upvote

points

by noname1209 hours ago |
comments
upvoteby arandomhuman7 hours ago|
next
[-]
>Do they have a choice?

Yes, they absolutely have a choice. People can choose to not assist with transgressions against human rights in the year 2026 :)

reply
upvoteby ticulatedspline6 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
Meta is not people, it's a publicly traded company that's practically legally required to make money and grow infinitely.

You however, as people, can choose not to patronize a Meta that assists with transgressions against human rights.

reply
upvoteby slg6 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
>Meta is not people, it's a publicly traded company that's practically legally required to make money and grow infinitely.

Has a company ever faced any sort of legal repercussions for sacrificing profit for moral reasons? That isn't rhetorical. I'm not aware of this ever happening, so I'm dubious of your claim.

reply
upvoteby deaux2 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
No. The answer is no, and such spurious claims are parroted only by the privileged class.
reply
upvoteby looneysquash5 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
next
[-]
And companies are legal fiction. Meta doesn't remove a post, a person does. Or maybe some software built by a person.

A person from a government told a person at Meta to block it, and that person did (probably by telling yet more people to do it).

reply
upvoteby arandomhuman2 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
next
[-]
this is a very poorly framed argument, a company is comprised of people who make executive decisions such as the very topic we're making right now. they have the discretion to choose strategies at generating shareholder value that aren't so short sighted as to be on the wrong ethical side of this.
reply
upvoteby LocalH4 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
Meta is a legal person in almost all jurisdictions it operates within

It is also operated by human individuals as employees and c-suite

reply
upvoteby akudha5 hours ago|
prev|
next
[-]
“If I don’t sell drugs, guns etc at the street corner, someone else will. Might as well be me, I’d like to make a few hundred Billion while I am at it”

Is this a good justification though? I get what you’re saying, but the same argument you’re making for social media can also be applied to everything else, isn’t it?

If I don’t do human cloning, someone else will. If I don’t make bio weapons, someone else will. And so on

reply
upvoteby JumpCrisscross8 hours ago|
prev|
next
[-]
> Do they have a choice?

Neither the UAE nor Saudi Arabia have extradition treaties with the United States. (On a practical level, they wouldn't be able to enforce one if they had it.)

reply
upvoteby mdavidn7 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
But they do control the routers that peer with external networks.
reply
upvoteby ssalka7 hours ago|
prev|
next
[-]
[flagged]
reply
upvoteby tomhow1 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
Please don't attribute false quotes to people on HN.
reply
upvoteby Georgelemental8 hours ago|
prev|
next
[-]
Russia and China can do that, but I am not sure Saudi and UAE reasonably could. Too small and too enmeshed with the US empire
reply
upvoteby nailer8 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
Saudi could - I think people accept Saudi is a religious oligarchy - but the UAE is a playground of international people avoiding tax and ostensibly a first world country, Facebook being banned would highlight how ridiculous the government that did that is.
reply
upvoteby somenameforme6 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
It's an authoritarian autocracy. I'm not using that as a slur against them as it seems like quite a nice place to stay for a while, but it's simply what it is. An American spent the better part of a year in a max security prison there for the high crime of making a video mocking youth culture. [1] I'm rather surprised to find out that Facebook isn't already banned! In looking it up turns out you can get into legal trouble there for things as small as using suggestive emojis, and they are watching. Kind of funny in a way.

Anyhow, yeah - Facebook being banned in UAE would surprise exactly nobody that's familiar with their government. People are willing to tolerate a whole lot of nonsense for 0% taxes!

[1] - https://apnews.com/general-news-4c1f57ed465940659eeb79b41447...

reply
upvoteby Georgelemental5 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
Even disregarding the ability to criticize the government, Western expats seeking 0% tax want to be able to talk with their family, friends, and business partners elsewhere in the world. UAE banning Meta platforms reduces the country's appeal for foreigners
reply
upvoteby mnewme7 hours ago|
prev|
next
[-]
Yes they do. twitter followed way less requests than X does
reply
upvoteby abernard139 minutes ago|
parent|
[-]
Twitter banned just about all conversation around COVID, the 2020 election, the Biden family, or elections. They kicked the President of the United States off of his account.
reply
upvoteby iAMkenough9 hours ago|
prev|
next
[-]
Yes, they have a choice. Profits are more important than values.
reply
upvoteby Ajedi328 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
Right, but it should be acknowledged that this is likely an amoral decision on Facebook's part (or more charitably, a pragmatic decision) not an immoral one.

The governments that forced these changes in the first place are of course acting immorally, that's not in dispute.

reply
upvoteby echoangle7 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
I don’t think that’s what amoral means. It’s not malicious but doing something that hurts others just because you gain money from it isn’t amoral just because you’re not doing it just to inflict pain.

Hyperbolic example: If your boss tells you to kill the next customer or you won’t get paid, doing the killing isn’t amoral.

reply
upvoteby Ajedi326 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
Good point. Even if Facebook is being threatened they're still ultimately responsible for their actions. Maybe amoral isn't the right word to describe this.

I guess it just feels like a lot to me to expect a company to break the law on purpose, even in the service of a greater moral duty. But maybe it shouldn't. Obviously if they did pull out of the UAE and Saudi Arabia over this rather than comply that would be a laudable stand.

reply
upvoteby nailer8 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
Facebook acquiscing to dictatorships that block human rights organizations is immoral.
reply
upvoteby lostlogin7 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
It is.

It’s not as bas as the time they helped organise a genocide though, so there is that.

reply
upvoteby logicchains7 hours ago|
prev|
[-]
People here all complain about social American social media companies defying the law when they refuse to cooperate with EU censorship, then they complain about them not defying the law with Saudi censorship, it's a double standard.
reply
upvoteby appplication7 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
Yes of course, clearly the EU and Saudia Arabia both have equal censorship initiatives and human rights track records.

Apologies for the sarcasm. But I think it’d be helpful for you to expand a little on what you mean by EU “censorship” in this case.

reply
upvoteby j-bos6 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
Could be goomba fallacy, but listening to people irl, maybe not.
reply