Facebook Touts Free Speech. In Vietnam, It's Aiding in Censorship (latimes.com) 41
An anonymous reader shares a report: For months, Bui Van Thuan, a chemistry teacher turned crusading blogger in Vietnam, published one scathing Facebook post after another on a land dispute between villagers and the communist government. In a country with no independent media, Facebook provides the only platform where Vietnamese can read about contentious topics such as Dong Tam, a village outside Hanoi where residents were fighting authorities' plans to seize farmland to build a factory. Believing a confrontation was inevitable, the 40-year-old Thuan condemned the country's leaders in a Jan. 7 post. "Your crimes will be engraved on my mind," he wrote. "I know you -- the land robbers -- will do everything, however cruel it is, to grab the people's land." Facebook blocked his account the next day at the government's insistence, preventing 60 million Vietnamese users from seeing his posts. One day later, as Thuan had warned, police stormed Dong Tam with tear gas and grenades. A village leader and three officers were killed.
For three months, Thuan's Facebook account remained suspended. Then the company told him the ban would be permanent. "We have confirmed that you are not eligible to use Facebook," the message read in Vietnamese. Thuan's blacklisting, which the Menlo Park-based social media giant now calls a "mistake," illustrates how willingly the company has acquiesced to censorship demands from an authoritarian government. Facebook and its founder, Mark Zuckerberg, say the platform protects free expression except in narrow circumstances, such as when it incites violence. But in countries including Cuba, India, Israel, Morocco, Pakistan and Turkey, Facebook routinely restricts posts that governments deem sensitive or off-limits. Nowhere is that truer than in Vietnam. Facebook, whose site was translated into Vietnamese in 2008, now counts more than half the country's people among its account holders. The popular platform has enabled government critics and pro-democracy activists -- in both Vietnam and the United States -- to bypass the communist system's strict controls on the media. But in the last several years, the company has repeatedly censored dissent in Vietnam, trying to placate a repressive government that has threatened to shut Facebook down if it does not comply, The Times found.
For three months, Thuan's Facebook account remained suspended. Then the company told him the ban would be permanent. "We have confirmed that you are not eligible to use Facebook," the message read in Vietnamese. Thuan's blacklisting, which the Menlo Park-based social media giant now calls a "mistake," illustrates how willingly the company has acquiesced to censorship demands from an authoritarian government. Facebook and its founder, Mark Zuckerberg, say the platform protects free expression except in narrow circumstances, such as when it incites violence. But in countries including Cuba, India, Israel, Morocco, Pakistan and Turkey, Facebook routinely restricts posts that governments deem sensitive or off-limits. Nowhere is that truer than in Vietnam. Facebook, whose site was translated into Vietnamese in 2008, now counts more than half the country's people among its account holders. The popular platform has enabled government critics and pro-democracy activists -- in both Vietnam and the United States -- to bypass the communist system's strict controls on the media. But in the last several years, the company has repeatedly censored dissent in Vietnam, trying to placate a repressive government that has threatened to shut Facebook down if it does not comply, The Times found.
And? (Score:5, Insightful)
Where are they NOT censoring people that don't server their interests?
Re:And? [Engagement = PROFIT!] (Score:3)
Well, not as bad as some FPs, but pretty shallow overall. I wouldn't mod it up, and so far no one has, but I wouldn't mod it down either, and someone has done that already...
At least you could have mentioned that Facebook's motivating interest is in the profits. But maybe the short Subject and the spelling mistake should be taken as evidence of a rush to capture the FP slot? But with so little to say, why bother?
Your comment is focused on the negative side, but it's the positive side of profit that drives e
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Your comment is focused on the negative side, but it's the positive side of profit that drives everything at Facebook. They can't engage "members" for profit unless they can stay in the game, and governments control the game for their own purposes and profits. Ergo, if a government demands censorship, then Facebook will certainly, even willingly, comply with those local laws.
Your comment makes it sound as if they wouldn't engage in censorship except if governments threatened their profits over it. It's pretty clear though they are a bit more aggressive than that [vice.com]. So one place they haven't censored is in the United states on the pages of the Real Facebook Oversight Board [the-citizens.com] but that's not for a want of trying [slashdot.org]. That's because there are laws in the USA which stop them from censoring.
You have to remember that, once you get as rich as Zukerberg, Koch, Trump or Murdoch you don't actu
Re: (Score:3)
Well.. I think you have part of it sideways and part of it backwards. Maybe not just about Facebook?
The sideways part is that private companies censor stuff, even when they have shareholders and are supposed to be public in some sense. There is always some IP that is hidden as trade secrets or corporate strategies or just in dark corners of the boardroom. You can easily argue that information management (AKA censorship) is an integral part of the execution of the corporate strategies and tactics. Even the p
Re: (Score:2)
I hate typos, but Slashdot don't care.
s/hard worth/hard work/
Just visited Medium after a few years away. Not great, but greatly improved since 2017. Maybe I'll start migrating over there? One of the obvious virtues is an ability to correct typos.
Re: (Score:2)
Most of the time, since Facebook wants literally every person on it. Their dream, their endgame, is to become the Mark of the Beast.
The only time they remove someone is when having them on the platform might cause a net negative in user count (an exceedingly rare scenario). For example, if the site were to banned by the Vietnamese government.
Re: (Score:2)
That is to say, an individual serves Facebook's interest simply by being on Facebook. If you haven't ceased using it entirely, you are serving their interests.
Re: (Score:3)
Quit using it. Cold-turkey stop and never look back. If we all did that, we'd never have to worry about it again.
"Anything but that! How can I be oppressed then?"
Re: (Score:2)
I wish.
Unfortunately, due to their own misrepresentation, places like Farcebook and Twatter exist as the current excuse for a commons.
I think, after the election, this will probably begin to change.
Then I can kick it to the curb.
Re: (Score:2)
An empty commons doesn't function as a commons anymore.
Not just Vietnam (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
As far as the US, I don't believe they should outright censor, but rather mark messages with disclaimers* if they wish.
As far as Vietnam, if a company doesn't follow the nation's rules, they don't get to do business there. The alternative is to give such projects to countries ran by dictators, which is NOT an improvement to the general situation, and hurts US biz.
* Doxing and various illegal activities still warrant direct censorship. This was an issue with the "laptop controversy".
Yes, so? (Score:2)
Facebook is an large evil corporation and they will do anything for their bottom-line. The only thing that will stop them is if they think they cannot get away with it. But apart from that, a corporation of this type will stop at absolutely nothing.
Get a 1st Amendment (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm glad a bunch of people who died hundreds of years ago were willing to do so in order that I can tell all of the crooks in government as much to their faces. But if Facebook wants to do business in Vietnam then they abide by the rules of Vietnam. It's not too much different than them taking down material that's illegal in the United States even if they were in favor of it. Most of that is so beyond the pale that it's hard to make an analogy, but even if Zuck thought humans should be free to share photographs of adults fucking kids, the U.S. would still mandate that Facebook remove them.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm glad a bunch of people who died hundreds of years ago were willing to do so in order that I can tell all of the crooks in government as much to their faces.
To which they respond "Who are you?"
Free to talk; just don't do anything about it.
Sovereignty (Score:2)
Sovereignty. The supreme, absolute, and uncontrollable power by which an independent state is governed and from which all specific political powers are derived; the intentional independence of a state, combined with the right and power of regulating its internal affairs without foreign interference.
Don't like the way your country is run? Change it.
But don't expect Americans (or American corporations) to fight your government for you. It has been tried. It did not go well for us...
Facebook must walk the line between following the US custom of Freedom of Speech and local laws on censorship. The balance is to impose no prior restraint, but to apply specific censorship as directed by the relevant government agencies -i.e. to comply with local law enforcement.
Re: (Score:3)
Facebook. (Score:2)
Free Speech is their official policy, but... (Score:2)
that is only when something gets enough press that they have to lie/gas light. If they succeed in censoring content, subject, or person completely then they don't have a conflict. That is the great thing about censorship. When done thoroughly, there is no proof its actually been done. Facebook like most corporations are actually a society of people and many of those people often do not hold the exact views or fail to even grasp the view of the corporation. I am sure whoever was their Vietnamese liaison
No no, you misunderstand (Score:3)
Facebook is touting *their* free speech rights to block and remove whatever content they want on their platform.
Re: (Score:2)
That's not a free-speech right. If a mall escorts a guy on a soapbox giving a speech out of the mall, the mall isn't engaging in free speech, they're just running a mall that isn't a platform for anything but advertising the stuff for sale at the mall.
Facebook may be perceived by you as some kind of public square, but it's more like the Food Court at your local mall, it's not public at all.
Re: (Score:3)
They advertise themselves as being a platform for individuals to connect directly with other end users. That is the fundamental aspect that constitutes a public square. That they are pulling a bait & switch by manipulating the content that the users see shouldn't be a surprise. Although, it should disqualify them from protections that are intended for common carriers.
Re: (Score:1)
https://www.law.cornell.edu/co... [cornell.edu]
The First Amendment precludes government restraint of expression and it does not require individuals to turn over their homes, businesses, or other property to those wishing to communicate about a particular topic.1493 But it may be that in some instances private property is so functionally akin to public property that private owners may not forbid expression upon it. In Marsh v. Alabama,1494 the Court held that the private owner of a company town could not forbid distribution of religious materials by a Jehovah’s Witness on a street in the town’s business district. The town, wholly owned by a private corporation, had all the attributes of any American municipality, aside from its ownership, and was functionally like any other town.
the Court formally overruled Logan Valley Plaza, holding that shopping centers are not functionally equivalent to the company town involved in Marsh.1501 Suburban malls may be the “new town squares” in the view of sociologists, but they are private property in the eye of the law.
only when private property “ ‘has taken on all the attributes of a town’ ” is it to be treated as a public forum
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, I do wish the law said what I was describing. We should change it to reflect that.
I wasn't arguing what the law is. I was arguing what it should be.
Not a problem at all (Score:2)
Because Vietnam is now a tool of the USA fighting against China, just like what China used to be in the 1970s when it was a tool fighting against the Soviet Union. The US never really makes much fuss [nbcnews.com] about the wrongdoing of its puppets or of itself. Freedom of speech is only a weapon in American's quest to be (and stay as) the superpower of this planet.
Re: (Score:2)
Who else has to go along? (Score:2)
Do the phone companies all run through the same fiber trunks that the ISP's do to get into Vietnam?
Perhaps we need a more thoroughly "fail" proof internet. With gre
semantics (Score:2)
I wonder if it would be more accurate to call this "company obeys regional laws and I don't like it!"
If you don't like it, but it's the law, your best option is to work to get the law changed. Complaining about how people are following the law is about as productive as pissing into the wind.
Re: (Score:3)
company obeys regional laws
Which law?
Facebook blocked his account the next day at the government's insistence
That reads more like some bureaucrats didn't like what he was saying and sent down an edict. What law did Bui break? Which court/judge handed down a verdict? What is Facebook's legal standing in this circumstance?
And the big question is: How does this differ from Mark Zuckerberg getting hauled into Congressional hearings every time one of his users posts something that our leaders dislike?
Re: (Score:1)
And the big question is: How does this differ from Mark Zuckerberg getting hauled into Congressional hearings every time one of his users posts something that our leaders dislike?
Isn't that what's been happening?
Re: (Score:2)
If you don't like it, but it's the law, your best option is to work to get the law changed. Complaining about how people are following the law is about as productive as pissing into the wind.
The chemistry teacher and villagers in question are indeed wanting to change the law. For their efforts the police threw grenades and tear gassed them. Sometimes the locals need some support from outside because their powers that be have, you know, grenades and tear gas.
What if FB existed during WW2? (Score:3)
Freeze Peach? (Score:2)
It's OK, Vietnam... (Score:1)