Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Facebook Sued In US Court For Blocking Page In India

Posted by timothy on from the proper-jurisdiction dept.

itwbennett writes: Facebook has been sued in California by the non-profit organization Sikhs For Justice for blocking their page in India. The group has charged Facebook with engaging in 'a pattern of civil rights violation and blatant discriminatory conduct' by blocking its content in the whole of India. It has asked the court for a permanent injunction on further blocking of the page, access to Facebook's correspondence with the Indian government about the block, and an award of damages, besides other relief.

65 of 100 comments (clear)

  1. Google+ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    Use Google+ if you don't like Facebook's policies?

    1. Re:Google+ by MagickalMyst · · Score: 3, Funny

      Google plus sucks. Not nearly as bad as Facebook, but it still sucks.

      If you want a real social network you can always go old school - get out of the house and make some friends.

      --
      Political correctness is really just herd psychology pushed by insecure people who desperately seek social conformity.
    2. Re:Google+ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      G+ is awesome. No friends use it so I get to see interesting stuff and no stupid friends drama.
      I do agree get out of the house and hang out is the best social networking.

    3. Re:Google+ by MagickalMyst · · Score: 1, Funny

      "G+ is awesome. No friends use it..."

      Aren't friends the whole point of social media?

      --
      Political correctness is really just herd psychology pushed by insecure people who desperately seek social conformity.
    4. Re:Google+ by Flytrap · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Even Google has to obey the law in India.

      If Google, Facebook or any other company doing business in India, Germany, Sudan, Britain or any other country for that matter, does not like the laws in that country, then they can take the moral high-ground, as Google did in China, and leave... even if it costs them dearly in future revenue growth.

      A victory in a US court for Sikhs For Justice will remain a hollow victory because it would be unenforceable outside the jurisdiction of that US court (unless Facebook is willing to be in contempt of an Indian court order - which will be fully enforceable in India). What Sikhs For Justice should be doing is applying pressure on Facebook to pull out of India in protest over Indian censorship... then a local social network site will take its place just as happened to Google in China.

    5. Re:Google+ by Richard_at_work · · Score: 3, Insightful

      More to the point, can a US court force Facebook to provide a service they do not want to provide and have no contract to provide?

    6. Re:Google+ by synaptik · · Score: 2

      Aren't friends the whole point of social media?

      No. Friends are the point of Facebook specifically, but not social media generally. The point of G+ is to find people who are a source of material that you find interesting. ... Those people may become friends to one degree or another after that, but they start out as strangers.

      --
      HSJ$$*&#^!#+++ATH0
      NO CARRIER
    7. Re:Google+ by gameboyhippo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It depends. I use Facebook for keeping up with friends, family, and community issues. With Google+ I use it to promote my public professional persona. So it's kinda like a public Facebook with less drama.

    8. Re:Google+ by IamTheRealMike · · Score: 2

      Even Google has to obey the law in India

      Yes. That's why the solution to their problem is called "running your own website". Suing Facebook to deliberately drop them between a rock and a hard place is an asshat move that will accomplish nothing except making lawyers a bit richer.

      Ye gods. Are these people really incapable of hiring a web designer?

    9. Re:Google+ by lgw · · Score: 1, Troll

      US courts force companies to provide a service they do not want to provide and have no contract to provide routinely, or haven't you been following all the gay marriage drama?

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    10. Re:Google+ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Presumably the OP is referring to the debate over whether the courts should force someone to participate in a gay wedding. Whether or not you agree with it, it's undeniable that the courts are forcing people to provide a service that they don't want to provide.

    11. Re:Google+ by jratcliffe · · Score: 1

      What service are they forcing anyone to provide, really?

      For another example, open a lunch counter and try to refuse to provide food to African-Americans. See how the courts view that.

    12. Re:Google+ by lgw · · Score: 2

      What service are they forcing anyone to provide, really?

      Forcing people to provide services to gay marriage even when that goes against their religious convictions is big in the states now. There was a florist in WA who declined to take to business for a gay wedding, instead referring the couple to a list of other florists. WA shut down her business and bankrupted her personal assets. A GoFundMe campaign was started to help her out, but the GoFundMe cancelled it at a whim. (Note that Islamic businesses also commonly refuse to provide services for gay weddings, but everyone leaves them alone - it's specifically the Christians who are the new unpeople).

      There are many examples like the above across the states right now.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    13. Re:Google+ by Cederic · · Score: 1

      That's because legally the two men/women are the parents of the child, and the individual is the spouse.

      Don't like that, don't grant rights to people based on their status as parents or spouses.

    14. Re:Google+ by Charliemopps · · Score: 1

      "G+ is awesome. No friends use it..."

      Aren't friends the whole point of social media?

      Basically the definition of every word in your statement is ambiguous so I find that hard to answer.
      What is a "Friend"
      What do you mean by "Point"
      and "Social media"?!?! Does anyone know what that means?

      It's on the internet, there's text, he clicks buttons, it makes him smile. More power to him.

    15. Re:Google+ by sjames · · Score: 1

      That's not forcing them to provide a service they weren't already otherwise willing to provide. They're not suddenly forced to clean stables or mow lawns and they're not forced to work for any less than they normally charge.

    16. Re:Google+ by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      Slashdot is social media in a way...

    17. Re:Google+ by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      A victory in a US court for Sikhs For Justice will remain a hollow victory because it would be unenforceable outside the jurisdiction of that US court (unless Facebook is willing to be in contempt of an Indian court order - which will be fully enforceable in India).

      Oh, a victory in a US court could be quite effective. Suppose a US judge orders Facebook to pay $1M/day as long as the site is down. They can't actually put the site back up since as you point out then India would punish them for it. However, they can provide a steady revenue stream to Sikhs for Justice. Then the judge can get frustrated and keep ratcheting up the fines until they are economically damaging to Facebook. At that point Facebook is basically forced to leave India, since they will pay more in fines than they make from being present in India.

      I agree that companies have to obey the law where they do business, but as you point out earlier in your post, there is nothing that forces Facebook to do business in India.

      If Facebook pulled out of India then there is no longer a conflict of law - they can unblock the page and of course India could firewall all of Facebook but Facebook itself is completely in the clear legally.

      I'm not sure how likely a court is to take action like this, but the US effectively exports its laws all the time. That's why everybody loves the US! :)

    18. Re:Google+ by sjames · · Score: 1

      No, it is forcing them to provide a service that they normally provide to someone they normally don't provide it to for irrelevant reasons.

  2. Hmmm .... by gstoddart · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Rules framed in 2011 around Indiaâ(TM)s Information Technology Act allow the government to order intermediaries like network service providers to remove objectionable content, including material that is seen by officials as threatening the integrity, defense, security or sovereignty of the country.

    So, ignoring that the Indian government can be fairly arbitrary and capricious ... can you sue Facebook in a US court to demand that Facebook potentially goes against the law in India?

    Because I'm pretty sure a US court has no legal jurisdiction to say a damned thing about WTF Facebook does in India.

    Sorry, but once Blackberry helped get the access to communications, this precedent was set. And I'm fairly sure there's not a damned thing the US can do about it.

    I'm not saying the banning of the Sikh pages makes any sense. I just don't think there is any jurisdiction here.

    --
    Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    1. Re:Hmmm .... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      The US could always offer some FREEDOM to India. 'Murica! Yeah!

    2. Re:Hmmm .... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Basically they can sue facebook in the united states and win but the page will still be blocked in india, its a get rich 101 scheme

    3. Re:Hmmm .... by a_n_d_e_r_s · · Score: 2

      Because I'm pretty sure a US court has no legal jurisdiction to say a damned thing about WTF Facebook does in India.

      That has not stopped judges from doing that in a number of occations. Telling companies in the US what they can and not can do in foreign countries.

      --
      Just saying it like it are.
    4. Re:Hmmm .... by mysidia · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Because I'm pretty sure a US court has no legal jurisdiction to say a damned thing about WTF Facebook does in India.

      Facebook is an American company. If you are a person or company based in the US or with an office or presence in the US, then the US claims jurisdiction over your worldwide activities.

      Companies and individuals can and have been penalized for activities overseas.

      For starters, if you earn income in another country, then you will be taxed on it in the US, with a credit offered only for taxes paid in the other country.

      You can be sued under US law for activities against US law undertaken in another country.

      HOWEVER, Facebook has 1st amendment rights, and therefore, it is perfectly within its rights to block any page it wants based on content.

      You don't have a civil right to post whatever you want on Facebook, and for Facebook to display your posting.

      They can apply social network based limitations on who can see it, they can apply regional limitations on who can see it, or they can delete/block the content altogether.

      And it's Facebook's constitutional 1st amendment free speech right to do so, and control what messages they send, as this reflects on their company.

      The lawsuit is a frivolous charge.

    5. Re:Hmmm .... by antiperimetaparalogo · · Score: 2

      I also don't think that a US court justice has any jurisdiction in India, BUT i am not so sure that suing Facebook (an American company) in a US court to demand that Facebook potentially goes against the law in India is illogical, since any American company must follow US laws - this does not mean that what Facebook did is against any US law (from what i know - i am Greek), nor that an American company can not follow India's laws when does business in India... it just means that if India's laws demand to sacrifice a human baby in order to do business in India and facebook do it (even if the baby is Indian, and the sacrifice is done in India!), i don't find it so illogical for US justice to intervene.
      I am not a lawyer, so this is more of a question to anyone with more knowledge about the issue.

      --
      Antisthenes: "Wisdom begins by examining the words/names." - excuse my English, i am (slightly...) better with my Greek!
    6. Re:Hmmm .... by mi · · Score: 2

      I'm not saying the banning of the Sikh pages makes any sense. I just don't think there is any jurisdiction here.

      It raises the stink, which may push FB to reconsider this or related decisions.

      Ukrainians should do the same because Facebook — its "Ukrainian" office located in Russia — regularly shuts down pro-Ukrainian pages, while leaving the openly hateful and violence-threatening pro-Russian ones running... Whether it is evidence of the employees' bias, or simply a factor of there being too many Russian-bots filing automated complaints 24x7, a lawsuit filed by Ukrainians in the US might help...

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    7. Re:Hmmm .... by bws111 · · Score: 1

      No, you can't. You must have standing.

    8. Re:Hmmm .... by pr0fessor · · Score: 1

      Facebook is a company that provides it's services free of charge so that it can get a bunch of customers in one place to make money off of them they are not a government or nonprofit organization intent on providing a free means for you to get your free speech heard. The right to freedom of speech is not the same as a free microphone which in this case is very much what they are saying facebook must be.

         

    9. Re:Hmmm .... by medv4380 · · Score: 1

      And I suppose putting up a sign the "Blacks may not be served here" is still legal in the US? Facebook may has well have a "Sikh may not be served here" on their home page. Freedom of Speech and the right to association gets muddy once you start using Civil Rights laws.

    10. Re:Hmmm .... by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

      The US does have laws banning certain overseas behaviors, like bribing local officials. But I don't think there's anything about obeying local laws, or censorship laws specifically.

      If that were the case, that's a job for the president and Congress in their respective roles for foreign policy.

      Another reason it may not apply in this case is the first amendment -- you retain the right to not say something as well as say it. Now, bizarrely, a foreign state censoring you isn't you deciding not to say it, but the US can't force you to say it, either. (This is different from truth in advertising laws.)

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    11. Re:Hmmm .... by skr95062 · · Score: 2

      Yep... Just ask Microsoft about the Justice Department getting the US COURTS to tell them they have to violate EU law and hand over a EU citizen's email stored on a server in Ireland.

    12. Re:Hmmm .... by Richard_at_work · · Score: 2

      US courts are not constrained by laws of a foreign country, just as foreign courts are not constrained by US laws - when a US court rules within the boundaries of US law, whether or not that ruling would cause a company or person to violate a foreign law should not come into consideration. It may put the company or person in a difficult position, but that's not should not be the concern of the court.

    13. Re:Hmmm .... by Stargoat · · Score: 1

      There likely are specific laws, likely related to holocaust and Armenian genocide denial and such, that would allow a group like the Sikhs to sue a US firm that aids and abets such calumnies.

      Considering the 1980s attack on the Sikh ethnic group by Hindis was a well organized and deliberate attempt at genocide, I would suggest that they have a good case.

      More personally - Zuckerberg you goddamn moral coward, if Facebook doesn't support groups like this, it serves no useful purpose other than data mining and privacy undermining.

      --
      Hoist Number One and Number Six.
    14. Re:Hmmm .... by lgw · · Score: 1

      We have freedom of speech in America. You can deny any holocaust you'd like to deny, because that's speech. However, a business can't refuse to do business with customers on the basis of religion, and I suspect the argument here is religious discrimination.

      if Facebook doesn't support groups like this, it serves no useful purpose other than data mining and privacy undermining.

      Really? This is news to you? If you use Facebook, you are product. Facebook certainly provides a useful service: selling that product to its customers: advertisers.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    15. Re:Hmmm .... by bws111 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Not even close to the same thing. Facebook is not rejecting people because they are Sikh, they are rejecting the content. Can a Sikh post on Facebook? Yes. If a non-Sikh posted the exact same thing would it get rejected? Yes.

      There is no muddiness at all. If you reject something because of some characteristic of the PERSON who said you MAY run afoul of anti-discrimination laws. If you reject something because of what the CONTENT is that is 100% freedom of expression.

    16. Re:Hmmm .... by mysidia · · Score: 3, Informative

      So a newspaper can refuse to run classified ads from a particular race or religion?

      The newspaper can refuse to run a Pro-Muslim/Anti-Muslim, Pro-Christian, Anti-Christian, or Pro-Canadian advertisement based on the content of the ad; they can reject ads saying things positive or negative about a particular race or religion based on the content of the ad.

      The newspaper cannot refuse to run an ad based on the race or religion of the person paying for the ad or requesting its placement.

      In other words: they can discriminate against or in favor of any message they want.

      As a provider of services accomadating the public, they are not allowed to discriminate based on protected traits of the individual applying to list an ad.

    17. Re:Hmmm .... by mysidia · · Score: 1

      You're perfectly within your legal rights to hang a sign saying, "Blacks may not be served here".

      You're likely to be sued and boycotted into oblivion. And you are likely to be ordered by the court to take it down.

      Hanging such a sign intimidates individuals of a certain race. You cannot discriminate by intimidating or dissuading individuals based on a protected class from receiving services in a place of public accommodation.

    18. Re:Hmmm .... by mysidia · · Score: 1

      And I suppose putting up a sign the "Blacks may not be served here" is still legal in the US?

      You can put the sign up if your property is not a place of public accomdation, if you want. But if you serve anyone there, then the sign is discrimination by intimidation.

      Facebook may has well have a "Sikh may not be served here" on their home page.

      No, they have not prevented Sikh from signing up and using their website. They blocked pages associated with certain messages/content. Unless shown otherwise, that had nothing to do with the race/religion of the people, only the race/religion associated with the message they were sending.

    19. Re:Hmmm .... by antiperimetaparalogo · · Score: 1

      We know you are Greek. No need to insert it into EVERY post unless it is pertinent to that post. Thanks!

      You are welcomed Sir, BUT:
      1) Who is "We"? I thought that this "anonymous coward" was a single individual...
      2) In a discussion (in which i make an -indirect- question actually) about a US legal case, i find it pertinent to mention that i am Greek, without much knowledge about the US laws.
      3) "repetitio est mater studiorum" - I am a Greek!

      --
      Antisthenes: "Wisdom begins by examining the words/names." - excuse my English, i am (slightly...) better with my Greek!
    20. Re:Hmmm .... by Cederic · · Score: 1

      Technically Ireland should seek extradition of the judge on a conspiracy or extortion charge - they're very explicitly using threats to demand someone to break the law and in most jurisdictions that's rather illegal.

    21. Re:Hmmm .... by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      India isn't really an ally to anyone. They play both sides, buying stuff from Russia and the US off and on.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    22. Re:Hmmm .... by msobkow · · Score: 2

      More to the point, there innumerable trade agreements between nations that mandate that foreign companies follow local legislation while doing business with their communities. The Sikhs would have to win in an *Indian* court for the case to have *any* impact or jurisdiction on the situation.

      You flat out can NOT dictate that a company break a foreign country's laws. You can dictate that they're not allowed to do business *at* *all* in that country, but you can't force them to break the law.

      --
      I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
    23. Re:Hmmm .... by dcw3 · · Score: 1

      Jurisdiction does matter, and many cases are thrown out because the court doesn't have it.

      --
      Just another day in Paradise
    24. Re:Hmmm .... by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      If Microsoft USA has direct access to the data, it has to comply with the US ruling. If Microsoft USA doesn't, but has to get it from Microsoft Ireland, it may have to request the data from Microsoft Ireland, but the US court has no jurisdiction in Ireland.

      Seriously, this has been hashed out long ago, with records stored in various countries. There's nothing much new here.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    25. Re:Hmmm .... by mysidia · · Score: 1

      innumerable trade agreements between nations that mandate that foreign companies follow local legislation while doing business with their communities.

      Sometimes trade agreements are only supported superficially, or only held up, until the foreign country's laws become inconvenient.

      You flat out can NOT dictate that a company break a foreign country's laws.

      That remains to be seen, doesn't it?

      Some EU countries tried to have laws that certain data couldn't leave the EU. Last I checked... Microsoft is in the middle of a pitched battle they are on the verge of losing -- attempting to resist an order from US courts to transfer to the US and hand over data contrary to a foreign country's laws requiring data remain in the country.

    26. Re:Hmmm .... by Richard_at_work · · Score: 1

      But the Judge isn't requiring you to break the law in *his* jurisdiction but rather to follow it, and that is what matters to that Judge and that Court - no extradition would go ahead on that basis.

    27. Re:Hmmm .... by Richard_at_work · · Score: 1

      Microsoft is an American company, and is the sole owner of Microsoft Ireland Operations Ltd, and thus the jurisdiction over both entities exists and is demonstrable for an American Judicial Court and Judge.

    28. Re:Hmmm .... by Cederic · · Score: 1

      It's against the law in Ireland to access a computer without authorisation. It's against the law to use menaces to force someone else to break the law.

      The judge has therefore broken Irish law and for that reason Ireland could seek his extradition.

      The law in his jurisdiction is only relevant when choosing how to respond to the extradition request.

    29. Re:Hmmm .... by Richard_at_work · · Score: 1

      Except there would be no access without authorisation - Microsoft Ireland Operations Ltd owns the computers and thus has the authorisation to access the data, and it says as much in the Azure terms and conditions.

      Regardless of which way you cut it, no US court is going to allow the extradition of a US judge who has issued a legitimate and valid court order in his jurisdiction - the fact that his court order requires someone to potentially breach another countries laws is not in his circle of concern, and you cannot work around jurisdictions in such a manner.

      The fact of the matter is that the company should not have placed itself in a situation where it comes under conflicting jurisdictions when it may be faced with either having to refuse a legitimate court order or break a countries laws. That is a conundrum the companies legal team should have been considering from the moment the company came under multiple jurisdictions.

  3. Facebook is a private entity, not a public service by jsepeta · · Score: 1

    Don't like what Facebook does? Stop participating with them. Actually, *Collaborating* is a better word.

    --
    Remember kids, if you're not paying for the service, YOU ARE THE PRODUCT THAT IS BEING SOLD.
  4. jurisdiction in terms and conditions? by rst123 · · Score: 1

    I know a lot of EULAs specify where any lawsuits have to be filled. Does Facebook's?
    Sorry, don't use Facebook, and probably wouldn't have read the EULA if I did.

  5. Stop using Facebook by koan · · Score: 1

    You really want Zuckerberg to be providing internet on top of the spring loaded trap called Facebook?

    Facebook’s plan to find its next billion users: convince them the internet and Facebook are the same

    http://qz.com/5180/facebooks-p...

    "They trust me — dumb fucks,"
    -Zuckerberg
    http://gawker.com/5636765/face...

    --
    "If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
  6. They should lose. by jcr · · Score: 2

    The right to free speech doesn't include a right to compel anyone else to help you publish. FB has every right to pick and choose what links they put on their site.

    -jcr

    --
    The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    1. Re:They should lose. by jcr · · Score: 1

      This is clearly discrimination based on race.

      Most Sikhs are racially identical to their Muslim, Hindu, Jain and Buddhist neighbors. Care to try again?

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
  7. Foreign Laws by Translation+Error · · Score: 1

    If the plaintiff wins, I suppose all American businesses will have to pull out of China.

    --
    When someone says, "Any fool can see ..." they're usually exactly right.
  8. Interoperability with your own website by tepples · · Score: 2

    That's why the solution to their problem is called "running your own website".

    If you want "your own website" to interoperate with Facebook login and Facebook social graph, "your own website" still has to play by Facebook's rules.

    1. Re:Interoperability with your own website by IamTheRealMike · · Score: 2

      Yeah, that goes without saying. But is it so essential to them to count likes, that they're willing to initiate legal action over it? Surely that should be the last resort.

    2. Re:Interoperability with your own website by bingoUV · · Score: 1

      Yeah. If you want favours from me, you have to play by my rules. News at eleven.

      --
      Bingo Dictionary - Pragmatist, n. A myopic idealist.
  9. Standing is a procedural hurdle by tepples · · Score: 2

    Civil case here, you can first find somebody with standing and then proceed to sue anybody over anything.

  10. US Civil Rights Act of 1964 by tepples · · Score: 1

    Nope,
    You're still not allowed to discriminate on the basis of religion. (Source, citing the US Civil Rights Act of 1964) This is clearly discrimination based on religion.

    1. Re:US Civil Rights Act of 1964 by david_thornley · · Score: 2

      If it's blocked specifically because it's illegal in India, that's not Facebook practicing religious discrimination.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  11. Ex patirates cause lots of trouble by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 1
    One man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist. The Sikh separatist movement is largely funded by expatriate Sikh diaspora a week's pay here would equal a half year pay in India. They blew up an airliner over Atlantic, Kanishka, assassinated Indira Gandhi... India calling them terrorists is exactly what US calls American citizens siding with Al Queda or ISIS. Similarly the the Tamil dispora funded the civil war in Sri Lanka for decades.

    That is not to say the Sikhs do not have genuine complaints. Following Mrs Gandhi's assassination there were anti-Sikh riots in New Delhi were some 1500 Sikhs were torched and thousands more were injured and their businesses looted, torched and destroyed. And all the perps went completely unpunished. That is a one genuine complaint the Sikhs have. But some of the other things they have funded would make them terrorists.

    --
    sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
    1. Re:Ex patirates cause lots of trouble by Magnus+Pym · · Score: 2

      Exactly. Expatriate Sikhs, especially those based in Canada & the US, are the equivalent of 1st generation Cubans in Florida who collaborated with the CIA and tried to overthrow Castro, or the New York Irish Catholic folks who funded most of the `troubles' on the old country in the 70s & 80s. These guys may have their grievances, but the shrillness of their current efforts and the veracity of their message is completely divorced from reality and their causes are not in line with US interests. They are not heroes struggling with oppression, they are middle aged or older rich `Colonel Blimps', trying to find meaning in their boring & pointless lives by fighting yesterdays' wars and fomenting trouble in the lands they have abandoned.

  12. When "favours" dramatically increase conversion by tepples · · Score: 1

    Does failure to support "favours" (Facebook Connect, Sign in with Google, etc.) cause viewers to leave and not become registered users?

    1. Re:When "favours" dramatically increase conversion by bingoUV · · Score: 1

      When you have a monopoly on idiots, you can afford to choose a few people and not do them favours. Better if those people represent a minority, unpopular view. E.g. many Sikhs in India are patriotic, and only a vanishingly miniscule minority are separatist like this Facebook page advocates.

      --
      Bingo Dictionary - Pragmatist, n. A myopic idealist.