't be so
| certain about this. My prior is that people don't give a
| shit about what's happening elsewhere, and their life is
| certainly easier if they don't _publish_ their
| controversial views. (Even if that controversial view is
| shared knowledge among immigrants, it's usually not common
| knowledge.)
| [deleted]
| _fat_santa wrote:
| I can give some background on this, I immigrated from
| Russia to the US when I was 5 and I still have a ton of
| extended family that lives there.
|
| Do I like Putin or what Russia is doing? Hell no. But at
| the same time I'm not going to saying anything negative in
| public about Russia. If I got on the Russian governments
| radar forget what they will do to me, I live in America,
| what will they do to my Grandmother, my uncles, my nieces,
| my cousins?
|
| I don't know what they will do, and for that reason I
| cannot risk saying anything.
|
| The same applies in places like Turkey, China, etc. Yeah
| you might not like what the govt there is doing, but at the
| same time you can't risk speaking up and having the
| blowback taken out on your family that still lives there.
| cblconfederate wrote:
| On the other hand public pressure from abroad does work ,
| and since politics tends to run in families, their
| families are at risk anyway. I can tell from the
| experience of my country (greece) during the dictatorial
| regime 50 years ago. The greeks who were persecuted /
| emigrated to europe (France mostly) were very vocal about
| the (US-backed) regime and drew international
| condemnation, especially the high-profile ones. It
| certainly contributed to its eventual downfall a few
| years later, but importantly it helped the swift return
| of democracy, because there was already a group of people
| who were politically organized abroad.
| [deleted]
| monadic6 wrote:
| Judging by the US, speaking up doesn't matter at all and
| can only hurt you and your family.
| [deleted]
| egeozcan wrote:
| Why should I put the security of my family in jeopardy
| hopelessly trying to improve a country that I already gave
| up on?
|
| I love Germany, I'd rather work improving where I'm living,
| which is something I'm already trying to do, instead of
| getting stuck in the past.
| ArkanExplorer wrote:
| Germans, and Europeans generally, have put the security
| of themselves and their families in jeopardy over
| thousands of years to live in the free and open societies
| that you are now taking for granted.
| Ozzie_osman wrote:
| You really shouldn't judge people (positively or
| negatively) by what their ancestors fought for or didn't
| fight for, especially under oppressive regimes.
|
| Because it's ironic that you'd mention Germany, a country
| where the majority either supported or was silent as one
| of the most brutal regimes rose to power. It took armies
| of foreign powers to come in and change that.
|
| Sometimes people speak up and sometimes they don't. The
| math is complicated. Do they think it will actually have
| an impact? What do they stand to lose? How desperate are
| they? The Arab Spring showed that sometimes all it takes
| is one or two events to switch people from being silent
| and passive to being vocal and active. Unfortunately,
| that didn't turn out too well and the repercussions will
| favor more passivity.
| ruined wrote:
| gentle reminder: germany's current civil system was
| imposed by military occupation.
| true_religion wrote:
| That may be true. But now he's German (perhaps) and
| really ought to be treated as such.
|
| Or I may be talking from a hopelessly American
| perspective where immigrants ideally integrate and cut
| ties with their old counties.
| Cyph0n wrote:
| Expecting immigrants to cut ties with their countries is
| completely wrong. It may be hard for some people to
| understand, but a person can belong to more than one
| nation.
|
| In my case, I am proud to be American, but I am also
| proud to be Tunisian. My extended family is in Tunisia
| and I love the country, so I make sure to visit
| regularly. And I will be sure to teach my children about
| Tunisia, its culture, its language, and its cuisine.
|
| Over a few generations, this dual identity usually
| declines, simply because successive generations feel less
| of a kinship to their original country.
| rchaud wrote:
| That perspective may benefit from re-evaluation. People
| that immigrated to America before the advent of air
| travel, satellite TV and internet had no choice when it
| came to cutting ties with their home country.
|
| People integrate at their own pace. First-generation
| immigrants' kids tend to integrate fast or develop a
| dual-culture identity, because that is what they're
| around from the time they're born. The parents may never
| fully integrate if they came here as adults and spent a
| significant portion of their lifetime in another culture.
| notsureaboutpg wrote:
| He's not taking Germany for granted by not being a vocal
| Erdogan opponent.
|
| Also, many Turks have done the same sacrifice for open
| societies, but just because you sacrifice doesn't mean
| you get what you sacrificed for.
| mclightning wrote:
| FTFY : Germans, and Europeans generally, have put the
| security of _people of color in Africa, India, Americas_
| and their families in jeopardy over _half a thousand year
| to democratise systems across their population to_ live
| in free and open societies that we are now able to
| migrate to.
| sgift wrote:
| So, the revolutions in Europe (which lead to
| democratization) happened because of whatever happened in
| Africa, India and the Americas? Or what do you mean?
| mclightning wrote:
| ... _whatever happened in Africa_...(tumbleweed rolls by)
| sudosysgen wrote:
| They were a big factor in making such models sustainable
| and widespread, yes.
| egeozcan wrote:
| What a horrible thing to say. I don't know where to
| begin, but it's best to leave it here as I don't want
| this turning into a flame-war.
| Bakary wrote:
| Ironically people sometimes intentionally use the word expat
| to avoid the "western people are expats, non-westerners are
| immigrants" terminology trap
| atomicson wrote:
| Facebook is like a frog in a well. Facebook doesn't have enough
| deep knowledge about customs and political situations in a
| country. They just want to make revenue. They don't care who is
| right or wrong. They create chaos in the name of free speech.
| Facebook is the dumbest company. They have to find out what's
| happening and make a deep investigation about a report from a
| user. Mark should take a deep study of information paradox. Free
| speech is not a simple thing. It needs regulation so the bad guys
| out there not abuse it's power.
| l8again wrote:
| I think it is demonstrably proven that Facebook has no qualms
| about aiding and abetting government campaigns of crushing
| dissent across the world, despite its claims of "cherishing free
| speech". Facebook (and Twitter) has been doing the same in India
| [1].
|
| [1] https://theintercept.com/2021/02/27/india-climate-
| activists-...
| timinghero wrote:
| Facebook, like any other entity, is not above the law. Now, you
| can criticize the law, but not Facebook for simply following
| it.
|
| Disclaimer: Turkish living abroad since few years. Throwaway
| account. Upset with some having respect for their _superior_
| rule of law _only_.
| umvi wrote:
| So basically all world governments are locked in to their current
| state forever from the perspective of big tech, even if they are
| tyrannical regimes? Basically any group trying to invoke change
| will be labeled terrorists and will be censored and suppressed.
| botverse wrote:
| This is IMO the most valuable reflection of the whole thread.
| It can be seen as morals are conditional for big tech companies
| and depend of arbitrary circumstances like location
| Barrin92 wrote:
| It's the correct decision (although Facebook likely only cares
| about its bottom line). the YPG is designated as a terrorist
| organisation by the Turkish state and it's quite obvious that
| Turkey will want to exercise sovereignty over its communication
| channels rather than letting an opposing military force broadcast
| freely to its citizens.
|
| It's not really the job of a private company to undermine nations
| in this way for simple reasons of sovereignty, and because even
| if Facebook were to somehow win in the short term, the five to
| ten year consequence would probably be that nations like Turkey
| decouple entirely and take control over communications back a la
| Russia or China.
| Shivetya wrote:
| I had a nice long reply but had some time to simply fit.
|
| The issue here isn't that Facebook is complying with a
| government's wishes it is that we don't hold our own
| governments liable first. As in, you should first blame your
| own government for turning a blind eye to events you find
| objectionable. People cheer on facebook and others here for
| locking out opinions they don't want, they just find a clean
| term to justify it (no fake news, hate, etc)
|
| However to be blunt. No government is without issues and it
| would be a better use of your angst to clean up your own
| government before asking your government or a private firm to
| interfere in the actions of others. As in, police yourself
| first.
| toomanybeersies wrote:
| > It's not really the job of a private company to undermine
| nations in this way for simple reasons of sovereignty
|
| That may be the case (or not), except this isn't a principled
| stance that Facebook is taking, but a business decision.
| Facebook have absolutely no issue with undermining a nation's
| sovereignty when it suits them.
|
| For example, in protest against Australia's new News Media
| Bargaining Code, they went and blocked Australians from being
| able to share news articles.
| nradov wrote:
| I fail to see how blocking sharing of news links undermined
| Australia's sovereignty. The Australian government gave
| Facebook a choice to either pay up or exit the news business
| and they chose the latter. So they are in compliance with
| local law.
| geoduck14 wrote:
| I actually agree with you, and FB. The YPG are considered
| terrorists by Turkey. Their content is no longer available - in
| Turkey.
|
| Do I wish FB allowed the content? Yeah, kind of, but I don't
| actually understand if the YPG is a dangerous organization.
| monadic6 wrote:
| It's not really the job of facebook to do anything or care
| about anyone. It's on _you and me_ to force them to do
| anything.
|
| Don't get me wrong, I will absolutely blame the corporate
| apologists when shit goes bad. It's assholes like you that
| create an abusive environment for the rest of us. Your hands
| are soaked with blood.
| throwaway316943 wrote:
| It's the wrong decision but no private company should be in a
| position to make it. The power that we have granted to
| centralized extralegal entities is obscene and we're going to
| pay for it in blood if we don't walk this back quickly by
| breaking up these orgs and building technologies that
| decentralize that power.
| bcherny wrote:
| I agree that decentralized moderation is right, in theory.
| What does that look like in practice -- Reddit-style
| downvoting?
|
| And do you really think the really bad stuff -- child porn,
| terrorist recruitment, and so on, that FB/Twitter/Google
| already detect with ML 99% of the time -- should be
| decentralized too?
| missedthecue wrote:
| What would breaking up Facebook.com look like in a way that
| successfully prevents what you're describing?
|
| It's not an oil conglomerate. It's a social network. That's
| irreducible by definition. Most people seem to throw out
| suggestions like forcing them to spin off Instagram and
| WhatsApp. That clearly wouldn't fix what youre saying is the
| issue. IG and WhatsApp would still be run by the same people,
| still owned in part by Zuckerberg, and still have the same
| incentives and goals. Essentially the only difference is that
| the employer name on the W-2s would change.
| throwaway316943 wrote:
| A death knell legislation would be better. Like making
| social networks entirely responsible for the content posted
| by their users so that it's impossible to grow beyond a
| certain scale and still be functional. Or maybe enforcing
| interoperability so that users can take their data and
| friends elsewhere.
| andred14 wrote:
| This censorship is wrong and alarming. Time to move from this
| platform with haste.
| icare_1er wrote:
| Well, isn't it ironic that many people here appaled by this kind
| of censorship were backing the same GAFAs when they kicked Trump
| of their platforms ? Oh yes i know, "it's not comparable
| because...", well, yes, it IS perfectly comparable and it is in
| fact the same.
| guerrilla wrote:
| > Well, isn't it ironic that many people here appaled by this
| kind of censorship were backing the same GAFAs when they kicked
| Trump of their platforms
|
| People need to stop saying stuff like this. It's not like you
| looked through people's account histories or remember how
| specific accounts speaking today came down on that issue in the
| past.
| ttt0 wrote:
| From one of the flagged comments in this thread:
|
| > Good.
|
| > Nice to see they don't have double standards, since they
| also silenced for example an enemy of US - Donald Trump.
| echelon wrote:
| It seems to me like proponents of censorship want to enforce
| their world view in some way or another. It doesn't matter
| which pole they're on, if they think censorship is a good
| policy, then they're arguing from a perspective where their
| views aren't the ones that are censored.
| TLightful wrote:
| Obligatory: do people still use Facebook?
| hmate9 wrote:
| Only 1.5 billion people.
| mamon wrote:
| So down from the 2 billion peak?
| jacquesm wrote:
| An enemy of Erdogan, not necessarily an enemy of Turkey.
| m00dy wrote:
| it is a state policy not erdogan's
| KDJohnBrown wrote:
| Tayipp is the state. Turkiye is very much a single man ruled
| nation.
| Mediterraneo10 wrote:
| The old-school Ataturkists who are the opposite flank of
| Turkish politics from Erdogan's party, were the very people who
| started this denial of Kurdish identity and territorial
| autonomy or independence. It isn't just Erdogan who has a
| problem with those Kurdish groups, it is Turkish society
| overall.
| KDJohnBrown wrote:
| ("Kemalists" is the correct term here)
|
| I have an _incredible_ amount of respect and admiration for
| Ataturk but he also had his flaws when it came to freedom of
| speech, expression and religion.
|
| What's interesting is _all_ of the liberal turks I know (I
| live in Istanbul) voted for the HDP in 2015 but are also
| highly critical of their association with PKK and have since
| switched to CHP.
| kingofpandora wrote:
| I'd argue that Turkey is much more an enemy of YPG than the YPG
| is an enemy of Turkey.
| jmacjmac wrote:
| Around %90 of the population in Turkey would call that group an
| enemy. So, it is not another "Erdogan wants to silence his
| enemy" case.
| kalia35 wrote:
| source?
| jmacjmac wrote:
| It's not easy to find an English poll result but :
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018_Turkish_general_election
|
| Here, HDP is (in purple) PKK affiliated legal party in
| Turkey. You can see their support among people in Turkey.
| All other parties call PKK as terrorist and they are
| strongly against it.
| alienalp wrote:
| YPG is Terrorist organization according to Turkey and 90% of its
| citizens. So nothing anormal here. It is not up to US or you to
| decide who is terrorist or not. Actually US, even though actively
| supporting YPG, does not deny that YPG is terrorist organization.
| This kind of attitude simply disgust any Turk who see this topic.
| Especially like platform like this it is frustrating.
| komahirrimbuke wrote:
| I'll leave this here in case anyone wants to argue YPG is not
| PKK. YPG is a literal terrorist organization. Imagine ISIS had a
| Facebook page.
|
| "Senior US general explains rebranding YPG away from terror group
| PKK" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cHpaIO-Pj10
| DyslexicAtheist wrote:
| depends on the pov. What's a terrorist to one side is a freedom
| fighter to the other.
|
| from this month:
|
| > ANKARA (Reuters) - Turkish President Tayyip Erdogan said on
| Monday his ruling AK Party and its nationalist allies may start
| work on drafting a new constitution, less than four years after
| overhauling the previous constitution to grant his office
| sweeping powers.
|
| the coup was justified and it's a tragedy Erdogan hasn't been
| removed from power. The AKP/Erdogan is no longer serving its
| people. Erdogan/AKP are the real "terrorists".
| aranelsurion wrote:
| While I agree with the view that Erdogan/AKP might be the
| worst thing that happened to Turkey, the people behind the
| coup in 2016 wouldn't make things any better.
|
| The group behind the coup had a perfectly happy marriage with
| AKP until around 2013, and both of them being islamic groups
| together they destroyed whatever they could from the
| previously mostly-secular state. [1] Whatever you see as a
| problem in Turkey today (say, non-existent separation of
| powers, human rights abuses, journalists in jail, collapsed
| legal system, government censorship, economic troubles... and
| a long list of other things) had their beginnings in this
| period.
|
| Most of the power they amassed in Turkey was the direct
| result of this alliance with AKP, and their people filled the
| government posts while AKP replaced the old guard. After
| 2013, as a result of internal power struggles this alliance
| broke up, and in 2016 this organization attempted the coup
| you mentioned. If they had their way, power would be shifted
| from one islamic political organization (AKP) to another
| ("Cemaat"/The Service/FETO or whatever people call them
| nowadays) who has even less legitimacy.
|
| Anyways, sorry for the wall of text on this comparatively
| trivial matter, it's just that I find it unfortunate that
| those guys are now being seen/depicted as some kind of failed
| saviours in the western media, while in reality they are
| anything but.
|
| [1] which was maintained under the shadow of the army and
| wasn't nowhere near perfect either. Though I'd personally
| take that one over this one any day.
| torb-xyz wrote:
| Funny that you compare YPG to ISIS. YPG/YPJ (alongside others
| in SDF) where some of the most successful militia in fighting
| back against ISIS (so much that there where some strategic co-
| operation with US forces in fighting ISIS).
|
| They also generally fight for Kurdish rights and, ethnic
| pluralism in general (saved several Yazidi towns from ISIS for
| example), women's rights and democracy (including forms of
| local direct democracy seen few other places).
|
| The reason PKK and/or YPG/YPJ is on some terrorist lists is
| mainly because Turkish government is against Kurdish rights in
| general. Turkey tend to claim any group fighting for Kurdish
| independence and/or rights to be terrorists.
|
| So if they're "terrorists" in the same way apartheid South-
| Africa saw Nelson Mandela, ANC and others fighting apartheid as
| "terrorists".
| kobasa wrote:
| >The reason PKK and/or YPG/YPJ is on some terrorist lists is
| mainly because Turkish government is against Kurdish rights
| in general.
|
| So you're just gonna omit the fact that they have a decades
| long history of bombing and killing innocent civilians
| including kids?
| [deleted]
| esperent wrote:
| I've tried to find information about this, and all I can
| find is that Turkey claimed they committed war crimes, but
| when the US and UN investigated they couldn't find any
| supporting evidence.
| _bohm wrote:
| The PKK was formed in reaction to intense oppression of the
| Kurdish people by the Turkish State. The Kurdish language
| and traditional garb were banned, and Kurdish history was
| not allowed to be taught. The Turkish State also burned
| Kurdish villages and slaughtered many Kurds.
|
| None of this is to say that the PKK has not committed acts
| which would surely offend western sensibilities, but simply
| slapping the "terrorist" label on them and calling it a day
| is not a nuanced way to approach the discussion.
| jmacjmac wrote:
| > The Kurdish language and traditional garb were banned
|
| How about nowadays? Nothing is banned yet we still see
| PKK bombing public buses in our cities. Seriously, when
| can we call these guys "terrorist"?
|
| These problems were real, yes, Kurdish language was
| banned, people couldn't say they were Kurdish without any
| pressure back then but these days are no more. Does
| "cultural ban happened in the past" justify what PKK is
| doing now?
| _bohm wrote:
| Given that I'm very far removed from these events, I
| don't think it's my place to make strong judgements about
| what is and isn't justified in what has obviously been a
| very long and bitter conflict.
|
| That being said, I don't think the PKK explicitly uses
| these past offenses to justify their continued activity
| in the conflict. My understanding is that they continue
| fighting because the Turkish Kurds still lack any
| meaningful political representation, they oppose
| Erdogan's push towards Islamic national identity, and
| because the Turkish State continues to carry out military
| strikes against Kurdish targets outside Turkey's borders.
|
| I'm by no means an authority on this topic so feel free
| to correct me if I've made any incorrect statements. It
| sounds like you're much close to this conflict than I am,
| in which case my heart goes out to you in wishing for a
| peaceful resolution to all of this.
| jmacjmac wrote:
| Just to clarify, %20-25 of the population is Kurdish in
| Turkey. In elections, PKK affiliated legal party gets
| half of the Kurdish votes and other half goes to Erdogan
| roughly. So, there is no single Kurdish identity in
| Turkey, more like split between these two. Ofcourse,
| there is a few percent which is not among these two. So,
| if you ask is there any Kurdish people in the government,
| yes there are a lot. Erdogan gets half of the Kurdish
| votes, so we can say Kurdish Erdogan supporters have
| enough representation. PKK affiliated party is not in
| government, because they didn't get enough votes but they
| are in parliament ofcourse representing their %10 votes.
|
| I don't think PKK cares about Erdogan's Islamic Turkey
| dream. You don't see PKK or it's legal party saying
| anything about it in Turkey, I think they mention it only
| when they are talking to western media :)
|
| In Turkey, there is secular opposition which is rougly
| %40-50, they stand against Erdogan's Islamic push but
| they still lack of %50 + 1 votes to dethrone Erdogan
| unfortunately.
|
| PKK says they want federalism for Kurdish cities, you can
| advocate for that, it's okay, their legal party is doing
| that, that's fine. But when you're holding guns and
| saying my way or high way, that's a big no. So, if they
| really care about democratic, secular Turkey, they can
| put guns aside, get together with opposition in Turkey.
| LegitShady wrote:
| > So, if they really care about democratic, secular
| Turkey, they can put guns aside, get together with
| opposition in Turkey.
|
| On the flip side, learn the lesson from the iranian
| revolution. When religious extremists control the
| government and want to impose their religion on anyone,
| who holds the guns is the most important questions.
|
| giving them up might be the surrender and death of
| democratic secular turkey, over time.
| m0rti wrote:
| Terrorist is an ideological word, therefore it doesn't
| always represent everyone's views of a certain group.
|
| Terrorist groups born as a reaction to heavy injustice.
| Hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqi civilians motivate a
| lot of members of the most popular terrorist groups
| today.
|
| This has always been like this, we don't live in a
| cartoon where the bad guy is 2 dimensional.
|
| To try to understand these groups' motivations is easy
| when you are immune to their actions. However, this
| behaviour is pretty off putting for the other side of the
| discussion, in this case Turkish people.
|
| I think we need to draw a line somewhere. I don't know
| where but this doesn't feel right for me.
|
| When you start the justification game, you need to do it
| for other groups too. Otherwise it would come off as
| hypocritical and dishonest. I don't know you personally,
| maybe you do say this for all the "terrorist" groups. But
| I witness this behaviour online a lot when it comes to
| the groups that hurt Turkish civilians and I wanted to
| point it out, maybe this comment can give a bit of
| perspective to some people.
|
| Also a separate note for the audience, not related with
| your comment, this is not an Erdogan specific issue as
| the people from the anglo-sphere tend to claim in this
| thread. It started before Erdogan, it will continue after
| Erdogan. If Obama could be the next Turkish president,
| the situation would still be the same.
| _bohm wrote:
| > Terrorist is an ideological word, therefore it doesn't
| always represent everyone's views of a certain group.
|
| > This has always been like this, we don't live in a
| cartoon where the bad guy is 2 dimensional.
|
| I completely agree and this was more or less the point of
| my comment. I'm not attempting to justify the actions of
| any group in particular, and I certainly don't endorse
| the use of indiscriminate violence against civilians for
| any reason.
|
| I'm often bothered by the use of the word "terrorist"
| because I think it is often used as a means of putting us
| into this 2 dimensional world and creating a shortcut out
| of meaningful discussions. I will be the first to admit
| that my own government is guilty of terrorism under most
| definitions that people in my part of the world use.
|
| I appreciate your comment, and apologize if mine came off
| as callous towards people who are suffering as a result
| of this conflict.
| roadbeats wrote:
| I always felt surprised how people are when they throw
| such "facts" very confidently. What's your source ? Have
| you been there yourself? How did you end up convincing
| yourself to know the truth so well that you can transmit
| to others without leaving any room for discussion? This
| reminds me something I quite dislike: the tone of
| fascism. It's widespread like a virus these days.
| nojokes wrote:
| The YPG and affiliated groups are designated as terrorist
| organizations by only Turkey and Qatar.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People%27s_Protection_Units
|
| 20 million Kurds not having a state despite their will to have
| it is a major injustice in this world.
| sneak wrote:
| If ISIS had a facebook page, I would be angry at facebook if
| they censored it.
|
| Related: People claimed Cloudflare used to protect ISIS sites.
| https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/nov/19/cloudflar...
| marshmallow_12 wrote:
| if someone set up a facebook page to promote killing you and
| everyone you love, and making your life hell, i think you
| would think differently.
| sneak wrote:
| That's not accurate.
| marshmallow_12 wrote:
| why not? The only difference is that ISIS makes life hell
| for a larger group of people. Does that lessen its impact
| on an individual?
| kingofpandora wrote:
| Remember that the invasion of Afrin was done by Turkey in
| conjunction with jihadist terrorist groups. Turkey has no
| problem with terrorism, only Kurds.
| [deleted]
| dannyr wrote:
| Facebook is indeed a tool for authoritarians.
|
| Facebook becomes the major, if not the only, online channel for
| citizens of a country.
|
| Facebook adheres to orders of an authoritarian leader.
| Authoritarian leaders easily shuts out opposition to his/her
| regime.
|
| Authoritarian leaders didn't have to spend much money and
| resources to do this. Facebook did it for them!
| dalbasal wrote:
| There are no good solutions here.
|
| Should Facebook ignore Turkish law? Should they go by the US'
| terror organisation list instead? Should they maintain their own
| "terrorist list" alongside Turkey & the US'? Separate
| classifications of illegal or immoral content for in every
| jurisdiction?
|
| You think there are political biases in American FB or Twitter?
| ... Try FB in a language or political context that no FB
| executive even speaks.
|
| Meanwhile, there's chance (grumblings in europe, atm) that
| FB/Twitter will be subject to positive pressures as well. IE,
| making it illegal to exclude (eg) a political party from a
| platform. It doesn't take long before the same content is illegal
| in one jurisdiction and illegal to restrict in another. The
| Armenian Genocide comes to mind as a likely example.
|
| Zuck is like a case study in "no morals" corporate culture.
|
| OOH, saying yes to revenue streams worked out really well. FB
| "retargeting" and creepy personalized advertising won. The
| effectiveness of the ads, and revenue soared. Being "cutting
| edge" really, really paid off. It was creepy, but people got used
| to it. Scandals like Cambridge Analytica also passed. Other
| platforms (adwords) did it too, and FB doesn't stand out too
| much.
|
| On the other hand, having no morals makes it very hard to
| navigate issues like censorship & moderation in multiple
| jurisdictions. This is exactly the kind of work morals were
| invented for.
| cblconfederate wrote:
| > no good solutions
|
| Yeah there are no good ones, facebook is clearly morally wrong,
| but they are not in the business of morals anyway.
|
| Let's see if their ever-socially-conscious advertisers will
| "pull out" their ads in protest again
| throwaway316943 wrote:
| The only good solution is for social media to be a neutral
| service provider open to all. It would destroy Facebook's
| business model but that's a good thing.
| dalbasal wrote:
| Or put another way, the problem isn't what facebook (or
| twitter) chooses to do... it's what they are.
|
| The problem is "neutral service provider" means something
| very different to nerds than it does to policy wonks that can
| actually do something about it.
|
| To us, FB should be a protocol like email, rss or www. That
| means there is no FB, no $1trn market cap, no $90bn revenue
| stream. To them, it means something like "common carrier."
| That means keeping fb, but regulating it so they can't
| exclude anyone. The whole thing will be written with an eye
| to keeping revenue streams intact.
|
| FB are already making the argument that such things will make
| it impossible for them to "compete with China." That already
| smells of too big to fail.
|
| The absurd thing here is that FB's service is not scarce at
| all. No matter what happens with fb, there will be no
| shortages of social media. FB can exist. It can be a $5trn
| company. It can cease to exist. It can shrink 1000X. The
| quantity and quality of online social media is not more or
| less because of those things.
|
| All those books about "abundance" 10-15 years ago were (in
| typical internet fashion) 10-15 years too early. FB is the
| real life example of abundance economics at work.
| caseysoftware wrote:
| _" Private company, can do what they want"_ loses meaning when
| they're acting on behalf of and in the interests of a given
| government.
|
| Is there a point where we call that the boundary between
| government and "private industry" is mostly paperwork and not
| reality?
| jokoon wrote:
| This change of president will pull out a lot of stuff from under
| the rug. This is going to be epic.
| thih9 wrote:
| To elaborate on the title, "silenced" means:
|
| > [YPG's page] can't be viewed by Facebook users inside Turkey
|
| > The page is still available on Facebook to people who view the
| site through U.S. internet providers.
|
| And "enemy of Turkey":
|
| > Turkey considers the YPG a terrorist organization, although
| neither the U.S. nor Facebook do.
| vbezhenar wrote:
| This is a good approach. Country must be able to control
| content served to their citizens. And that ruling should not be
| extended to other countries. Citizens can either elect
| different president or use VPN.
| postingawayonhn wrote:
| Freedom of speech/expression is a right of every individual
| on this planet. Any regime that does not support that should
| face pushback from its citizens, businesses, and other
| countries.
| jankassens wrote:
| Even with free speech as a right, there's still the
| conflict with other rights.
|
| E.g in the USA, slander or sexual content is limiting what
| you can express.
|
| In Germany, Holocaust denial and nazi symbols are illegal.
|
| The vast majority of people in these countries seem to
| agree with these limitations. (I don't know about the
| Turkish situation)
|
| The ranking of rights when they're in conflict with each
| other is fascinating to me as it can be pretty different by
| country.
| KDJohnBrown wrote:
| Who exactly bestows these rights upon people?
|
| Governments? Turkiye outlaws free speech through arbitary
| terror laws (see: HDP politicians imprisoned, members of
| Grupo Yorum who died of hunger protests for not being
| allowed to sing). Turkiye also has libel laws which
| basically outlaw free speech. tayipp has successfully sued
| _many_ thousands of people for speaking afainst him.
|
| Religion? Turks are mostly muslim. Blasphemy, apostacy,
| mocking the prophet or drawing pictures or him are all
| punishable by death in Islam.
|
| The concept of universal or inalienable rights is noble and
| righteous in theory, but imaginary in practice.
|
| Turks have allowed Tayipp to stomp all over the
| constitution (illegally acting as prime minister when he
| was president, rewriting the constitution under a state of
| emergency, violating libel laws by regularly insulting
| kurds, chp, hdp, christians, jews and zoroastrians,
| violating the secularity laws and arresting hundreds of
| thousands of people under allged ties to feto), and Turks
| keep allowing it.
|
| Even Ataturk banned turbanli women from working in
| government.
|
| Turks have willingly rejected western-style free speech for
| a relatively improved economy and a sense of national
| pride.
| sdeframond wrote:
| Respectful nitpick: maybe you mean "Freedom of
| speech/expression _should be_ a right of every individual
| on this planet "
|
| Also, one thing is to wish for _universal_ freedom of
| speech, another one is for a given community, or country,
| to impose its views on free speech (and limitations
| thereof) to another community.
|
| Edit: typo
| boomboomsubban wrote:
| >should be
|
| No, "is" is correct. Everybody has the same intrinsic
| right to free speech at birth. You think that given
| communities should choose for themselves whether that
| right can be infringed.
|
| This is basically the US' answer to the "divine right of
| monarchy." If you say that speech "should be" the right l
| of every individual, you are giving the government an
| automatic place of authority over the citizen,claiming
| they get to choose what rights people have.
| sdeframond wrote:
| Yes it is correct, in theory at least ;)
| cblconfederate wrote:
| It is a Human Right according to the UN declaration.
|
| https://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/
|
| both Turkey and facebooks home, the US , have signed it
| sdeframond wrote:
| That's correct.
|
| As an anecdote, I was pretty shocked when some foreigner
| friend told me "universal" human rights can actually be
| perceived as more of a "western imperialism" thing. While
| I still think human rights are a thing, I can understand
| that they have been used hypocritically many times
| through history.
|
| Regarding TFA, I am unsure whether I'd rather FB to
| impose US's views on freespeech to Turkey or to respect
| whatever the local government is telling it to do.
| LegitShady wrote:
| >Regarding TFA, I am unsure whether I'd rather FB to
| impose US's views on freespeech to Turkey or to respect
| whatever the local government is telling it to do.
|
| You have it backwards, facebook et al will slowly kill
| free speech in the US while claiming to be pro free
| speech.
|
| We have before us the greatest setup for fascism in
| history, and these tech companies should allow themselves
| to be banned from countries before cooperating with
| governments to silence speech.
|
| Instead expect them to help authoritarians silence
| dissent.
| sdeframond wrote:
| I am very wary of FB. In fact I deleted my account about
| 10 years ago (God knows I had to jump through hoops for
| this). Still using Whatsapp but mainly Signal.
|
| Truth is one does not need Facebook at all. Don't rely on
| it for getting news, don't rely on it for giving news.
|
| > these tech companies should allow themselves to be
| banned
|
| So you expect Big Corp to have a conscience? How cute :P
| anovikov wrote:
| Why? If we are certain that values of free speech are
| important for national success, then if others suppress
| them, fine! It only provides us competitive advantage, let
| them suffer from their mistakes.
| throwaway316943 wrote:
| Yeah, fuck em. Who cares what other countries do, let
| them exterminate their minorities too it just means less
| competition for resources. /s
| anovikov wrote:
| I'd say, only option for caring about that is if we
| actually suspect that values of free speech and personal
| freedoms in general are NOT important for development:
| rather, those are the luxuries which we simply can afford
| because we're rich. And it's wise to press values onto
| poor countries to prevent them from becoming richer and
| thus a threat to us. The experiment of helping countries
| to become rich so they become friendly, failed on China
| and Russia examples: becoming rich they got only more
| hostile just because they could, so assumption that it's
| good to separate countries into friendly or hostile
| regardless of how is their economy going, and simply
| suppress growth of the latter, seems a wise one.
| vbezhenar wrote:
| > Freedom of speech/expression is a right of every
| individual on this planet
|
| I'm not aware of any country with unlimited speech.
| Definitely not US or EU countries. I'm not observing huge
| pushback from US citizens, business and other countries
| when Facebook and Twitter tried to silence Trump and some
| other conservative leaders. There are topics that are
| forbidden by law to discuss in EU, for example to deny
| Holocaust. Those are examples of lack of freedom in so-
| called "free" countries. So obviously freedom of speech is
| not universal approach and some limitation of that freedom
| is an accepted norm.
| kristianc wrote:
| This is simply tu quoque - clearly there are limits to
| free speech in every country but where possible the right
| to free expression should outweigh the the state's desire
| to silence political opposition.
|
| Twitter was a pretty good example of this actually -
| protecting people's right to hear from the President
| (despite him saying and doing many things that would have
| got regular users banned) right up until the point where
| he led an insurrection on the Capitol. I don't think you
| can argue anything other than Twitter taking their
| responsibility to free speech incredibly seriously - to
| the point where they were often accused of being
| complicit to juice user metrics. And perhaps do some
| research into Joel Kaplan before you claim the same of
| Facebook.
|
| Clearly this is not in the same realm as Holocaust denial
| (which is incidentally also legal in roughly half of the
| EU countries).
| wyattpeak wrote:
| > This is simply tu quoque
|
| Not the original poster, but I don't think it is.
|
| The problem is that, since all countries acknowledge that
| there should be limits on speech, it's inappropriate for
| one country (or company, for that matter) to decide what
| should be the limit in another country.
|
| If it were black and white, there'd be a much stronger
| case. But this is a company saying "our shade of grey is
| preferable to yours".
|
| I obviously don't agree with what the Turkish government
| demanded, but I'm unconvinced that this in particular is
| a strong argument for a foreign company to decide to
| overrule local law. And I really think that should be a
| very high bar.
| kristianc wrote:
| The issue is that once you go down that road, you
| preclude discussion of any issues by one country /
| company if that country also imposes limitations.
|
| You need to pick a principle somewhere - and I'm not sure
| 'we'll simply block access to any material the host
| government finds objectionable' is going to be one that's
| going to lead us toward a better world.
| marshmallow_12 wrote:
| > Freedom of speech/expression is a right of every
| individual on this planet
|
| I do think that it's slightly more nuanced. On certain
| issues there is no freedom of speech. This is when it is
| determined that the opinions expressed are detrimental to
| the human race and largely false. Nazi beliefs are in
| this category. They are so harmful to the public that
| individual freedom is quashed. incitement to murder is
| another. You certainly don't have freedom to say
| everything you like. That would lead to anarchy.
|
| Edit: the only true freedom is freedom of belief. You are
| free to believe anything you like. However you may not
| always be allowed to pass on those beliefs. The press are
| given gag orders all the time, it's not the most
| fundemental human right.
| LegitShady wrote:
| >This is when it is determined that the opinions
| expressed are detrimental to the human race and largely
| false.
|
| Then any speech that threatens power structures will be
| determined to be detrimental, and banned.
|
| The only way to protect speech is to protect speech, even
| if you dislike it. That's why the ACLU, before they were
| coopted as they are today, defended nazis in illinois.
|
| Don't be short sighted, be long sighted. Today its nazis,
| 60 years ago its was activists. Same rules.
| marshmallow_12 wrote:
| I'm not saying that it's a clear cut issue. I think there
| are definite cases when freedom of speech causes more
| harm then good. If someone will preach that we must kill
| every single person with 8 fingers, for example, we will
| curtail his freedom with very little consideration.
| statstutor wrote:
| I don't agree with Turkey's law in this case, but you're
| saying that we should impose our laws and values on all
| other countries, and also that online services should not
| have to abide by any laws, with the internet as essentially
| a lawless state.
|
| I view those both as bigger problems.
| imgabe wrote:
| I agree, but in practice what would happen is Turkey would
| just block Facebook if they refused to comply. Facebook
| can't grant freedom of speech to people. They have to take
| control of their government and demand it for themselves if
| they want it.
|
| Facebook has made it clear they don't care about free
| speech anyway, as they'll happily ban anyone who
| jeopardizes their ad revenue.
| cblconfederate wrote:
| The moral thing to do is let the government ban them. The
| problem lies in the fact that totalitarian governments
| use social media to manipulate their own citizens and
| often run campaigns against them. By siding with the
| government in serious issues they make it even more
| difficult for citizens to "demand their freedoms", siding
| with the devil
| sneak wrote:
| Why should any person, elected or otherwise, be permitted to
| decide what another adult human being is allowed to read?
| amanaplanacanal wrote:
| Because "rights" aren't real, but power is. Rights are
| whatever you can take by force or negotiation from the
| strongmen who want to run your life.
| pjc50 wrote:
| Yeah, "terrorist" is kind of a floating designator. The YPG
| should be distinguished from the PKK in this instance. The UK
| takes occasional erratic action against the YPG:
| https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/can-europe-make-it/terroris...
| fishnchips wrote:
| "Floating signifier" I believe is the exact scientific term.
| That is, if you consider semiotics a science.
| arlk wrote:
| YPG is actually run by the same PKK elements, Mazloum Abdi as
| an example. And both are under the same KCK umbrella of far
| leftist Kurdish organizations; Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK)
| in Turkey, Democratic Union Party (PYD under which YPG
| operates) in Syria, Kurdistan Free Life Party (PJAK) in Iran,
| and Kurdistan Democratic Solution Party (PCDK) in Iraq.
|
| I'm not saying it is terrorist organization or not, but it's
| inconsistent to have one of these organizations on the
| terrorists list and others not, since they all share the same
| ideology, goals, and tactics.
| gurtyui wrote:
| Good.
|
| Nice to see they don't have double standards, since they also
| silenced for example an enemy of US - Donald Trump.
| spacemanmatt wrote:
| Counterpoint: They let him use FB and Twitter for his perpetual
| disinformation campaigns and continue to let seditionist groups
| organize on their platforms. The recent bans amount to nothing
| after giving him platform pretty much the entire duration of
| his term.
| Ahmed90 wrote:
| It's an obvious "following the local law" thingy, Facebook
| doesn't give a s*t, I personally reported 3 posts on different FB
| pages
|
| 1st was a religion extremist guy who says to Iraqi people that
| they should protest and fight the "other side" of the religion
| (aka start a new civil war) instead of protesting against the
| corrupted government.
|
| 2nd was a post that was praising the guy who murdered the Danish
| (Or was he Norwegian?) teacher who mocked Islam, and calling him
| a hero.
|
| and the 3rd was a post that says "Women education is satanic,
| women's purpose is marriage".
|
| all of these 3 reports was "The post was reviewed, and though it
| doesn't go against one of our specific Community Standards" and
| then it explains how to block blablabla... I don't report things
| anymore lol
| coffeefirst wrote:
| Yeah, I've reported a bunch of stuff, all of it egregious. I
| have an inbox full of "thank you but this does not violate our
| community standards" to show for it.
| JIBitator wrote:
| I don't see anything wrong with these posts. Perhaps you should
| stay on grindr instead.
| laurent92 wrote:
| Facebook has so much power with censoring only one side of the
| extremists. A good experiment would be if you could find a
| Christian priest to report, and check whether their response is
| weighted differently.
| tonyedgecombe wrote:
| _A good experiment would be ..._
|
| That would be an anecdote just as Ahmed's findings were
| anecdotal. It you want to check for bias you need data.
| ttt0 wrote:
| Well, Facebook won't ever release their data, so I guess
| there cannot be any wrongdoing whatsoever.
| ethanwillis wrote:
| Data that Facebook is fighting hard to make sure people
| can't collect. Just like how they were poisoning the well
| while suing academic teams just trying to get information
| on ads data.
| throwaway1777 wrote:
| Cambridge analytica killed any kind of large scale data
| access to FB.
| toxik wrote:
| Paty was French, where did you get Danish or Norwegian from?
| Ahmed90 wrote:
| Idk, a brain fart I guess.
| wreath wrote:
| Probably confused with the Danish cartoonist Kurt Westergaard
| colejohnson66 wrote:
| Interestingly, I've had more success reporting on Instagram
| than Facebook...
| input_sh wrote:
| I've given up during the time when ISIS regularly posted videos
| on social media. I've reported a video with a literal beheading
| about two thirds of the video in, and it didn't go against
| Facebook's community standards.
|
| I guess whichever moderator saw it didn't bother to skip ahead
| during those like 5-10 seconds they reach their decision in.
| Bombthecat wrote:
| They probably don't have the time. Next time report with
| timestamp?
| redis_mlc wrote:
| Just to explain what's going on ...
|
| > I've given up during the time when ISIS regularly posted
| videos on social media. I've reported a video with a literal
| beheading ...
|
| I suggest you consider what the first 2 initials in "ISIS"
| mean: "IS" means Islamic State, and that's what it is/was,
| despite what the leftist US MSM media keeps saying.
|
| > I guess whichever moderator saw it
|
| The rumor (reports from ex-Muslims who report similar
| content) is that the moderators for complaints about Muslim
| content ... are Muslims, and capital punishment is prescribed
| in the Koran. According to the moderators, you're the
| problem.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-02-28 23:01 UTC)