Slashdot Mirror


Facebook Said To Create Censorship Tool To Get Back Into China (theverge.com)

The New York Times is reporting (Warning: may be paywalled, alternate source) that Facebook has created a censorship tool to automatically suppress certain posts in specific geographic areas of China, according to three current and former Facebook employees. The tool was created in an effort for Facebook to "get into China, a market where the social network has been blocked." Business Insider notes that several Facebook employees have quit because of the tool: This software would give third parties, like internet service providers, the ability to monitor Facebook for popular stories, and suppress them at will. This tool is one of many that Facebook has experimented with to get back into China, where it's been blocked from users since 2009, says the report, and has never actually been used. Regardless, the fact that company leadership would even consider this approach has reportedly troubled some Facebook employees, seeing it as a betrayal of the social network's values around openness and transparency in the name of getting access to the vast market represented by China.

45 comments

  1. Hail Zuckerberg! by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

    Hail Zuckerberg!

    1. Re: Hail Zuckerberg! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fucking Fuckerberg loves to fucky fuck to silence dissent so something Luddite censor fuck, so you can fuck fuck.

      Fucks!

  2. Not just China... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...we've been monitoring the broad use of a tool like this on Facebook and other social media platforms for a while and it mainly targets the US and other Western nations.

  3. Trump-style by Tablizer · · Score: 0

    Ironic we can't see it either because of a pay-wall. That's all China has to do to hide stuff: erect a pay-wall, AND make American consumers pay for it.

    1. Re:Trump-style by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 2

      Ironic we can't see it either because of a pay-wall.

      Sure you can. NY Times gives you a certain number of free page-views each month, and tracks them using a cookie. So just right click on any NY Times link, and select "Open Link in Incognito Window". It will work every time.

    2. Re:Trump-style by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      I was mostly joking, but pay-walls will work on most regular users. Thus, it's de-facto censorship.

    3. Re:Trump-style by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      I was mostly joking, but pay-walls will work on most regular users.

      I have shown the "Incognito" trick to plenty of non-geek co-workers and they have no problem remembering it and using it. They just don't understand (or care) why it works.

    4. Re:Trump-style by rtb61 · · Score: 2

      At the New York Times that's no paywall, that's a trench latrine beyond lies a sewerage lake slowly but surely decomposing, better just to turn away, really why immerse yourself in that lake, join it's fake journalists neck deep in shite, only able to see the instruction of their corporate advertisers. Instead just wait for some one to put up an alternate link https://www.cnet.com/au/news/f.... New York Times, sad to say, is just yesterdays corporate propaganda channel and blatant corrupter of democracy. Better off having nothing what so ever to do with them, far better off.

      Perhaps the New York Times can relocate to China and become the Bejing Times it is a market they are far more suited to (if not there perhaps the liars at the New York Times would be happier in Saudi Arabia) and Facebook, well, people have been warned for years to drop it and move on. It is just the way things work with social media channels, delusions of grandeur and power and the fuckers go nutz, censoring and propagandising and monetising their users and everyone moves on, it is just the way of things.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    5. Re:Trump-style by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      Let me try to say it again some other way. IN PRACTICE most either don't know about or won't use that feature. Whether they "can" is moot here. There is only one of you to show the whole world. Nobody else gives a fudge (so far).

    6. Re:Trump-style by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Please don't joke. Ironic comments trigger me and I can't fully control my feelings.

      Best regards,

      AC

    7. Re:Trump-style by crimson+tsunami · · Score: 1

      You do realise The New York Times is blocked in China...
      May throw a slight spanner into the works of relocating.

    8. Re:Trump-style by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      You anonymous cowards are all alike.

  4. That's Crazy by rmdingler · · Score: 1
    You would have us believe the Zuck would compromise integrity and all values to gain access to the billion strong Chinese market?

    What would be the motivation? MZ has promised to give away 99% of his facefortune in his lifetime.

    So, if it is not about the money, what drives him?

    --
    Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.

    Ernest Hemingway

    1. Re: That's Crazy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How long do you think he wants to live?

    2. Re:That's Crazy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He needs to maximize that 1% he will be left with.

    3. Re: That's Crazy by kenh · · Score: 1

      You would have us believe the Zuck would compromise integrity and all values to gain access to the billion strong Chinese market?

      Are you talking about the Mark Zuckerberg that came up with his 'Hot or Not' application to rank the women of his university (out of frustration when they wouldn't date him) and was sued by facebook co-founders, both real and imaginary (winklevos twins)?

      I have a hard time holding "The Zuck" up as a pillar of values and integrity.

      --
      Ken
    4. Re:That's Crazy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, Gates did the same thing. They pledge to give a % of their money (for PR, tax purposes, and charities that they control (their second bank account)), but that only means they give a set amount per year. Meanwhile, their net worth drastically increases each year on investments.

      When Zuck dies, will 99% of his money have gone towards charities that he has no control over? No. Hell no.

    5. Re:That's Crazy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Facebook's CEO and wife to give 99 percent of shares to their new foundation", he's going to give his wealth to himself, good lord *eyeroll*. Its a circle jerk with just him, these kind of fake giving is a load of crap.

  5. Well tested during the election? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Gee.... suppressing popular stories by a third party? Sounds like they have already tested the function thoroughly during the election.

    I guess they suddenly found out they could get back into China by doing exactly what they have been doing already, so why not?

  6. Fake news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Another fake news by NYT.

  7. Don't worry by sit1963nz · · Score: 1

    Trump is going to start a trade war with China, so Facebook will end up as a casualty anyway as will every US company.

  8. Make censorship dashboard visible (read only) by apenzott · · Score: 1

    If I were Facebook. I would implement the censorship tools, but I would make the censorship filters, settings, and collected stat world readable.

    --
    The Roman Rule: The one who says it cannot be done shall not interrupt the one who is doing it.
  9. US freedom to grow by AHuxley · · Score: 1

    Sells out to Communist China so global the profits flow.
    Who wants to be on censored media? How boring is that? Reading what your gov tells you? Been aware that you will be denounced by gov staff or the US brand just with one click?
    Time to move to more freedom aware US brands that are fun, real and protect all their users from Communist party members and gov workers.
    If a US brand wants to be with Communists, the rest of the world has the freedom find much better quality US brands.

    --
    Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    1. Re:US freedom to grow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      If you want communism gone, stop fucking supporting it! I wouldn't be surprised if there's actually an old post-WWII law on the US books that prohibits corporations from enriching communist governments, making all that Chinese offshoring illegal.

    2. Re:US freedom to grow by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      AC Nixon undid that in the 1970's.. no more Foreign Assets Control Regulations, less of the Export Control Act.
      The US moved China from trade lists with Cuba, North Korea, North Vietnam to country groups like Eastern Europe the Soviet Union so trade was then more liberal. Communist countries then got most favoured nation status. Also note the role of the Export-Import Bank.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
  10. There's selling out, then there's learning Chinese by JoeyRox · · Score: 1

    So that you can sell out 1.3 Billion Chinese people.

  11. Too evil for Facebook employees? by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 2

    several Facebook employees have quit because of the tool

    There's a lame joke about even evil having standards hiding somewhere in that quote.

    --
    Ezekiel 23:20
  12. Already here! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I tracked down a 'trending' news article on facebook to a fake news website.

    Turned out a PR company in Washington had not only bought abandoned domain names on the same day - they initially seeded them with similar filler content (clickbaity stuff) then in the run up to the election they started posting anti-trump attack stuff, anti-wikileaks stuff. Suddenly the first of these little sites became trending in facebook.

    I grew suspicious, and started digging then

    Couple of days later another attack propaganda article trended and I dug into them.

    Same PR company in Washington.

    I posted on their page, on the latest trending article, what I found regarding them - with links to the bits and pieces of information dug up from various registrars and also the internet archive. Half hour later their facebook account disappears, and all traces from my own feed (where I linked the post to and information I had collected) disappeared as well.

    We're already there folks. But difference in China is that it'll be government doing the censoring. Not private interests.

    1. Re:Already here! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      oh, forgot to mention. I had to look into the domain history to see when they realized they better anonymize the registration details ;)

  13. Because ... by CaptainDork · · Score: 1

    ... money.

    --
    It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
    1. Re:Because ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For Fuckerberg it's all about the shekels.

  14. Re:Hail Zuckerberg! by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 1

    FB == "whore"

    that's all.

    and that's why I will never join (never saw a FB page, in fact).

    --

    --
    "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
  15. Of course they did, it's the liberal way. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Are people really surprised that a mega liberal would want to help censor opinions? It's their motto, do as they say and not as they do. Liberal actually means hypocrite now.

    1. Re: Of course they did, it's the liberal way. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Peter Thiel is on the Facebook board of directors.

  16. typical corporate greed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    nothing else to see here, move on.

  17. Why not regional subsidiaries? by BlueCoder · · Score: 1

    Seems to me they might mitigate some issues by coping google and creating a parent company. Then create regional "facebook" like social sites that to a limited extent interoperate and share a lot of their code base. The various sister sites wouldn't have the same moral policies.

    1. Re:Why not regional subsidiaries? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem with that strategy is that as a piece of software, Facebook isn't all that good. Okay, it's crap. But when all your friends are on Facebook, you need to be on Facebook or risk being ostracised. Facebook is all about network effects. In order for your scheme to work, Facebook Best Korea would face challenges like how to let the users have the network they want while cooperating with Best Korea's censorship policies. And with the internet being what it is, that's a hard problem, to put it mildly. And separate company or no, Facebook Best Korea and Facebook HQ would both still be kicked out if Best Korea wasn't happy. So the only way that's going to work is if Facebook censors main Facebook content. And then why have a Best Korea subsidiary?

  18. that neuters the wrong thing anyway by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    News is not the problem anyway, it's the ability to organize.

    You can be as critical as you like, so long as you have no ability to rally folks around you. Conversely, if you have an organization, you're a problem even if you're politically neutral or in line with one of the establishment's stated goals.

    The critical feature that FB needs to neuter to get into China is not the news feed. It's the "friends".

  19. Too late by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Whatever Facebook do, they are too late. WeChat already has the Chinese market - and it has a wider set of facilities too.

  20. Re:Hail Zuckerberg! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Zuckerberg should know by heritage why it's important to help oppressed people. He's not helping now and people will remember.

  21. Democrat Slashdot "editor" BeauHD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Democrat Slashdot editor BeauHD must love this news as he furiously masturbstes while fantasizing about how Cuckerberg can use this to silence any dissent against the failed Democrat religion here in the U.S.

  22. Re:Hail Zuckerberg! by AoT · · Score: 1

    Now that's just unfair to sex workers. Prostitution is an old and honest profession, lying to people to sell their info to others is an old and dishonest con. Not remotely the same.