Slashdot Mirror


Facebook Tells India It Won't Help Censor the Web

An anonymous reader writes "Indian Communications and IT minister Kapil Sibal yesterday announced a proposal to have technology companies like Microsoft, Facebook, Google, and Twitter pre-screen user generated content so that community sentiments are not hurt. Social media platforms are being asked to censor whatever politicians deem objectionable and too offensive for the Internet. Sibal called a news conference when the story broke, and following it, Facebook responded to say that it can't help in the effort."

30 of 168 comments (clear)

  1. Duh... by masternerdguy · · Score: 4, Funny

    Of course not, censorship would hurt their business model. People need to share their dirt to sell it!

    --
    To offset political mods, replace Flamebait with Insightful.
    1. Re:Duh... by Tharsman · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "In unrelated news, Facebook tells India it will grandly give them all secret profile information on any indian national no matter what country they live in, they may even give them a few non indians to sweeten the deal."

    2. Re:Duh... by masternerdguy · · Score: 2

      Hey look its my new favourite person.

      --
      To offset political mods, replace Flamebait with Insightful.
    3. Re:Duh... by masternerdguy · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Free speech shouldn't be used as a blatant cover for why they aren't censoring. They should tell the truth, that censorship would interrupt their revenue stream.

      --
      To offset political mods, replace Flamebait with Insightful.
    4. Re:Duh... by insertwackynamehere · · Score: 4, Interesting

      How do you know that's the truth? There is a good chance the powers that be dislike censorship as much as everyone else in the software realm and now that they have some real power are exercising their right to resist censorship in a way that makes an impact.

    5. Re:Duh... by Tharsman · · Score: 2

      If you think advertisers don’t care about your nationality, I think you don’t know anyone in the field.

      Immigrants are heavily targeted by money transfer ad campaigns or international calling cards, under the statistically correct assumption that most wire money to their families heavily or plain simply call them extremely often. These services also tend to sometimes specialize to some countries, so just knowing you are an immigrant is not enough for agencies; they want to target immigrants from specific countries. They may also be targeted by agencies that specialize in green card processing, country specific shipping agencies, streaming video from specific countries, etc etc.

      I say all this as the husband of an immigrant. Facebook ads seem very aware of her country of origin despite her not telling it where she is from. Most information Facebook collects on you is voluntary. Sometimes you volunteer it. Sometimes your friends and family do it for you. Very often the field does not have to be populated for them to know what is supposed to be there.

      But I think we gone far enough in this tangent when the original posts in this specific thread were just jokes.

  2. Simple by Toe,+The · · Score: 5, Informative

    Facebook doesn't want to censor: they want free flow of as much information as possible. The more that's out there, the more data they have to mine and sell.

    1. Re:Simple by arcite · · Score: 2

      The medium is the message.

    2. Re:Simple by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 4, Funny

      We call this a "Zuckerpunch".

    3. Re:Simple by Synerg1y · · Score: 2

      Censorship and TOS violations are distinctly different...

  3. PR Giveaway by TheSpoom · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It's in Facebook's best interest to say no anyway (since censoring comments would only make people want to leave and thus would reduce revenue at the additional cost of developer time), and by doing so they appear to be heroic. This was perhaps the easiest press release ever.

    --
    It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
    - E. Debs
    1. Re:PR Giveaway by paiute · · Score: 2

      If it is the "the easiest press release ever' then where are the other press releases from the other company's specifically Google? They have a stance somewhere Must be weighing heavily in the Google bureaucracy somewhere

      Ignoring it is the best press release.

      --
      If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
    2. Re:PR Giveaway by xaxa · · Score: 5, Informative

      Small Internet user base? Little country? Are we still discussing India?

      There are more Indians online than British people. India is 6th. CIA world factbook (and that's from 2009, I wouldn't be surprised if India is now ahead of Germany. Most Germans who want to be online are; that's not the case for India.)

      Let's have some respect for the world's largest democracy, please.

    3. Re:PR Giveaway by bhagwad · · Score: 2

      You got it backwards. Just read FB's press statement. They didn't say anything about not helping the government. Google on the other hand is the only company to have explicitly said that they won't censor controversial content.

  4. Interesting... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    I think it's interesting to see India asking for IT help.

  5. Well ... by lennier1 · · Score: 5, Funny

    If you want to filter something, block his campaign ads when it's time for re-election.

  6. Wait, wait, wait, wait by Moheeheeko · · Score: 3, Funny

    ...Facebook...doing something....good? Does not Compute.

    1. Re:Wait, wait, wait, wait by Stan92057 · · Score: 2

      You have it wrong blocking content would cost millions and then open themselves to lawsuits from India because they didn't block enough. But ya it all comes down to money and not breaking any US laws while doing so.

      --
      Jack of all trades,master of none
  7. Facebook by arcite · · Score: 2, Interesting

    They won't help censor the web because that would interfere with them spying on their users.

    1. Re:Facebook by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      Exactly! Censorship is a form of privacy, and Facebook doesn't do that.

  8. all governments around the world by FudRucker · · Score: 4, Interesting

    would like to be in control of ALL the information you have available. the internet is a thorn in government's sides, right now the benefits of the internet outweighs the liabilities and when that changes you can bet the US Gov will pull the plugs (like shutting down ICANN's root servers) among other things it wont kill it completely but it will kill most of it and joe and jane sixpack wont be going to infowars.com or whatever flavor of underground news and tinfoil hattery they like...

    war is peace, freedom is slavery, ignorance is strength

    --
    Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
  9. Hell = auditing youtube comments for an eternity by zill · · Score: 4, Funny

    Didn't Mr. Sibal suggest that they will use humans to screen the contents?

    Here's my suggestion: tie him down to a chair and pry open his eyelids clockwatch orange style, and then have him screen youtube comments for 8 hours.

  10. Facebook's position by Aladrin · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Wow, everyone's really quick to jump on them and claim it's because they have profit motive in having more data. I won't deny that, but there are other factors that are possibly more important.

    Human-scanning every single message would be nearly impossible. Even if they managed to handle the staffing problem, they couldn't afford it. And even if they could afford it, there's the ethical issues it presents.

    There are plenty of other reasons for them to decline.

    --
    "If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; But if you really make them think, they'll hate you." - DM
    1. Re:Facebook's position by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 2

      Human-scanning every single message would be nearly impossible. Even if they managed to handle the staffing problem, they couldn't afford it. And even if they could afford it, there's the ethical issues it presents.

      Reminds me of the Better Off Ted episode "Racial Sensitivity" where a glitch in the new automatic sensors controlling the building (lights, door, elevators, water-fountains, bathrooms) - that worked by measuring light reflected off faces/skin - didn't detect "black people"... Management didn't want to face the expense of reverting to the previous system or admit they made a mistake, so they tried other alternatives.

      First Management installed separate, manual water-fountains - with a sign that said "For Blacks," then they decided to simply hire minimum-wage white people to follow the black employees around and trigger the sensors. Of course, HR said that was discrimination to only hire white people, so they had to also hire more black people and - you see where this is going... Finally, they convinced Management that this circle of hiring would quickly lead to all the people on the planet working for Veridian Dynamics and that they "simply don't have the parking for that."

      --
      It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
  11. Dear India... by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Y'know what "hurts community sentiment" more than all the trolls in the world, no matter how socially malformed, photoshop adept, and equipped with free time equal only to their misanthropy?

    Your own bloody, medieval, sectarian clusterfucks...

    How about you work on the "brutal violence in response to hurt feelings about whose invisible friend is better" problem and then worry about scary things on the internet?

    1. Re:Dear India... by Joce640k · · Score: 2

      Yep, religion rears it's ugly head, again.

      A much better answer is to ban any religion that thinks going out on the street and being violent is the right response to something they saw on a web page.

      Root of all evil...etc.

      --
      No sig today...
  12. No Incentive to Censor by stating_the_obvious · · Score: 2

    First, it's additional work... but more importantly, it's additional liability since you are now responsible for what gets posted...

  13. Not only will Facebook not help Censor... by ackthpt · · Score: 3, Funny

    They'll indvertantly have accumunated a lot of private info on Indian politicos and the State and accidently exposed it all through a defect in code, which will redirect all Indian FB users to pages of it, but for one day only, until they find the bug and fix it.

    So there :P

    --

    A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
  14. Re:fuck the curry pakis by Chrisq · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "fuck the pakis" certainly would not be on India's list of banned sentiments.

  15. I wish it were just a third world problem.. by dell623 · · Score: 3, Informative

    I wish I could be smug just laugh at India and its stupid corrupt politicians.

    Unfortunately this kind of hare brained ideas aren't limited to the third world.

    In Australia the filtering plan seems to be on hold for now, but you don't even need a slippery slope argument to know how batshit insane and scary the idea of a secret internet censorship blacklist is: http://nocleanfeed.com/

    Or have we already forgotten the UK plan to censor social media during times of social unrest: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/blog/2011/aug/11/uk-riots-day-five-aftermath-live#block-33

    Think of how easily that could be used in the style of the Arab governments to cripple organised protests against the government.

    Or we can mock India for wanting to intercept and read Blackberry messages, and ignore the implications of legislation like the Patriot Act: http://politics.slashdot.org/story/11/12/02/1923207/patriot-act-clouds-picture-for-tech

    Or have we forgotten the domain seizures to try to block pirated content with no due legal process: http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2011/07/domain-seizures-defended/

    Even extending to attempts to block a Firefox add on: http://news.cnet.com/8301-31921_3-20060636-281.html

    Blocking sports streams when they still cannot find a way of offering pay per view streaming of major sports events over the internet, where your only way of viewing a couple of hours of sports content a week is to sign up for an expensive cable package that gives lots of stuff you will never watch and THEN purchase an extra expensive add on for the sports content. And the US government is protecting that business model by seizing domains with no legal notice or court enforced legal process.

    I would love to be able to just mock India, if we could afford to be that complacent...