Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Censorship Facebook Government

How Facebook Silenced an Enemy of Turkey To Prevent a Hit To the Company's Business (propublica.org) 162

Posted by EditorDavid from the leaning-out dept.
Long-time Slashdot reader schwit1 shares this report from ProPublica: As Turkey launched a military offensive against Kurdish minorities in neighboring Syria in early 2018, Facebook's top executives faced a political dilemma. Turkey was demanding the social media giant block Facebook posts from the People's Protection Units, a mostly Kurdish militia group the Turkish government had targeted.

Should Facebook ignore the request, as it has done elsewhere, and risk losing access to tens of millions of users in Turkey? Or should it silence the group, known as the YPG, even if doing so added to the perception that the company too often bends to the wishes of authoritarian governments?

It wasn't a particularly close call for the company's leadership, newly disclosed emails show. "I am fine with this," wrote Sheryl Sandberg, Facebook's No. 2 executive, in a one-sentence message to a team that reviewed the page. Three years later, YPG's photos and updates about the Turkish military's brutal attacks on the Kurdish minority in Syria still can't be viewed by Facebook users inside Turkey. The conversations, among other internal emails obtained by ProPublica, provide an unusually direct look into how tech giants like Facebook handle censorship requests made by governments that routinely limit what can be said publicly...

Publicly, Facebook has underscored that it cherishes free speech: "We believe freedom of expression is a fundamental human right, and we work hard to protect and defend these values around the world," the company wrote in a blog post last month about a new Turkish law requiring that social media firms have a legal presence in the country. "More than half of the people in Turkey rely on Facebook to stay in touch with their friends and family, to express their opinions and grow their businesses." But behind the scenes in 2018, amid Turkey's military campaign, Facebook ultimately sided with the government's demands. Deliberations, the emails show, were centered on keeping the platform operational, not on human rights. "The page caused us a few PR fires in the past," one Facebook manager warned of the YPG material...
"Facebook confirmed to ProPublica that it made the decision to restrict the page in Turkey following a legal order from the Turkish government — and after it became clear that failing to do so would have led to its services in the country being completely shut down."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

How Facebook Silenced an Enemy of Turkey To Prevent a Hit To the Company's Business More

How Facebook Silenced an Enemy of Turkey To Prevent a Hit To the Company's Business

Comments Filter:
  • Evil, and banal at that.

    • Re:History rhymes (Score:4, Informative)

      by ShanghaiBill ( 739463 ) on Sunday February 28, 2021 @04:43AM (#61107734)

      Companies are required to follow the laws of the countries they operate in.

      But the crappy summary, and the crappy article, don't make it clear if that was the case here. They say the Turkish government "demanded" the page be removed and also that they "asked". Those are two different things.

      TFA implies that Facebook had discretion. But elsewhere, implies that it did not.

      The only thing for sure is the ProPublica has low standards of journalism.

      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by Joce640k ( 829181 )

        Companies are required to follow the laws of the countries they operate in.

        And it doesn't matter if that country is run by the Taliban and is committing genocide.

        • Re:History rhymes (Score:4, Insightful)

          by ShanghaiBill ( 739463 ) on Sunday February 28, 2021 @05:11AM (#61107772)

          And it doesn't matter if that country is run by the Taliban and is committing genocide.

          Turkey is not run by the Taliban nor committing genocide, so I am not sure what your point is.

          • The point is that the first line of the summary says "...in neighboring Syria".

            (And isn't the USA supposed to be supporting the Kurds in Syria...?)

            • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

              by ShanghaiBill ( 739463 )

              The point is that the first line of the summary says "...in neighboring Syria".

              I'm still not sure what your point is. Does only the Taliban invade Syria?

              (And isn't the USA supposed to be supporting the Kurds in Syria...?)

              No. Trump backstabbed and abandoned the Kurds. I have not heard anything about Biden reversing the betrayal.

              • Re:History rhymes (Score:5, Insightful)

                by Joce640k ( 829181 ) on Sunday February 28, 2021 @06:11AM (#61107836) Homepage

                The point is that the first line of the summary says "...in neighboring Syria".

                I'm still not sure what your point is.

                The point is that Facebook "didn't have a problem with that", which bothers me.

                It ought to bother you, too.

                • Re: (Score:2, Troll)

                  by ShanghaiBill ( 739463 )

                  The point is that Facebook "didn't have a problem with that"

                  Facebook is a social media company. They don't have the power to stop invasions.

                  The "that" in the quote by Ms. Sandberg is not referring to the invasion but to the removal of YPG's Facebook page.

              • Re:History rhymes (Score:4, Interesting)

                by sg_oneill ( 159032 ) on Sunday February 28, 2021 @09:29AM (#61108138)

                No. Trump backstabbed and abandoned the Kurds. I have not heard anything about Biden reversing the betrayal.

                At the end of the day, Powerful people run th show. The Kurds where never "terrorists", as much as the Turkish,Syrian or fucking ISIS govt might try and claim, you cant categorize an entire race that way. But the patronage of Turkey is more. important to the maintainance of the Hegemony of America, and the Syrian Govts pattronage too important to Russias, to allow decency or reason to inform the discord on this. So the Kurds cop it in the neck. And if there was one group in that entire clusterfuck that was the Syrian civil war that actually had a demonstrable commitment to democracy, equality and civil rights, it was the Kurds.

                Everything about that whole situation sucks. But heres the thing. Us mere citizens in this worl don't count for nothing.

                • Man my tyiping is mental when I don't have my glasses. "Inform the discourse on" I mean.

                • Re:History rhymes (Score:4, Informative)

                  by Joce640k ( 829181 ) on Sunday February 28, 2021 @10:04AM (#61108222) Homepage

                  if there was one group in that entire clusterfuck that was the Syrian civil war that actually had a demonstrable commitment to democracy, equality and civil rights, it was the Kurds.

                  This. Their main crimes are things like wanting education for children and women's equality.

              • Re: (Score:2)

                by Tom ( 822 )

                No. Trump backstabbed and abandoned the Kurds.

                He only continued an american tradition. Both Bush's fucked over the Kurds in their respective Iraq wars and Obama first supported, then abandoned them during the Syrian civil war. Trump's failure was to break with that tradition and take a stance.

          • Re:History rhymes (Score:4, Insightful)

            by idji ( 984038 ) on Sunday February 28, 2021 @05:56AM (#61107816)
            They deny continuously that they committed genocide in the past, and their attitude to Kurds over the last 40 years could be considered genocidal - in the 80's they denied that Kurds even existed calling them "Dagturkler" = "mountain Turks" and saying that Kurdish wasn't even a language.

          • Re:History rhymes (Score:5, Insightful)

            by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 28, 2021 @06:01AM (#61107826)

            Yes it is. Erdogan has thrown away Turkey's secularism and moved it to hard line Islamism by having all opposition jailed or killed. Erdogan's massacres and disenfranchisement of the Kurdish people cannot rationally be classed as anything other than genocide.

            Turkey was at a point of peace with the Kurds some years back, but then Erdogan started losing popularity, so he made them the enemy and started killing them all to create a phantom menace to retain power with.

            We just turn a blind eye because they're a strategically located NATO member. That wouldn't be so disappointing if it weren't for the fact it was the Kurds, not Turkey that helped NATO defeat ISIS. In contrast ISIS was supported and equipped by Turkey - pretty much all foreign fighters from the West that joined ISIS entered through Turkey and Turkey explicitly allowed those foreign fighters to cross their border to do so whilst also arming them on their way in.

            • Re: (Score:3)

              by Tom ( 822 )

              Turkey was at a point of peace with the Kurds some years back, but then Erdogan started losing popularity, so he made them the enemy and started killing them all to create a phantom menace to retain power with.

              It's a long-standing tradition to have an "enemy in the closet" just in case you need him. The US did the same thing with Iraq and Saddam Hussein. Beloved ally at one point, his main use was always that he could serve as a good enemy to fight if you needed a war to win the next election. That's why Bush Sr. was smart enough to not put him away entirely in the 1st Gulf War.

              The Kurds are the same for Erdogan. How he behaves towards them is a direct consequence of his political situation at that time.

            • All true, but don't forget: the US basically *created* ISIS by funding and equipping insurgents in the area, in hopes of destabilizing certain governments.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by gtall ( 79522 )

            Not the Taliban, no, just another brand of Islamic nutjobs with which Erdogan has populated his toy government. Every time Erdogan gets his tail caught in a crack, he bangs on the Kurds to distract attention from his terrible economic policies and his police state tactics in suppressing political opposition. And he was the one that was funding the Islamic nutjobs in Syria before they became a problem for him, then he took "steps" to combat them, which mostly meant screwing the Kurds in Syria harder. He anno

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by sfcat ( 872532 )

            And it doesn't matter if that country is run by the Taliban and is committing genocide.

            Turkey is not run by the Taliban nor committing genocide, so I am not sure what your point is.

            Guess the FB ban was more successful than we though. Turkey literally invented the modern concept of genocide [wikipedia.org]. They aren't picky either. There is more than one group that the Turkish government is trying to eliminate. In this case, it wasn't their old favorites (the Armenians) but instead their other group they want to kill, the Kurds. But do go on whitewashing genocide. Its such a good look.

        • "And it doesn't matter if that country is run by the Taliban and is committing genocide"

          I hardly think Trukey is being run by tge Taliban, If it was, most of the citizens would be living in the near Stone Age, and Europe would be in a constant state of fear from them.

          Not to say they are perfect, but Turkey is far from the worst.

        • "And it doesn't matter if that country is run by the Taliban and is committing genocide"

          I hardly think Turkey is being run by the Taliban, If it was, most of the citizens would be living in the near Stone Age, and Europe would be in a constant state of fear from them.

          Not to say they are perfect, but Turkey is far from the worst.

        • Correct. It doesn't matter.

          Besides, if you refused to do business with countries involved in genocide, you'd possibly reduce shareholder returns by a few percent, and that will definitely get you gutted by the forces of capitalism.

      • Companies are required to follow the laws of the countries they operate in.

        Indeed, but they are not required to operate in those countries. And contrary to the popoular meme, they are not required to do whatever slashdotters think they must out of "fiduciary duty".

        • Indeed, but they are not required to operate in those countries.

          Every country requires some degree of censorship. Should companies cease doing business until that changes?

          It is not the job of American corporations to "fix" Turkey. Turkey is a democracy. If the Turks want to fix their country, they can do it themselves.

          • Turkey a democracy? Are you serious?

          • Every country requires some degree of censorship. Should companies cease doing business until that changes?

            It must be nice living in your world where shades of grey don't exist.

            It is not the job of American corporations to "fix" Turkey.

            so implicitly according to you they should profit helping the brokenness.

            Turkey is a democracy.

            Sure. So is the Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea: you can tell because it's right there in the name. Meanwhile in the real world despite having elections the actual state of t

      • and then why did apple say no to the FBI?
        But will say YES to china.

        The real question to ask is if they where around back before WW2 would they help the *azis round up move the jews in to camps and rat out people hiding jews?

  • The Fake Book has stepped on the slippery slope when it began censoring content, deplatforming people, etc.
    The political agenda became more clear due to this.
    The privacy nightmare now has issues of its own.

  • This is a great proof of the fact that laws are the result of the wishes of the state rather than a set of moral rules. The wishes of the state reflects the interplay between the will and/or consent of the people, and the desires and interests of leadership and powerful influencers. Every political system and culture handles this outcome uniquely, and it continuously changes over time.

  • Not as bad as what Twitter did to "protect NATO" (Score:5, Insightful)

    by DeplorableCodeMonkey ( 4828467 ) on Sunday February 28, 2021 @06:34AM (#61107880)

    Twitter just wiped out a bunch of foreign government accounts for "manipulation" with the stated end goal to prevent them from undermining support for NATO.

    This is why the spergs who always come in to cite that XKCD free speech comic, remind us the first amendment doesn't apply to corporations, etc. need to be told to just fuck right off a cliff and die.

    You see, these actions are precisely how you end up with a censorship-riddled system where the authorities can give you a big goofy grin and tell you you're not being censored because the government isn't doing it. It's just their college roommates who run the big corporations that control all of the platforms where speech happens and that actively use tactics like denying access to banking and payment services to competing platforms that don't toe the party line.

    No, this isn't authoritarianism. This is "free men and women using their property rights and not letting you use their soapbox." It's also "free men and women ensuring you can't build your own soapbox," but then you're just an asshole so you don't deserve one. I used to see that argument a lot particularly at the allegedly pro-free speech site TechDirt.

    • This is why the spergs who always come in to cite that XKCD free speech comic, remind us the first amendment doesn't apply to corporations, etc. need to be told to just fuck right off a cliff and die.

      That is simply the situation, for better or for worse and yes, sometimes it's for worse. That's the double-edge sword of rights, you get your rights but they end where the rights of others begin. You are upset because you cannot infringe upon the rights of others.

    • This is why the spergs who always come in to cite that XKCD free speech comic, remind us the first amendment doesn't apply to corporations, etc. need to be told to just fuck right off a cliff and die.

      How about those people who cite the idea that the USA enforcing it's laws on other countries can fuck off a cliff and die? Sure the first amendment is good and all, but you're not only implying that a law that limits what a government can do should apply very real limits to the freedoms of private people and entities, AND that the law suit also apply outside of the USA?

      Honestly I have no idea how you got a +5 insightful.

      • Honestly I have no idea how you got a +5 insightful.

        Because some people can understand that what I was doing was mocking a sort of 105 IQ spergy type that loves to pedantically critique others and wave his dick in their face.

        Freedom of speech is a legal principle. Legal principles are downstream of culture norms. A culture that is increasingly virulently hostile to dissent is one in which legal principles of pluralism will be functionally dead letter.

        If you don't believe me, ask some old black folks how wel

    • This IS a violation of free speech BECAUSE the government demanded it. You clearly have not undestood what eveyone has been trying to tell you.

      You are ignorant, not an idiot. No one has ever taught you what free speech is.

      1) Free speech is the right of a person or corporation to say what it wants to say. It is violated when a government, as in this particular case, controls what is said. Both directly and indirectly, as in when it tells a corporation what it is allowed to say.

      2) Free speech is not vi

      • You are ignorant, not an idiot. No one has ever taught you what free speech is.

        While you were doing your best impression of another famous XKCD comic [xkcd.com], you failed to actually understand anything I said.

        At no point did I actually state anyone should be forced to host speech. What I did was a few things:

        1. Pointed out that Twitter is now aggressively defending the status quo among the ruling class against both class enemies and foreign governments with differing views. This constitutes a radical departure from

  • Publicly, Facebook has underscored that it cherishes free speech: "We believe freedom of expression is a fundamental human right, and we work hard to protect and defend these values around the world,"

    Unless, of course, doing so impacts the bottom line. I get it. You area profit making company and still want to look like one of the good guys.

    You'll understand why i won't shed a tear for you when governments decide to remove safe harbor provisions and hold you responsible for what is on your platform.

    I mea

  • and of course (Score:2, Informative)

    by superwiz ( 655733 )
    If they received a national security letter, it would be illegal for them to make the same admission in the US. They would have to silence people without any reasonable cause and stay quite about it or break the law.

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by Entrope ( 68843 )

      A National Security Letter [wikipedia.org] cannot make Facebook disable any content or otherwise silence anyone. It can only compel then to hand over potential evidence.

      • It can forbid them from revealing any requests, or threats, which they received from any security services.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by Entrope ( 68843 )

          No, it can forbid them from revealing what the letter itself asked for. It could claim to forbid Facebook from revealing other things, but Facebook would most likely love to take that to court to establish a precedent otherwise. The government actually has a terrible (for government powers, good for the rule of law and liberty) track record when it comes to NSLs: https://www.eff.org/issues/nat... [eff.org] .

          • Some of the links on the EFF page are now broken (they point to whitehouse.gov). But the EFF page page claims that 300,000 NSL have been issued in the past 10 years. Of which 7 (seven) were challenged in court. There is also no reason to think that a letter cannot make a request for a certain action AS WELL AS make a request for records. The request for records in an "active investigation" would allow FBI to certify.

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by Entrope ( 68843 )

              There is a very good reason to think that NSLs cannot ask for more general action: the laws that authorize them. Each law is very specific about what kind of records may be requested. The FBI (or whomever) cannot even ask for the contents of an email or web page. For Internet activity, the only records allowed are "billing and transactional communication service provider records".

              https://fas.org/irp/news/2007/... [fas.org] lists the codified laws for NSLs.

              • You keep posting links which contradict rather than support your statements. One of the types of records allowed to be requested (according to that link) is

                electronic communication transaction records;

                While Mirriam-Webster defines "transaction" as either

                an exchange or transfer of goods, services, or funds

                or

                a communicative action or activity involving two parties or things that reciprocally affect or influence each other

                Which means that (according to your link) the law is NOT very specific about what kinds of records may be requested. It essentially allows a request for a record of any communication.

                There is no reason to believe that a request (or "advice") for certain action to be performed (an action which tech

                • I can't edit posts, but the last paragraph should have said "...**can** be accompanied...." rather than "...cannot be accompanied..."

                • Re: (Score:2)

                  by Entrope ( 68843 )

                  Do not try to use a regular dictionary for legal jargon, because it is not how lawyers or courts apply it. Especially do not try to take words out of their context and think the context-free meaning tells you what that word means in context. Your mistaken approach is causing you to thoroughly misunderstand the law.

                  There is no reason to believe that a request (or "advice") for certain action to be performed (an action which technically cannot be required by the government, such as suppression of speech) ca

                  • Do not try to use a regular dictionary for legal jargon, because it is not how lawyers or courts apply it. Especially do not try to take words out of their context and think the context-free meaning tells you what that word means in context. Your mistaken approach is causing you to thoroughly misunderstand the law.

                    I am not interpreting legal terms in their plain-English meaning. And am not misunderstanding anything. Unless otherwise specified the words do have their plain-English meaning. Unless "transaction" is more narrowly defined somewhere, its dictionary definition is what is how it is used.

                    The government could "request' or give "advice" to do something like that, but the law [cornell.edu] is very clear that the non-disclosure is limited to the request for records. The recipient would be free to tell anyone or everyone that the government made the "request" or "advice".

                    Even a mediocre lawyer can get around this. I am not a lawyer, but a more formally-stated version of "we want all the communications made by X (and why would you be helping this bad guy(TM) anyway?)" would already present

                    • Re: (Score:2)

                      by Entrope ( 68843 )

                      I am not a lawyer

                      That is perhaps the only true thing you have said in this entire thread. You have wasted your time and mine with stupid hand-waving and uncured ignorance, all because you refused to admit that you were wrong at the start. And you persist(!) with hypotheticals that go beyond what the law authorizes in multiple ways.

                      The law says what it says, and no amount of interweaving will extend the non-disclosure requirements to requests for action. Courts have already limited or struck down similar

                    • That is perhaps the only true thing you have said in this entire thread. You have wasted your time and mine with stupid hand-waving and uncured ignorance, all because you refused to admit that you were wrong at the start.

                      That's a lot of preening from someone who has posted links which debunk their own assertions twice in a row. You have yet to establish enough competence to challenge mine. Not being a practitioner of a craft does not automatically, as you suggest, make one fully ignorant of the craft's core competencies.

                      it risks a court applying the same logic here

                      It has to be challenged in order for it to get to a court.

                      A court would almost certainly say that the non-disclosure only extends to the kind of request that is authorized by law, and that irrelevant requests -- like "why would you be helping this bad guy anyway?"

                      That's a legal opinion that almost rises to the level of legal advise. No competent lawyer would frame a point in such a way without some form of

                    • Re: (Score:2)

                      by Entrope ( 68843 )

                      You only think my links debunked my explanations because you are too stupid to understand what you read, much less to follow the breadcrumbs dropped for you. You have repeatedly demonstrated your incompetence, most recently by mistaking my prediction for being anything close to legal advice. It needs no disclaimer because it is nothing like legal advice. Stop being such a pestiferous troll.

                    • Stop being such a pestiferous troll.

                      I am nothing of the kind. I will continue debunking the whole "there is nothing to worry about" BS that you are trying to push.

  • They could have cut off the entirety of Turkey altogether to get out of the dilemma, then hire replacement turks [wikipedia.org].

  • Weren't Facebook pleading incompetence during the 2020 elections & the following insurrection on 6th January? Didn't they say they were unable to prevent or report criminal conspiracy & incitement to violence on their platform?

    Now they're saying they complied with Turkish government's request to filter out specific posts & groups in order to avoid being cut off from Turkey entirely. Apparently, they weren't cut off so presumably they were able to comply. I'm confused. Are they incompetent or not

    • Since they complied with one government censoring, they should be able to easily comply with our government's censorship demands!

    • Didn't they say they were unable to prevent or report criminal conspiracy & incitement to violence on their platform?

      No. They not only were able to prevent and report, they actively did. What they weren't able to do was rapidly identify.

      Now they're saying they complied with Turkish government's request to filter out specific posts & groups

      And the lovely Turkish government removed that specific hurdle from your false equivalence. (But I'll give you the benefit of doubt and assume you're ignorant rather than trying to push an agenda with your post).

      • I guess it depends on how you interpret the words, "tried to downplay" as applied to Sandberg's attempts at PR, as well as serving up ads for weapons alongside incitements to violence. It's hard to imagine how Facebook's algorithms could've been more active in promoting the insurrection.

  • Funny, that (Score:5, Insightful)

    by cascadingstylesheet ( 140919 ) on Sunday February 28, 2021 @10:20AM (#61108260) Journal

    Turns out that such decisions are always going to be political, by their very nature.

    You like their political decisions when they, say, ban Trump. But it turns out they are going to make some political decisions that you don't like too.

    It's almost as though there should be some sort of neutral principle operating here ...

    • It's almost as though there should be some sort of neutral principle operating here ...

      There is a neutral principle: Private entities can do what the heck they feel like when it comes to speech. It doesn't get much more neutral than that.

      • I still remember the outrage at Cambridge Analytical (and I was one of the outraged) and all the calls to heavily control, legislate what these platforms can do and even break then up. Now, a lot of those outraged, are praising those same companies and clapping that they have become judge, jury and executioner.

        Since I'm not a hypocrite, I maintain my position now: these platforms must stop doing whatever they please. What about you? That's a hardcore libertarian position, wholly out of character for a h

        • What about you?

          Me? I recognise the very real difference between handing over the private details of customers wholesale to 3rd parties for analysis, and the topic of freedom of speech, and I'm not dumb enough to lump them together into common legislation.

          Does Facebook need to be broken up? Yes
          Does the private data of citizens need to be regulated? Yes
          Does the choice of what speech to allow on Facebook or who they chose to block, or whose government's laws they chose to follow outside of your jurisdiction need to be regula

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by PPH ( 736903 )

        Private entities can do what the heck they feel like

        This isn't Facebook doing what it feels like. This is them bending to Turkey's wishes.

        • This isn't Facebook doing what it feels like. This is them bending to Turkey's wishes.

          Yep. That was Facebook's choice and Facebook's prerogative. If you think Facebook blindly follows every governments wishes I invite you to join us in Feb of 2020 and look at what Facebook was doing with Australia's wishes over the past 2 weeks.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Tom ( 822 )

      It's almost as though there should be some sort of neutral principle operating here ...

      Yeah, it's almost as if you should have a choice: Either you behave as a channel, a conduit, a communication network and don't judge, filter, select, censor based on content - or you do but then you can be held accountable for what you publish because then you're a publisher.

      Funny how they claim whatever suits them in a given moment. Even more funny how they get away with it.

      (and not at all funny that actually they're neither of those, as their actual business is advertising.)

  • Yes, we certainly wouldn't want a company to act in a certain way just to avoid a hit to their business.

    Now excuse me, while I go boycott and intimidate a company into doing my political bidding, by threatening a serious hit to their business if they don't comply.

  • ... YPG posts cannot be viewed within Turkey. The rest of the world can still see them. And when it comes time for the USA to decide whether we want to do business with Erdogan or his minions in the future, these posts will inform our public policy.

  • The internet, which grew out of ARPANET is designed to continue to function even if one or more of it's nodes are taken out, such as in a nuclear strike. In other words, it senses damage and routes around it.

    Censorship is seen as damage, and like the aftermath of a nuclear strike, will route around that.

    This will do nothing to stop Turkey's enemies from communicating, but it will allow Zukenburg to wash his hands of their activities.

  • Just for the short memory of today: We're talking about the YPG here. These men and women were the last stand against ISIS and saved countless lives. They were the ones a lot of the minorities who were left to die or straight sold out by the west turned to when they were being massacred by those the western media called "Syrian freedom fighters" before they realized that oopsie, they're islamic terrorists, murderers and slavers. These guys held the line when nobody else did.

    For that, they were first betraye

Slashdot Top Deals

An authority is a person who can tell you more about something than you really care to know.

Close