Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Facebook Censoring Images of the Prophet Muhammad In Turkey

Posted by Soulskill on from the a-picture-is-worth-a-thousand-complaints dept.

An anonymous reader writes: Immediately following the Charlie Hebdo attack, Mark Zuckerberg said, "... this is what we all need to reject — a group of extremists trying to silence the voices and opinions of everyone else around the world. I won't let that happen on Facebook. I'm committed to building a service where you can speak freely without fear of violence." Now, Facebook has begun censoring images of the prophet Muhammad in Turkey. According to the Washington post, "It's an illustration, perhaps, of how extremely complicated and nuanced issues of online speech really are. It's also conclusive proof of what many tech critics said of Zuckerberg's free-speech declaration at the time: Sweeping promises are all well and good, but Facebook's record doesn't entirely back it up." To be fair to Zuckerberg and Facebook, the company must obey the law of any country in which it operates. But it stands in stark contrast to the principles espoused by its founder.

57 of 228 comments (clear)

  1. Simple by sycodon · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Zuckerburg is a whore who doesn't want Turkey to ban Facebook.

    --
    When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
    1. Re:Simple by NotDrWho · · Score: 5, Funny

      Now, now, there is no need to insult whores like that.

      --
      SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
    2. Re:Simple by jellomizer · · Score: 5, Insightful

      There is nothing simple about ethics with international business.
      Things that ethically right in one culture can be a huge issue in an other.
      Many European countries have laws about Hate speech.
      The US has against with Pedophilia.
      In some countries bribes are just part of doing business. In others it is quite illegal.
      Countries will tax you for things that other countries would consider as overstepping bounds.
      Some countries lets things go by without legal controls that others find monstrous.

      If you are going to be doing international business, you need to be sensitive to your own ideals, as well as the ideals of your new customer base.
      Our American Ideals of nearly full freedom of speech, vs. Turkey ideals of limited speech. Are clashing. So if Zuckerberg just said no. They will not operate in Turkey, and the users will be loss of a medium to spread the areas of free speech that they do enjoy. If Zuckerberg agrees then Facebook stays operational, and while taking heat from the culture who doesn't like to see any speech censored, is allowing the culture to have better tools to share the free speech that they are entitled too.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    3. Re:Simple by circletimessquare · · Score: 4, Insightful

      it's not that simple

      if he doesn't follow the laws turkey bans facebook. a facebook clone in turkey pops up instead. now all those connections to the outside world are greatly diminished. turkey becomes a social silo that stagnates

      and so all the valuable positive subtle free speech influences that aren't live wire topics like muhammad's face are lost

      by following turkey's authoritarian freedom crushing instructions that would otherwise get facebook banned, facebook remains influential in turkey in a positive way, in more subtle ways

      you can't think of these nuanced complex issues in such blockheaded black-or-white "my way or the highway" rigid ways. that makes you something like turkey's authoritarianism actually

      --
      intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    4. Re:Simple by DarkOx · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Facebook could do something pincipled though. They could setup all kinds of proxies make encryption easy. Provide tools for evading filters etc. All things that would be perfectly legal here. They could flaunt the law in Turkey and just keep their people out of Turkey. Mark could consider his name on their most wanted heretics list or whatever to be a badge of honer.

      Naturally if FB was effective and underground scene in some of these freedom hating nations they would not be able to make much add revenue from business there though.

      It really is a pretty black and white issue, you think censorship is okay or your think its never okay. Only the ideas some would seek to censor are the ones that ever needed protection in the first place.

      --
      Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
    5. Re:Simple by Udom · · Score: 2

      I had a post deleted on The Guardian for having referenced the 4,100 year old Epic of Gilgamesh, a Babylonian text that presents an earlier version of Noah and the Ark than that found in the Talmud, Bible or Koran. It appears that was considered antisemitic.

    6. Re:Simple by jellomizer · · Score: 3, Informative

      Ethics and Morals are based on the cultural norms.

      Taking a bribe is consider corruption in our culture. In another it may be considered payment for expedited services. In America we Tip our servers, the size of our tips are based on what we figure was the quality of the service. This motivates the server to try to exceed expectation. The only difference between this and a bribe is payment after service is performed and not before.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    7. Re:Simple by im_thatoneguy · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I agree with this sentiment to a large extent. We don't get mad when TCP/IP is used in an authoritarian country. At some point Facebook is like any other infrastructure on the internet--it's a conduit. I don't really blame Vint Cerf or Cisco for the great firewall of China. If anything the fact that Turkey's government has to go to Facebook and demand that they filter content is already a win of sorts in an authoritarian anti-free speech zone. If we replaced Facebook with something like email the Turkish could simply block all TCP/IP traffic that matches banned images or words. At least this way you have a company like Facebook running the filtering which will presumably do the very absolute minimum filtering required by law as opposed the absolute maximum that they can get away with before a court orders them to back off on the filtering.

    8. Re:Simple by JohnFen · · Score: 3, Insightful

      There is nothing simple about ethics with international business.
      Things that ethically right in one culture can be a huge issue in an other.

      I don't see how that makes the ethics complex. It's very simple: ethics are personal. If a company has a certain set of ethics, they'll adhere to them regardless of what nation they're operating in. If the law prevents that, then they'll avoid doing business there.

      Simple.

      If a company is willing to do something in any nation, that is an expression of the company's ethics. In this case, Facebook has declared loud and clear that they have no problem with political censorship.

      So if Zuckerberg just said no. They will not operate in Turkey, and the users will be loss of a medium to spread the areas of free speech that they do enjoy.

      This is the exact line of reasoning by which so many companies justify supporting child labor, sweatshops, political repression, and so on. It's a bullshit argument.

    9. Re:Simple by JohnFen · · Score: 2

      It is culturally acceptable in the US, especially when dealing with Congress and other Politicians, if done according to political campaign contribution laws.

      No, it's not. It's legally permissible. That says nothing about whether it is culturally acceptable.

    10. Re:Simple by TsuruchiBrian · · Score: 2

      it's not that simple

      The facebook clone actually causes widesrpread public outrage at the loss of the real (and hypothetically principled) Facebook, and the Turkish government is overthrown and replaced with a secular democracy that forges a path for all other authoritarian islamic countries towards logic and reason and away from superstition.

      No it's not black and white and nobody knows what's going to happen. The idea that facebook censoring itself in turkey is leading to the best possible outcome is not a fact.

      you can't think of these nuanced complex issues in such blockheaded black-or-white "my way or the highway" rigid ways. that makes you something like turkey's authoritarianism actually

      No it doesn't. Autonomy is different than authoritarianism. Saying "I will do what I believe in" is completely different than saying "I will force you to do to what I believe in".

    11. Re:Simple by TsuruchiBrian · · Score: 3, Funny

      Why do you think in such black and white terms? That slow change is the only way that change can happen? Why is it that the Turkish government's authoritarianism can *only* be eroded gradually?

      You know what also destroys mountains? Meteorites.

    12. Re:Simple by swb · · Score: 2

      Taking a bribe is consider corruption in our culture. In another it may be considered payment for expedited services.

      Except that bribes are almost never for "expedited" services, they are given to gatekeepers who won't provide the service they're supposed to provide without them. Can you give me one concrete example of an official who accepts bribes for better service but will still perform the service in a reasonable time without them? Or isn't using some kind of negative outcome (often criminal charges) for not paying the bribe?

      Even in a commercial realm where differentiated services are the norm, the differential service price is usually known and advertised and the owner will generally get pissed if their employees are giving stuff away for side payments. You can't buy a coach ticket and then slip $100 to the flight attendant and get seated in first class.

      In America we Tip our servers, the size of our tips are based on what we figure was the quality of the service.

      Bring that one up at your next meal out and see how many people disagree. A lot of people don't view it that way and instead think of tips as a fixed percentage service charge or have some sympathy for minimum wage servers and tip the same regardless or don't think one person should be punished for service elements outside their control (food was cold, bad quality, server was tied up with a huge table, etc).

    13. Re:Simple by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 2

      We keep voting the same people, same two corrupt parties into office. If that doesn't signify cultural acceptance I don't know what does.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    14. Re:Simple by whathappenedtomonday · · Score: 2

      by following turkey's authoritarian freedom crushing instructions that would otherwise get facebook banned, facebook remains influential in turkey in a positive way, in more subtle ways

      Not a very nuanced view, and even complex matters can be surprisingly simple if you have values. -- "by following turkey's authoritarian freedom crushing instructions that would otherwise get facebook banned," facebook remains in business there. This and nothing else matters to corporations. Please don't pretend that FBs mission is to propagate free speech, because that would be ... well, a blockheaded black-or-white kinda view. FB censors when it fits its business model (see the " pictures of breasts" argument). FB is accepting and taking part in what you call turkey's authoritarian freedom crushing instructions. Because they don't have values, as Zuckerberg likes to suggest, but business interests. Once Turkey blocks FB (Twitter etc.), people who value free speech will circumvent those blocks, as they have always done, but it would hurt FBs business.

      --
      I hope I didn't brain my damage.
    15. Re:Simple by TsuruchiBrian · · Score: 2

      I don't think it is immoral to play a corrupt game. I think it is immoral to knowingly cause harm to people. If playing an immoral game is known not to harm people more than not playing it, then it's fine.

      It is hard to know what the true results of your actions will be. Many well intentioned actions have bad results, and many malintentioned actions can actually have good results.

      I don't begrudge anybody who honestly does not have any idea what the results of their actions will be.

      The problem I see is when people or companies kind of know that what they are doing is harming people, but they rationalize what they are doing by claiming to know less than they do.

      I suspect maybe Facebook executives might actually think that taking a stand for freedom of speech would be in the best interest of the Turkish people and the world if they didn't stand to benefit from not rocking the boat in Turkey.

      Basically I am alleging the potential for Self-serving bias in this situation which I do think is immoral depending on how conscious it is:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S...

    16. Re:Simple by mjwx · · Score: 2

      If you are going to be doing international business, you need to be sensitive to your own ideals, as well as the ideals of your new customer base.

      This.

      If you want to sell your products and services in a different country, you have to make sure they're appealing to the people of that country.

      This is why Ford continually is unable to sell many of its flagship cars like the Mustang and F series utes outside the US despite repeatedly trying. The fact is, no one in Europe wants a 5L V8 that only produces 300 Kw and has a live rear axle because 2L turbo engines can produce 300 KW for half the weight and multi-link suspension means that they can handle corners, which are common on European roads.

      Which leads me onto the second point, why the fuck to do people care?

      This is happening in Turkey, not worldwide. The US does not have the right to force its ideals onto other nations (which ironically, seems contrary to the ideal of free speech as with free speech you have to tolerate ideas you dont like).

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    17. Re:Simple by mjwx · · Score: 2

      Ethics and Morals are based on the cultural norms.

      Taking a bribe is consider corruption in our culture. In another it may be considered payment for expedited services. In America we Tip our servers, the size of our tips are based on what we figure was the quality of the service.

      In other developed countries, we pay service people a wage they can live on. We do this to prevent employers from abusing the employee's situation and because not every service person is customer facing, meaning a large number of minimum wage workers do not have the opportunity to earn tips.

      Because the person manning a checkout at Walmart as well as many other minimum wage positions do not get tips, we consider the notion that tips make up for minimum wages that aren't enough to live off to be abusive and morally repugnant, in some cases going as far as indentured servitude.

      I'm simply trying to demonstrate that this whole "I'm offended because you're doing something in your country that we dont like in my country" cuts both ways and the US is not above criticism (nor is my own nation).

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
  2. No. by eldavojohn · · Score: 5, Insightful

    To be fair to Zuckerberg and Facebook, the company must obey the law of any country in which it operates.

    No. He came out in support of a universal maxim and then went back to his board who showed him X dollars of income they get by operating in Turkey. Just like the revenue lost when Google left mainland China. Instead of sacrificing that revenue to some other social network in Turkey run by cowards, he became a coward himself in the name of money. It is an affront to the deaths and memory of the Charlie Hebdo editors. His refusal could have worked as leverage for social change in Turkey but now it will not.

    So no, your statement isn't fair to Zuckerberg and his company and the platinum backscratcher he gets to keep with "TURKEY" inscribed on it. Fuck that greedy bastard and his petty meaningless lip service.

    --
    My work here is dung.
    1. Re:No. by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 2

      No. He came out in support of a universal maxim

      99% of people that came out in support of free speech after Charlie Hebdo were hypocrites, so it is silly to single out Zuck. France bans many forms of speech. If Charlie Hebdo had ridiculed Jews by drawing cartoons about the Holocaust, they likely would have been arrested instead of lionized. But, in France, Muslims are fair game. During the big march in Paris, the Saudi ambassador was welcomed, and marched along side other world leaders. Hollande shook his hand. Meanwhile, Raif Badawi was being officially beaten half to death in a Saudi prison because of a blog post. It was silly for Zuck to be mouthing off and making promises he didn't intend to keep, but Facebook is required to obey the law in the countries where it operates. If it truly allowed free speech, it would be banned everywhere, not just in Turkey.

  3. Really? by ibpooks · · Score: 3, Informative

    To be fair to Zuckerberg and Facebook, the company must obey the law of any country in which it operates.

    No it doesn't. Big companies don't obey laws unless it's cheaper to do so than not. Slashdot in particular can't stop fellating Uber over what is probably a largely illegal operation. Comcast, Verizon, Microsoft, and basically all of the rest routinely violate laws as they see fit, pay a fine and move on.

    1. Re:Really? by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Slashdot in particular can't stop fellating Uber over what is probably a largely illegal operation.

      Hmm, "largely illegal operation"...

      I think "arguably" is a better term than "largely", but let that go.

      The notion that people should automatically oppose "illegal operations" is interesting. Mostly because so many precedents come to mind.

      For instance, assisting slaves to escape from the South was quite illegal. Did its illegality make it wrong?

      Or there was that whole hiding Jews from the Nazis thing....

      Yah, those are rather incendiary examples, but history makes clear that opposing bad laws is a necessary prerequisite to getting them removed.

      Disclaimer: Do I think that Cab Medallions are a good idea? No, I think they're designed to limit competition (just like franchises for cable or internet do). Do I think Uber should be legal? Yeah, because I'm opposed to buying legislation to limit competition in general....

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    2. Re:Really? by msobkow · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Only you ignorant Americans think your laws apply to the whole world. The rest of the world just demands that foreign companies obey local laws while doing business there.

      And if you think local laws don't apply because you're an American, you're just a fucking retard.

      --
      I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
    3. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "The rest of the world just demands that foreign companies obey local laws while doing business there."

      If you really believe that, you might need to consider flipping your expletive around. Many in the world scream "Death to America/France/Netherlands/etc" when there is a bad depiction of Mohammed (or any depiction). Is that "just demanding that foreign companies obey local laws while doing business there"? No, that is stating that you ... way over there and not in my town/city/country/region ... need to obey my beliefs.

      So apparently Americans don't have a patent on trying to force their laws and beliefs onto the rest of the world. It's just popular to say so.

    4. Re:Really? by NixieBunny · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The same argument can be made against the Muslims who think that their religion applies to people outside of it. I am not Muslim, so I am not going to hell for displaying a mockery of their prophet. After all, would the Muslims want to be held accountable to the rules of every other religion in the world?

      This is the real problem, and it's on all religious people to behave as if every other religion (and every form of non-belief) is as valid as theirs is. Oh, and Thou Shalt Not Kill.

      --
      The determined Real Programmer can write Fortran programs in any language.
  4. I just saw his FB page by paiute · · Score: 4, Funny

    Zuck announced that Saudia Arabia has demanded that he cut his hand off for stealing the idea of Facebook. China wants him to shoot himself in the head and send them the price of the bullet for monopolizing their national social media. ISIS demanded that he cut his own head off, just because. Thailand is suing him for war crimes for letting their King be ridiculed on Facebook. Alabama is sending sheriff's deputies to arrest him because a state legislature saw the edge of a nipple on some random teenager's profile picture.

    --
    If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
    1. Re:I just saw his FB page by halivar · · Score: 3, Informative

      You forgot Sweden; they want him for fibbing about a condom.
       
      /duck
      /run

  5. Re:Censorship should not be tolerated. by hort_wort · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Censorship should not be tolerated. Under any circumstances

    If you went with your child into a rough neighborhood and that child started shouting racial slurs at everyone you passed, would you tell your kid to hush or would you just let him keep going on?

  6. Hey we're just following the law here by NotDrWho · · Score: 2

    the company must obey the law of any country in which it operates

    And if Saudi Arabia ordered you to hand over women employees for beheading, would you do that too Mark?

    --
    SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
  7. Virgin Mary grilled cheese by CanadianRealist · · Score: 3, Funny

    After hearing about the grilled cheese sandwich that looks like the virgin Mary I read this headline and the image that comes to mind is a roast turkey where the pattern of browning on the skin sort of looks like an image of the prophet Muhammad.

    Then I think Facebook is being biased. If they allowed pictures of the virgin Mary grilled cheese then they shouldn't censor pictures of the Muhammad roast turkey.

    Then I imagine extremists shouting "death to the turkey!"

    (News can me so much more entertaining if you allow yourself to be creative.)

  8. this is muhammed. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    (((:~(>
    The above emoticon is muhammed

  9. Islam by jbssm · · Score: 2

    If FB started censoring everything that offends Islam we would be back to a text terminal... and I'm sure that the Mullahs would most probably find a motive of offense in that as well.

  10. Muhammad in Turkey by some+old+guy · · Score: 3, Funny

    Is that anything like Jebus on a bagel?

    --
    Scruting the inscrutable for over 50 years.
  11. what counts as "an image of the prophet?" by anonymousJUGGERNAUT · · Score: 3, Interesting

    What constitutes an image of Muhammad? I mean, no one really knows what he looked like, right? And even if they did know, people have look-alikes...so it seems for something to be an "image of the Prophet" requires it to be labeled as such. But how far does that go? If I drew a stick figure, and wrote "Muhammad" under it, would that count? What if I drew a very detailed and accurate sketch of someone presently alive, let's say my friend Bill, but labelled it "the Prophet Muhammad," would that count? How are these things decided?

    1. Re:what counts as "an image of the prophet?" by ledow · · Score: 2

      I see where you went wrong.

      You're trying to apply logic to religion.

      Someone needs to signal you a false-start before you go any further than that.

  12. Corporate Principles by ledow · · Score: 2

    Can anyone ever remember an instance where a company pulled out of something because it went against their ethos? I can't think of one.

    Every time it's something like censorship, or threats to pull out of a certain market, etc. it's NEVER happened, and they always end up compromising their principles for the sake of sales.

    I get that's what business is supposed to do, but it just means I automatically ignore ANY such attempt at pretending a company can have an ethos at all.

    Just for once, I'd love to see a company, especially a tech company that espouses its freedom credentials as a selling point, to say "No, sorry, we can't do that, we'll just have to stop doing business with them". Can you imagine if Facebook just turned itself off in Turkey? Surely the uproar alone would mean that it would come in a less-censored form?

    I just can't think of an instance where a company refused business because it was morally right to do so (possible exception - supposedly - of The Co-Operative in the UK but are they are company or a co-operative?).

  13. The Prophet Muhammad? Who's that? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2

    Oh, you mean Islam's Prophet Muhammad?

    Most people don't recognize him as a prophet at all.

    Do newspapers refer to the lord jesus christ? The messiah jesus christ? No.

    Further, how do people know what Muhammad looked like so they can block the images?

    Here's a portrait of Muhammad:

    O
    /H\
    / \

    1. Re:The Prophet Muhammad? Who's that? by fisted · · Score: 2

      O
      /H\
      / \

      I didn't know about his offset head condition. Poor guy.

      --
      CLI paste? paste.pr0.tips!
  14. He must obey the law in a country by houghi · · Score: 2

    He must not be available in a country. Just point http://facebook.tr/ to a page explaining why you do not allow access anymore. Close shop there and be done with it.

    And the explanation can be written in such a way that it is purely factual and will not offend anybody. e.g. Facebook is no longer able to operate in Turkey due to requests made by the Turkish government. We are sorry for this and hope to solve this as soon as possible.

    Not admitting anything. Not offending anybody.

    OTOH I would be jealous to not be living in a country without facebook.

    --
    Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
  15. Simple answer by kaizendojo · · Score: 2

    To be fair to Zuckerberg and Facebook, the company must obey the law of any country in which it operates.

    Fine. Then pull out of Turkey. Really, how much is that going to cost you in losses?

  16. Ban censorship, except the stuff that offends me by Carcass666 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    This idea that all speech must be viewed by all people is a little odd. When I go onto Facebook once in a blue boon to check on friends I used to work with in the Philippines, I am not bombarded by explicit sexual content. No, nobody in my group of friends are going to post about a rimjob, but given the random crap that does come up, I'm pretty sure there is a lot of energy at Facebook to keep the pr0n noise down.

    There are Muslims who consider pictures of their prophet as offensive as a picture of bukkake. The vast majority of them are not crazy Islamists that like to blow things up and slaughter innocent people (which is good for the rest of us non-Muslims). Rather than centralized, blanket, censorship, though, I'd rather see something like this...

    1. Facebook and other social networking services put their resources into tagging content (religiously offensive, sexually explicit, drug use and other types of content that users often find unpleasant)

    When a user registers for these services, a default list of tagged content to block is set up, based upon their region, gender, religious affiliation, etc. which the user can modify

  17. Facebook is not new to censorship by msobkow · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Look at how they censor pictures of breasts from the whole site to pander to American "morals", when most of the world has no problem with nudity.

    --
    I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
  18. Why would you do that??! by nimbius · · Score: 5, Funny

    Muhammad: Oh come on guys seriously?!? I've got this awesome post about peace and fairness and its totally legit theres even a sunrise picture i found that goes--
    Facebook: Sorry. cant let you post that.
    Muhammad: What about my timeline? the farmville stuff? I have a pizza review fr--
    Facebook: look buddy its in the TOS. if you wanted to post content you shouldnt have been Muhammad.
    Muhammad: So is this just me? or is it every cab driver in Queens? or what?
    Facebook: Just for Istanbul's sake
    Muhammad: Jesus christ i posted ONE bad review because my falafel was soggy and now i cant post?!!

    --
    Good people go to bed earlier.
  19. Mohammed ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    --------------------> .

    As seen from a very long distance.

  20. About 'whoring' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Zuckerburg and his facebook are far from the only guilty party on 'whoring'

    Take that 'do not evil' company, Google, for example ... publicly they seemed to champion the users' rights by fighting against the Chinese communist, but then they 'whore' themselves to the NSA --- and recent revelations that Google disclosing emails and all the other details of 3 people who work for Wikileaks to the Obama fascist league isn't a comforting news either

    Take Microsoft, they 'whore' themselves to the NSA to the extend that they allow NSA to put backdoors into many of their softwares

    Take Apple, one would think the late Steve Jobs, a legendary 'counter culture' kinda guy, don't do no 'whoring' but that couldn't be any further from the truth --- Apple's products all have backdoors pre-installed

    Let's not forget Cisco, IBM, and a slew other US corporations ... it would be very hard to find any well known US corporation that don't 'whore' themselves to the authority

    This is by no mean trying to excuse Zuckerburg's pathetic 'whoring' to Recep Tayyip Erdogan, an ardent supporter of Islamic terrorism

    This is to remind all that no American companies (and many European companies as well) can be trusted

    They do not care about the rights of the users. All they wanna do to find the best way to suck Uncle Sam's fucking little rotten dick

    Captha: consent

  21. Re:Ban censorship, except the stuff that offends m by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    There are Muslims who consider pictures of their prophet as offensive as a picture of bukkake.

    100 points to the first person to post a bukkake pic of the Prophet Muhammad on Facebook.

  22. First they came for... by fyngyrz · · Score: 4, Insightful

    When Facebook's TOS disallows gays from being members in places where fundamentalist Islam is dominant, will you continue to defend them? How about women? If women are forbidden to post and/or become members, is that ok?

    Where should we draw the line between "we should keep some channels open for the privileged" and "we'll not be enabling that kind of repression"?

    --
    I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
    1. Re:First they came for... by circletimessquare · · Score: 2

      if the positive influence outweighs the negative

      the absence of facebook won't make those problems go away. how do you make those problems go away? with influence. like facebook. a bastardized influence, in order to exist, is still an influence, and better than no influence at all

      this is called realism

      it trumps ineffectual dogmatic idealism, which is just as authoritarian and extreme as what you are complaining about

      compromise always wins

      if you want to lose, hold fast to extreme adherence to difficult demands and never budge. there's no better way to make yourself marginalized, ineffectual, and ignored

      --
      intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    2. Re:First they came for... by TsuruchiBrian · · Score: 2

      By insisting that Turkey can *only* be changed slowly and that compromise *always* wins, you are being absolutist, dogmatic and just as authoritarian as the Turkish government.

    3. Re:First they came for... by fyngyrz · · Score: 2

      what have you "won" exactly?

      You "win" Turkish citizens annoyed with their government -- a win in the only venue likely to be able to create change there.

      so you're for not opening diplomatic relations with cuba? we should just never ever ever reconcile or talk with cuba?

      Diplomatic relations are not on the same level as corporate sponsorship of repression. Yes, we should talk to other governments, definitely including cuba, and yes, we should allow our citizens access if they wish to go there, and vice-versa.

      But no, I don't think it is a positive thing when corporations adopt behavioral restrictions that are antithetical to freedom in general. It's not that I expect them to change, it's just that I don't like it, and as I am free to object and explain here, I do so.

      we don't talk to iran? what is iran's attitude going to be then?

      This is a straw man. I am all for talking to, and mutual visitation of, Iran (Cuba, etc.) These things allow cultural values to spread -- because generally, the dialog is quite open. I am not for FB repressing speech. These are not the same issues.

      you are a dogmatic rigid ideologue

      It's always entertaining to watch someone slinging mud at their own straw man.

      If you want to know what I think, ask me. Don't put words in my mouth.

      --
      I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
  23. if you're not Muslim, then... by dAzED1 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    If you're not Muslim, why the fark are you saying "the Prophet" Muhammad? Why would you grant that honorific if you don't yourself believe it? How would that be different than saying "Jesus the Messiah" while not Christian? And hey, if you do believe it "soulskill" then hey, why not, but I've been seeing this become more and more common among journalist at (theoretically) real - and thus, presumably impartial - news agencies. You know, ones that wouldn't say "Jesus the Messiah" and "Buddha the Enlightened One"

    1. Re:if you're not Muslim, then... by bluegutang · · Score: 2

      Well, there are a lot of non-Christians, and non-practicing Christians, who say "Jesus Christ" which translates to "Jesus the Messiah"...

  24. South Park Nailed It. by srobert · · Score: 2

    Well now you're zeroing in on what the South Park writers were alluding to with their Cartoon Wars episode. The media likes to self-censor images of the prophet and pretend it's about being respectful to Islam and Muslims. The same media has no problem showing images of Jesus and George Bush defecating on an American flag. That's why you know they're only pretending to be respectful, when what they really are is frightened. You see, most Christians won't try to kill you for being blasphemous about Jesus. I hope that extremists Muslims don't decide that blasphemy about Jesus is just as offensive as if it is about Muhammad, since Jesus is also one of their prophets.

  25. censorship is submission by psherman2001 · · Score: 2

    "When I visit a mosque, I show my respect by taking off my shoes. I follow the customs, just as I do in a church, synagogue or other holy place. But if a believer demands that I, as a nonbeliever, observe his taboos in the public domain, he is not asking for my respect, but for my submission." --Flemming Rose

  26. Agreed by fyngyrz · · Score: 2

    There is an issue of State here, the Turkish State, requiring Facebook to filter and or creating at least the implied thread[sic] they will be blocked if they do not filter.

    Yes. But it is, in fact, the Turkish state. Not the US state.

    I agree with you that I don't like FB's policy here (nor Turkey's) and I would be much happier if FB operated with a lean towards freedom of speech, but that's never been who they were -- they mute, restrict and ban US posters on a regular and constant basis WRT written material and photographs, and they have inflicted their "Real Name" policy on members without regard for the numerous negative consequences.

    The objective of FB is to sell ads they can put in the faces of their members. Those who describe members as FB's "product" seem to me to be very close to the mark. How they treat membership, then, can be expected to be the fruits of a policy to maximize the size of the group. And frankly, that's what I see when I look at their policies. Not care for quality, safety or freedom of speech -- just a place to farm ad consumers.

    I suspect we're in a similar position to someone trying to tell a happy dictator that "absolute power is bad." It wastes our time and annoys the pig. Er, Zuckerman, I mean. But I repeat myself.

    --
    I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
  27. They only come for the ad viewers by fyngyrz · · Score: 2

    the absence of facebook won't make those problems go away.

    I missed addressing that; responded a bit too quickly, sorry.

    I consider this assertion to be flawed; here's why. FB has a very high public profile. Any visitor to the US that is exposed to social media is likely to be aware of both the institution and its reach. They can also learn that the reason "they can't have nice things" is because their government has stepped in the way of their citizens using religion as an excuse. Likewise, US family members who cannot connect with Turkish family members are likely to hold strong opinions, and share them.

    If anything is going to make things change, I think that's far more likely than a FB presence that is repression-compliant.

    Of course, this would require Zuckerberg and crew to operate using a metric quite different from the "maximize users as ad viewers" model, and that doesn't seem to be in the cards.

    --
    I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
  28. Who says it serves no purpose? by fyngyrz · · Score: 3, Insightful

    What offends you may not offend me. And vice-versa. What serves no purpose for you, may serve a purpose for me. Be it intended offense, or otherwise, or both at once.

    No one in the USA has the "right to not be offended." Being offended is subjective. It has everything to do with you as an individual, or as part of a particular group; it varies due to your moral conditioning, your religious beliefs, your upbringing, your education; what offends one person or group (of any size) may not offend another, nor a person of another grouping; and in the final analysis, it requires one person to attempt to read the mind of other persons they do not know in order to anticipate whether a specific action will cause offense in the mind of another.

    And no, codifying an action in law is not in any way sufficient... it is well established that not even lawyers can know the law well enough to anticipate what is legal, and what is not -- any more than you can guess what is offensive to me, or not.

    Sane law relies on the basic idea that we try not to risk or cause harm to the bodies, finances and reputations of others without them consenting and being aware of the risks. It does not rely on the idea that we "must not cause offense."

    Law that bans something based upon the idea that some individual or group simply finds the behavior objectionable is the very worst kind of law, utterly devoid of consideration or others, while absolutely permeated in self-indulgence.

    --
    I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.