The only thing that matters to Facebook is money, and denying this mechanism to the Kazakh government, and the potential loss of the Kazakh audience, is simply a case of leaving money on the table to them.
Zuck has never shied away from his intentions to do business in China, he had even established himself as a Sinophile for that[1] and going as far as asking Xi to name his baby[2].
But the key take away here is, If 'China' refused the offer on the silver platter of a way to monitor, influence and subvert its entire population using Facebook then rest of the world should think twice about letting it inside their country.
I do wish there's technology to dispute obvious lies on the fly, because politicians are getting away with spewing sooo much bullshit.
E.g. whats-his-name from Texas blaming windmills for the big freeze in February. The problem is, lies are easy to regurgitate but the truth require paragraphs of reading...
Bit concerning for democracy when people are clamouring to offload political and moral decisions of the limits of free speech and regulation of online spaces to mark zuckerberg
Would it be concerning to democracy that we don't want the president of a large media conglomerate to the POTUS? No - the concentration of power itself is far too leveragable in an elected position. I say it isn't concerning in either case.
Owner/administrator choice is the sensible "default" option just by the very design (people who administer websited can administer websites by definition), and as there is no fixed website limit so despite the wailing and gnashing of teeth from reactionaries calling for a revival of the long dead fairness doctrine there is no rationale for it.
Isn't the US already directly flagging problematic facebook content?
This was the response from White House press secretary Jen Psaki given on July 15, 2021:
> MS. PSAKI: Sure. Well, first, we are in regular touch with these social media platforms, and those engagements typically happen through members of our senior staff, but also members of our COVID-19 team, given, as Dr. Murthy conveyed, this is a big issue of misinformation, specifically on the pandemic.
> In terms of actions, Alex, that we have taken — or we’re working to take, I should say — from the federal government: We’ve increased disinformation research and tracking within the Surgeon General’s office. We’re flagging problematic posts for Facebook that spread disinformation. We’re working with doctors and medical professionals to connect — to connect medical experts with popular — with popular — who are popular with their audiences with — with accurate information and boost trusted content. So we’re helping get trusted content out there.
I think that's a good idea (edit: i can't see why it's bad). FB are caught between a rock and a hard place. Damned if they censor, damned if they don't. Offloading the problem to the nearest government is more beneficial to everyone involved. FB was never about protecting free speech - it was about being a profitable enterprise, and why not?. The sooner this illusion falls away the better.
actually, this is a pretty interesting move by facebook.
* If they put themselves in the position of "guardians of morality" they will be steamrolled by the amount of content on their platform. Good enforcement would cost billions, automated methods suffer false positives and negatives.
* Putting themselves in that position also makes them responsible for the content on their platform, opening them up to lawsuits and sactions.
* Failure to enforce results in being banned from countries altogether.
the alternative, which I haven't thought of before now, would be "fine, here's some admin controls for your countries. Now you can hire some people and moderate content as you like". This seems like a pretty brilliant move. No longer are facebook responsible for bad moderation, each government is. FB also save themselves a ton of money.
Will this be better or worse for consumers in the end? I'm actually not sure. There are actually some valid upsides to delegating moderation to the governments of the world.
Sophie Zhang has been asking for parliaments to give her a hearing. Apart from a minor committe in the EU parliament her relevations (which are far more serious than the other FB revelations; people are dying here) have received little attention.
Philosophical question: does it matter whether the people doing the flagging the content are governments or activists or employees? To me it seems like a marginal difference. Yes I understand there is a power differential in that a government typically has an army and a monopoly on use of force. However, the effects of censorship are just as strong whether the policies are pushed by a centralized authoritarian government or a decentralized web of motivated political activists. The best FB can probably do is to allow free speech maximally within the bounds of their local jurisdiction.
The difference is that governments can use this to harm competition of other politicians or parties. Moderators flagging hate speech is not politically driven (ideally), and is "just" for the benefit of the community, not a politician.
> The statement quoted Facebook’s Regional Public Policy Director, George Chen, as saying the company hoped the measure would help the government deal with harmful content in a more efficient and effective manner. He said the company was working with Kazakhstan particularly on “online safety for children”.
I've always wondered how people who lie for a living feel.
How would this work in America. Would you want Trump flagging harmful content? Would you want Biden flagging harmful content. Is a government still by the people and for the people when the oligarchy tells the people what to think, say, and believe?
