
Facebook Said to Create Censorship Tool to Get Back into China - virtuabhi
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/22/technology/facebook-censorship-tool-china.html
======
caseysoftware
> _Facebook does not intend to suppress the posts itself. Instead, it would
> offer the software to enable a third party — in this case, most likely a
> partner Chinese company — to monitor popular stories and topics that bubble
> up as users share them across the social network, the people said.
> Facebook’s partner would then have full control to decide whether those
> posts should show up in users’ feeds._

This looks like a shadowban at scale. So you share something - potentially
putting yourself at risk to do so - but with the hope that others will see it.
The "local partner" decides that it doesn't show up in anyone's feeds but
still knows you posted it, so now you're a target.

Damn, that's evil.

~~~
dennisgorelik
> Damn, that's evil.

Yes it is evil, but it is Chinese government that is responsible for that, not
Facebook.

Realistically only some of the most popular messages would be affected.

It would not suppress political discussions at small scale (among several
friends).

It would not suppress popular messages that are not political.

I support Mark on that: it's better to have limited Facebook in China than not
to have Facebook in China at all.

~~~
kafkaesq
_Yes it is evil, but it is Chinese government that is responsible for that,
not Facebook._

Said every collaborator, active or passive, in every large-scale injustice or
abuse since the beginning of time.

------
anondon
A censored [favorite service] with state surveillance is better than no
[favorite service] is the new normal. Really?

It's kind of depressing to see where the world is going,, where the world
bends to the will of state actors eventually. Given a long enough timeframe
any draconian law can be made the new normal and I think that is what is
happening.

It's also sad to see the internet become a tool to control entire populations
and have them see and experience the world in a way that is convenient for
state actors. And every effort to circumvent state control gets regulated
before going mainstream. Eg- Look at Bitcoin, the calls for KYC norms, asking
customer data. Another example is Tor, numerous attempts to unmask users.

~~~
wallace_f
>It's kind of depressing to see where the world is going,, where the world
bends to the will of state actors eventually. Given a long enough timeframe
any draconian law can be made the new normal and I think that is what is
happening.

>It's also sad to see the internet become a tool to control entire populations
and have them see and experience the world in a way that is convenient for
state actors. And every effort to circumvent state control gets regulated
before going mainstream. Eg- Look at Bitcoin, the calls for KYC norms, asking
customer data. Another example is Tor, numerous attempts to unmask users.

I agree, and I have a question. What do you tell people when you don't use
Facebook? I don't feel like supporting this, but is there a good way to sum
this up for people that are non-informed (shit does that sound pretentious?
Trying to think of a better way to put it. I think most people would not
approve of Facebook and this associated trend you discuss, if they knew more
about it)?

~~~
brownbat
> What do you tell people when you don't use Facebook?

There are so many options.

* It's not 2006 anymore.

* That whole privacy thing, never can tell what they're doing with your data.

* I was creeped out when I saw a friend's face endorsing a product on a third party website thanks to FB. I couldn't be sure what my face was selling, so I dropped out.

* It's just gated internet, like AOL all over again. (Hat tip, Cringely.)

* People get addicted to FB, it's good to cut loose and experience the offline world every now and again, force real interactions.

* I think X social network is better.

* I'm a hipster / It's too popular.

* All my best friends use X instead.

* My whole family is on it.

* My whole family is not on it.

* Kept having fights with relatives.

* Spent too much time on it.

* Someone stole/hacked/forged my account once, it was a big hassle, so I've just stayed away.

* I stand with Native Americans / LGBT users / victims of abuse in protest of FB's true name policy.

* Facebook banned me after I [insert amusing story here].

* I don't want to upset Cameron Winklevoss.

~~~
odammit
I was on a first date and my date asked if I had a facebook. I said no (I
didn't) and we she asked why. I said, "because I could give a shit less" (or
something equally as cool).

She said it was "creepy" that I didn't have one and that I must be hiding
something.

SMH. I was hiding something, my privacy.

Now I use facebook and I'm a dopamine junkie looping hamster.

~~~
hmmwell
The question remains, did you miss out on getting to know an interesting
person, or did you dodge a bullet here?

~~~
odammit
Funny enough, after seeing the kind of nonsense she posted, I lost interest!

------
virtuabhi
"It’s better for Facebook to be a part of enabling conversation, even if it's
not yet the full conversation," Mr. Zuckerberg said, according to employees.

Larry Page (or, Eric Schmidt?) made a similar comment, before Google closed
China office after Chinese officials were found to be monitoring dissidents
through their internal tools, that censored Google is better than no Google.

~~~
Zarel
> Larry Page (or, Eric Schmidt?) made a similar comment, before Google closed
> China office

For the record, I agreed with Google that a censored Google was better than no
Google, and one of my biggest frustrations at the time was that sanctimonious
Americans seemed to think they knew better than me, someone who would actually
lose access to Google if they pulled out of China.

Google would tell me if search results were censored, and wouldn't shut down
my internet for a few hours if I accidentally typed the wrong thing, which was
much much better than anything else I had access to.

Then Google did pull out of China and it did suck and meanwhile Americans
celebrated it because it didn't affect them at all. Ugh.

> after Chinese officials were found to be monitoring dissidents through their
> internal tools

Google pulled out of China because Gmail got hacked and Google assumed the
hackers were affiliated with the Chinese government. I think the evidence
pointed in that direction but wasn't conclusive, but either way, I haven't
heard anything about monitoring dissidents through internal tools.

Anyway, I feel the same way about Facebook. It'd be nice to be able to access
Facebook and talk to my friends while in China, and having censored
communication is better than nothing.

~~~
dvcrn
> and wouldn't shut down my internet for a few hours if I accidentally typed
> the wrong thing

that is actually happening?

~~~
Zarel
Well, that was way back in I think around 2005? So I don't remember it _too_
clearly. But I remember a few times where I suddenly lost internet and the
people around me said "oh, you probably tried to go to a site you're not
allowed to, it'll come back in an hourish."

I haven't had that experience more recently, but I think that's partially
because HTTPS is everywhere these days and partially because I use VPNs a lot
more because I do need that Google/Facebook access.

------
est
Previously

> Facebook admits it must do more to stop the spread of misinformation on its
> platform

That is exactly what censorship is.

~~~
throwaway5752
This is sophistry. If I have a business, I can say "shirts and shoes
required". We have laws about protected classes that are vulnerable to
discrimination as exceptions, but on _my private property_ I can - within
proscribed legal limits - dictate acceptable behavior, and ask people not
adhering to those rules to leave.

You can dress it up, but Facebook is a private website. They do fancy stuff
with information they collect about you and use it to sell you ads. They have
terms of service that define acceptable behavior, and they have no SLA /
guarantee about what you share reaching others or what others share reaching
you. That is the deal.

If you don't like the deal, Facebook is not a right, and you can choose to not
use Facebook or not, depending on your morals.

Now, what the article described, "Facebook does not intend to suppress the
posts itself. Instead, it would offer the software to enable a third party —
in this case, most likely a partner Chinese company — to monitor popular
stories and topics that bubble up as users share them across the social
network, the people said. Facebook’s partner would then have full control to
decide whether those posts should show up in users’ feeds." <\- This is
completely censorship. Governments censor.

Facebook saying it doesn't want a bunch of Macedonian fake news click bait
stories crapping up it's platform is a business decision by a private company.

~~~
wu-ikkyu
Is it sophistry?

What is the definition of censorship?

>Censorship is the suppression of free speech, public communication or other
information which may be considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive,
_politically incorrect or inconvenient_ as determined by governments, _media
outlets_ , authorities or other groups or institutions.

How does this not fit under said definition? Whether or not the act is done by
a "public" or a "private" entity is irrelevant to the definition.

~~~
morgante
Does that mean if I'm the editor of a newspaper I'm required to publish every
letter to the editor I receive? Even if it's inarticulate neo-Nazi barf?

Censorship is something the government does. The First Amendment doesn't apply
to private entities. Private entities are not obliged to provide a platform
for whatever opinion you feel like spewing.

This topic has devolved into ridiculous flamewars.

~~~
colllectorof
So, if the government _asks nicely_ and Facebook "decides" to delete all your
posts, you claim that's not censorship?

~~~
morgante
No... if the government is getting involved at all I definitely think it's
censorship.

The Chinese case is obviously censorship. I don't think anyone disputes that.

~~~
est
> if the government is getting involved

How do you draw the line? What would you do if a politician ask you nicely?

~~~
morgante
"Fuck you, bring me a court order."

------
ryao
This is the opinion of an a US citizen who has family in China. In fact, I
just spent a month there visiting. My relatives are missing out on plenty
because various US companies will not compromise with the censors.

Rather than have crippled foreign options that are better than what they have
now, they get no foreign options at all. The lack of participation from
foreign companies encourages the development of domestic companies that are
far better at cooperating with censors than foreign companies ever could be.
It also decreases the strain on the censors, making censorship even more
effective. After all, there is no need to pay people to review foreign
language content on YouTube when it is blocked entirely.

Downvote me if you want, but the reality is that refusing to cooperate with
censors on things for Chinese IP addresses actually increases censorship.
Cooperation does not mean that those cooperating support the censors. However,
failure to cooperate does far more to support the censors than cooperation
ever could.

I could say more, but I probably have said too much already. Concern for my
family in China means that I can never truly speak freely on this topic in
public.

~~~
herbst
I see your point but not how it increases censorship. If this platforms would
show up then only because they are heavily censored. So what would change on
that front?

~~~
ryao
The censorship is a blacklist, not a whitelist. You try reviewing all content
added to YouTube in realtime and then decide what effect cooperation has on
censorship via black listing. Even media companies armed with the DMCA cannot
fully censor YouTube via blacklists in the form of DMCA takedown notices.
Furthermore, YouTube is just one example.

However, it makes for a fantastic analogy. The MPAA would be thrilled if
YouTube and every other video sharing site on the internet would just shut
down. That is effectively what the Chinese censors experienced when foreign
companies refused to cooperate. That is not just true for videos either, but
that is where the MPAA analogy breaks down.

By the way, I had edited my post for clarity before I saw your reply. Your
question might have already been answered by my clarifications.

~~~
herbst
Not sure if you ever used facebook. But to actually see new content you have
to use it basically non stop. Otherwise you will only see the "interesting"
content from hours ago.

Before someone explains me what the recent switch is. That shit is basically
broken since years and should be called "different order"

~~~
ryao
I have not used facebook. However, my remarks are far more relevant to Google
than Facebook. Facebook just happens to be in the same situation WRT Chinese
censorship though.

------
seertaak
I came here to point out the hypocrisy of condemning Facebook's censorship
tool while at the same time demanding something be done about "hate speech"
and "fake news".

Apparently, it's only censorship when _the others_ do it. When we do it, it's
to promote love, freedom, democracy, and "safety".

~~~
Mikushi
What hypocrisy? I reject both, many do.

I legitimately hate most western values (I am French of German & Portuguese
descent to give some context) for those reasons, hypocrisy central.

When I hear the French PM talk about our values, I want to go and ask him
about ravaging countries who have not asked for anything, about lying to the
general population, about helping entities getting away with ravaging our
planet, about helping regimes that are an open disgrace to these so called
value.

And also, where are our values when we support regimes such as the UK or US
who are stomping on them on a daily basis. The only freedom western society
tolerates is the freedom to agree with their views.

There is an illusion of freedom and democracy, we are only allowed to operate
and debate on a small spectrum, any deviation is squashed violently and
incorporated in the next generation teachings to make sure we format proper
citizen who support "our values" and don't go on a thinking spree.

~~~
welly
I'm not sure the values you talk of can be described as "western values". The
actions you talk of are those of western governments not of western people.

While some of what you say I absolutely agree with, particularly "freedom
western society tolerates is the freedom to agree with their views.", the
actions of my current government (Australian) and the actions of the
government in my home nation (the UK) are absolutely abhorrent and I certainly
don't endorse their behaviour.

But to be honest, are there values in any part of the world that are any
better? There's certainly worse. Given a free choice of where I would choose
to live, I'd pick western nations every single time, as while the behaviour of
our governments is utterly disgusting, they do at the very least give its
citizens freedom to behave mostly how we see fit and, to a degree, the freedom
to affect change in government.

------
jakobegger
here's the thing: Facebook has always censored posts. Try posting a picture of
a nipple -- will be removed instantly.

It's just that this is a form of censorship that most Americans find
acceptable.

For example in Austria, where I live, most people have other standards, and
Facebooks policies seem arbitrary. Recently, a story made the news where
Facebook repeatedly refused to remove a harassing video of a girl being beaten
by peers; we Austrians don't understand how Americans consider violent videos
"free speech" while being super strict about policing anything related to sex.

Some things like Nazi symbolism that are considered free speech in the US are
forbidden in most of Europe --- for a good reason! It took us a long time to
get rid of the old ideologies, we don't want them coming back!

~~~
jstanley
> Some things like Nazi symbolism that are considered free speech in the US
> are forbidden in most of Europe --- for a good reason! It took us a long
> time to get rid of the old ideologies, we don't want them coming back!

Sorry, that's not a good reason.

~~~
rmc
Stopping another Holocaust or Nazi regime is not a good reason?

~~~
Crespyl
Banning a symbol does nothing to prevent human evil.

------
ryenus
Yeah, censorship is really bad, but one positive aspect of FB available in
China is that someone can now challenge the sole monopoly of WeChat, which
Alibaba has been trying very hard but hasn't got much real outcome.

Talking about Google, as one living here, I really want Google to stay in
China, for me I know Google from its early days when there was no censorship
and the whole internet is freely (in terms of freedom) available, but looking
at the kids these days, within 10 years, they live in a kinda dark age that it
seems Google __never existed __. For me and people at my age, we can use
whatever tools /costs to be able to access the whole internet, but for most of
the young kids, their internet is much smaller than the real one, and I really
feel sorry when they have to rely on the EVIL baidu to search for things, and
baidu is infamous for all kinds of scams it relies on for its huge cash flow,
which it pursues without any ethical bottom line.

The existence of Bing makes things a little better, but far from what Google
can (or used to) bring if it's available in China, that probably will also
relief the monopoly issue of WeChat, which is much worse than the similar
issue with FB in US and other counties due to the absence of Google and
related medias.

------
russdill
"If you work for Facebook, quit. It is morally indefensible for you to use
your skills to make that company more powerful. By working there, you are
making the world an objectively worse place. I'm sure you can find a job
working for a company that you don't have to apologize for all the time.

You can do it. I believe in you."

\-- jwz

~~~
BinaryIdiot
Alternatively don't quit and work hard to enact change within the organization
because it isn't going to happen all by itself.

I can understanding wanting to quit and wanting others to quit when a company
is doing something morally questionable but this simply means the people who
object are leaving while the ones fine with it gain a larger mind share within
the company. It's my opinion that an inside dissenter has more power than a
quit-in-protest when it ultimately comes down to changing things.

~~~
rubberstamp
Majority of employees often don't have much say in policy. Quitting is the
right thing to do. If no one quits everyone, both leadership and employees,
thinks "It must be me as no one else has a problem with it". It applies to
customers as well.

~~~
BinaryIdiot
> Majority of employees often don't have much say in policy.

Going to have to disagree with you there. I think you'd be surprised how far
you can take your ideas and concerns if you're willing to be assertive enough.
I've worked in start-ups and companies with over 100,000 employees and if I've
found something I felt needed to be changed I was able to find someone in the
right place to talk about it with.

This isn't a retail employee trying to talk to corporate scenario (which,
let's face it, good luck enacting change company wide when you're in retail).
This is a technology company. Almost everyone I know at the major tech
companies have at least chatted with the CEOs and other executives from time
to time.

> Quitting is the right thing to do. If no one quits everyone, both leadership
> and employees, thinks "It must be me as no one else has a problem with it".
> It applies to customers as well.

I've been in a scenario where 7 out of 10 people on a team quit within weeks
due to ethical concerns. I can assure you management had zero thoughts about
anything being wrong, etc. They all thought it was simply a coincidence.

Now this is anecdotal but I was part of a large group who also quit in a
similar fashion (approx 70 of 130 quit within 3 months IIRC). As far as
everyone who was left could find out, their management felt almost exactly the
same way.

Maybe Facebook and others would "get it" if people quit I'm just not
convinced.

~~~
rubberstamp
Management that takes critism positively without tit for tat attitude is not
everywhere. By your own account you said "if you could find the right person
to talk to, things could be changed from within". Well, is it employees' job
to find the right feedback channel? Its the management's job to set up the
right channels and make their employees aware of existance of such channels
were they can give their feedback without fear of retaliation in any form.
This feedback shouldn't be discarded or go into a black hole inbox. It should
be openly addressed and appropriate action taken.

For bad examples for such process Snowden for one told he did go through such
internal channels. Also Manning. Whistleblowers seems to be retaliated against
with so much prejudice.

Also quitting a company that displays many such questionable ethical choices
would feel good for my morale. Most people don't have such financial
independence (runway) to quit and so they keep their jobs and keeps their
opinions to themselves.

~~~
BinaryIdiot
> Management that takes critism positively without tit for tat attitude is not
> everywhere. By your own account you said "if you could find the right person
> to talk to, things could be changed from within". Well, is it employees' job
> to find the right feedback channel? Its the management's job to set up the
> right channels and make their employees aware of existance of such channels
> were they can give their feedback without fear of retaliation in any form.

Sure. But a company that won't take feedback seriously I don't see why they
would do anything when a large amount of people quit either.

At least in my experience if they're not receptive nothing but massive failure
will actually change anything.

> For bad examples for such process Snowden for one told he did go through
> such internal channels.

To be fair we still don't know the extent of his attempts. He claims he sent
emails to district heads but many in the DoD space know those typically are
figure heads with little ability to change anything and there are better
channels to go through. Granted I have no idea if it would have made any
difference but I'm hesitant to use his example as one where a feedback channel
failed.

> Also quitting a company that displays many such questionable ethical choices
> would feel good for my morale. Most people don't have such financial
> independence (runway) to quit and so they keep their jobs and keeps their
> opinions to themselves.

Fair enough! :)

------
supernintendo
Really puts the idea of "fake news" in a new perspective.

~~~
leesalminen
All this talk of "fake news" recently has been scaring the crap out of me. I
consume all types of "news" from the whole spectrum; left, right, center,
lunatic fringe, everything. I've come to the conclusion that anything called
"news" is roughly 80% bullshit, 15% ads, 5% truth. Sometimes you swap the
bullshit to ads ratio.

~~~
vanattab
I agree 100%. I mostly lean left on most issues but I am growing more and more
unconformable with the tactics and the attitudes of lots of liberals.

~~~
CaptSpify
This election really bugged me. A lot of people are complaining about right-
wing news right now, but the left was spouting off some terrible stuff and
presenting complex issues as clearly one-sided.

------
Keverw
> The social network has quietly developed software to suppress posts from
> appearing in people’s news feeds in specific geographic areas

Sounds like it's just censoring in China then. As long as they don't start
censoring US content, I'm happy.

Facebook is probably doing censorship anyways without this China tool. I talk
to a friend in Germany and he was telling me how the German government is mad
at Facebook. There's some law that makes Facebook censorship Holocaust denial
and hate speech posts. Which I guess if they have an office in Germany or even
the maybe EU I guess they have to follow it but there's news story of there
justice minster saying they have to do it.
[http://www.jpost.com/Diaspora/Germany-warns-Facebook-
Clamp-d...](http://www.jpost.com/Diaspora/Germany-warns-Facebook-Clamp-down-
on-Holocaust-denial-or-else-413595)

But from my understanding, all censoring is geo-located as is. So they could
block those posts in Germany only, but in the US they'd still show up. I don't
really support a government censoring speech even if I agree or didn't agree
with the speech but I guess it doesn't really effect me so I don't really
care. Germany or China isn't my government. Plus I grew up with American
ideologies. America is one of the few nations left with free speech it seems.

~~~
yAnonymous
German here. Facebook gave a private company (Bertelsmann/Arvato) that works
directly for the government free reign to delete/censor as they see fit.

The laws regarding hate speech are so blurry that it practically gives them
permission to remove anything they want and that's exactly what they do. They
don't only delete content that is strictly against the law, but also content
that is government critical, because it "incites public unrest".

They also remove content that promotes other political parties.

~~~
Keverw
Interesting. So possibly even the same tool the article mentions, but
different rules/config/people setup with access then for China.

Also interesting they have a private company working directly for the
government. I figured in those cases someone from the German gov would have to
mail or fax a letter to Facebook for every individual request, sorta like how
DMCA works. Super spooky sounding they'd just outsource it to another company.
Does sound it like's ripe for abuse then since you mention censoring content
promoting other political parties. Seems like once the tool is setup, Facebook
is then no longer directly involved beyond that point.

On another note, I am super surprised how many political parties Germany has
compared to here in America. Seems like more choices, the better.

~~~
germanier
That company does not work directly for the government but is contracted by
Facebook directly.

As far as I'm aware that team actively monitors content and doesn't need to
have an explicit request to remove something.

I also have never seen an example that is just critical of the governing
parties which was supposedly removed (every single example I saw was of the
type "hang chancellor Merkel"). My Facebook feed is full of people promoting
opposition parties from the complete political spectrum.

~~~
yAnonymous
No. It's Facebook that pays them (because they have to), but they work by
government guidelines.

If you take a look at the company behind it, you will find that they have
their legs knee-deep in the government's ass.

[https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bertelsmann_Stiftung](https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bertelsmann_Stiftung)

One example is the German Anonymous channel. It was obviously fake, anti
immigration and promoted the AFD (right wing party), but none of that is
against the law. It had a ton of followers (I think in the six digits) and was
removed just like that.

------
known
"Media does not spread free opinion; It generates opinion" \--Oswald, 1918
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decline_of_the_West](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decline_of_the_West)

~~~
blahi
The decline of the West? Published in 1918 and followed by the best 100 years
in human history?

I like the quote but the irony is just too big for me.

~~~
jon-wood
Yup, World War II was a ball. Everyone loved that, thought it was a highlight
of human history (I'll concede the following fifty years have been pretty good
if you live in the right part of the world with the right descendants).

~~~
blahi
They have been good for every part of the world. And wars are a fact for the
entirety of human civilization.

I'll take doubling the life expectancy of people China, India, Pakistan,
Bangladesh, other Asian counties, as well as most of Africa as a "concession".
Thank you very much!

------
danielmorozoff
The cyberpunk future we were warned about is really coming to fruition.

------
superquest
I'm traveling in Vietnam and the local friends that I've made all agree that
the most liberalizing / westernizing force is Vietnamese-American Facebook
friends. It seems like just the passive influence of friends living in a
different culture can have an impact. I wonder if the same thing would happen
over time in China?

As it stands it's kinda tough to maintain past friendships that I've made
traveling in China. As soon as I stopped using WeChat, all those friendships
died.

------
amasad
It'd be interesting to read if Chine has any good reasons for censorship. This
is mostly likely a taboo question to ask in hacker communities but I wouldn't
rule out that there are good reasons for censoring.

In fact, I have an anecdotal story about where censorship might make sense. In
Jordan, we had Islamists subtly inciting jihad using online news outlets on
benign things like Halloween parties. Calling them "satanist rituals" and in
at least one case that incited violence against a group of people at a
Halloween party.

In the West free speech is better understood, however, it's not the case in
many parts of the world. The concept might not even exist.

~~~
paradite
I have commented on this issue several times here on HN.

I have 3 main points on why censorship can be justified in the context of
China: preventing spread of rumours, unique culture background which values
stability more than anything else, and different stage of development as other
countries hence different priorities.

Here you can see my comments:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12934732](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12934732)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11405320](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11405320)

I wouldn't go into the realm of conspiracies where you have the Western
propaganda deliberately destabilizing China for their strategic interests,
since they are not backed up with facts.

~~~
amasad
That's interesting but a bit too general, anything more concrete to read -- a
book for example -- to understand what's "unique" and what "different
priorities".

~~~
paradite
Here is an interesting piece of research on this topic:

[http://gking.harvard.edu/files/gking/files/censored.pdf?m=14...](http://gking.harvard.edu/files/gking/files/censored.pdf?m=1447795312)

Also, you can use Google Scholar to find those that you are interested:

[https://scholar.google.com.sg/scholar?hl=en&q=china+censorsh...](https://scholar.google.com.sg/scholar?hl=en&q=china+censorship&btnG=&as_sdt=1%2C5&as_sdtp=)

------
bbarn
I feel like anyone reading this, on this news site, should be telling every
friend and family member they have to abandon facebook, if they aren't
already. We, the "guy/gal I know who's really good at tech stuff" need to be
the example here, and show in very simple terms why facebook should not be
trusted with our information.

~~~
kbart
And what do you say them when they ask: "where do we go then"? The real
problem is, that there's no good enough alternative.

~~~
bbarn
I've enjoyed having no alternative for several years. Not being constantly
tied to status updates from others is very freeing, I'd suggest trying that
for a while.

~~~
kbart
_You_ might, but we are talking about broad circle of ordinary people here,
most of whom spend considerable time on Facebook and will not leave it unless
you give them a _very_ good reason (privacy concerns, ethical reasons won't
fly here, trust me) to do that or offer an attractive alternative. Good luck
trying to convince some teenage girl to live at least _a day_ without social
media.

~~~
bbarn
"It got trump elected" worked on my 17 year old daughter :)

------
ambicapter
I wish for a dream world where every company faced with trying to drum up
business in countries known for human rights violation instead focus on
putting their own countries so far ahead economically that those latter
countries have no choice but to 'play nice'. I'm aware a lot of people aren't
fans of cultural exportation but this is just a half-formed thought.

------
api
This will almost certainly be used everywhere, not just China.

Us crypto cyber libertarian geeks have been warning about the problem of
closed silos and Internet centralization for over a decade.

I kind of hate being right, given that the reality is turning out to actually
be a lot worse than what I feared. I mostly was concerned in the past with
loss of ability to innovate and surveillance, but the collision of deep
learning, big data, and closed communication platforms is making those
concerns seem petty.

The potential for massive scale propaganda and discourse shaping bordering on
outright mind control is unbelievable. Imagine an invisible automated agent
participating in every human conversation and quietly steering it toward
desired topics and outcomes and away from undesirable ones. It's intimate
influence at scale.

------
perseusprime11
Shit some people do to make money. That's all I have to say.

------
emodendroket
They can hit two birds with one stone since they keep talking about wanting to
filter the things people share in the US too.

------
olalonde
I know it's not a popular opinion here but there's an argument to be made that
a censored Facebook would do more good than no Facebook at all. It's not like
Facebook being blocked in China is going to spark a popular revolt or reduce
government censorship/spying. It could help, for one, expose more Chinese to
Western culture and vice versa.

For me however, the strongest argument is that nearly everyone in China would
prefer a censored Facebook to no Facebook at all and I'm humble enough to
accept that they know, better than me, what's best for them.

~~~
_rpd
I think the concern is that if Facebook builds sophisticated censorship tools
for China, the temptation for other nations to adopt them will become
overwhelming. The Chinese level of censorship could become a defacto standard
without a robust conversation about what that means for society.

Even those enthusiastically calling for censorship of 'fake news' may be given
pause for thought when considering how those tools might be used by political
opponents.

~~~
drdaeman
This. I'm sure our Russian government would absolutely love to have the
similar level of control. Currently, Facebook's too big for them (although
they test the water with LinkedIn), but this is a clear signal.

And more countries (e.g. Kazakhstan) will likely follow the suit.

~~~
kbart
Facebook is not very big in Russia and I wouldn't be surprised if it is banned
as LinkedIn soon. Most of ordinary Russians use VKontakte.

------
akerro
For a moment I thought that Facebook might be a good guy when they launched
facebookcorewwwi.onion, to let users from China and other unfriendly
governments access Facebook and bypass local censorship.

~~~
herbst
Note sure if that changes but for a while you could not evem create accounts
on the onion, at least without enabling fingerprinting.

~~~
akerro
What do you mean by fingerprinting?

~~~
herbst
Using identification techniques. Its a big topic if it interests you try to
google it :)

~~~
herbst
Sorry drunk at that point. So nothing would be of value

------
SZJX
I simply find it ironic as hell that people demand Facebook "ban fake news" on
one hand and then bash it for developing "censorship tools" on the other. Come
on, what's the difference between the two at all? So what kind of authority is
Facebook to decide whether a piece of news is "fake" or not? This is very,
very dangerous and stupid if you are truly trying to hold on to your
proclaimed "freedom of speech" or whatnot. As Greenwald very well put it, the
Democratic Party are just scrambling to find every kind of scapegoat they can
find, without ever admitting they themselves are the problem. Come on, people
didn't vote for Trump because they were misguided by "fake" news, or to put it
another way, news that don't work in the Democrats' favor. People did so
because the alternative is simply too horrible/hopeless for them to
contemplate. Simple as that.

So either you admit that what China has been doing is essentially not anything
different from what you're demanding all over the place now (actually, the
majority of the "censorship" in China is against smearing campaigns which
entail totally false accusations against the Communist Party, which could be
potentially very socially unsettling in their eyes), or you admit that what
you've been demanding is some absolutely stupid and dangerous nonsense.
Otherwise it's just another example of western hypocrisy, bias and double
standards against China at its finest.

------
rfolstad
I think for fb to enter china it would first need to allow china to spy on its
citizens. This censorship tool is just something they can publicly say they
changed to allow them in.

------
betolink
"Making the world a better place"(tm) The hypocrisy of Silicon Valley is off
the charts.

------
pasta
I see a lot of people complaining about what Facebook does. Censorship, fake
news, manipulating your mood by changing what you see.

Apparently nobody cares because they are still using Facebook.

But why even use a tool that can misguide you, can manipulate you, you cannot
trust? I can't understand this.

Dropping Facebook years ago didn't make me a loner or a stranger. Dropping
LinkedIn didn't make me jobless. Dropping Google didn't make me miserable.

------
codedokode
Facebook would not be the first american company cooperating with chinese
government. I remember Skype has a special version for China with censorship
module built in. You can even find a list of censored words on the Internet.

Chinese government made it so that they win anyway: either Facebook cooperates
or it is blocked and people use some local censored social network.

------
vermontdevil
Are there any competition that is similar to Facebook in China?

Like Weibo to Twitter, etc.

~~~
yvsong
China's social network is WeChat. I suspect it's too late for Facebook to
enter. With censored contents, what's Facebook's attraction to ordinary
Chinese people? Without censorship, it would be a huge attraction.

~~~
blahi
You severely underestimate the "western" appeal in communist countries, I
think.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=amx-
JHhtsHw](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=amx-JHhtsHw)

------
schuke
Without the censored Google, search experience in China, monopolized by Baidu,
has been stalling, even deterioratig for years. Lack of competition does so
much more harm than censorship. I as an internet user in China applaud
Facebook's rational effort to bring more competition and social connectivity
with the world to China.

------
bogomipz
From a Guardian article a couple of weeks ago:

'He also rejected the idea that people’s news feeds are becoming increasingly
personalized to the point that opposing views are no longer visible – a
phenomenon known as the filter bubble.'

“We’ve studied it a lot. I really care about this,” he said, adding that in
order to have a good impact on the world he wants people to have a “diversity
of information”.

Source:

[https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/nov/10/facebook-...](https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/nov/10/facebook-
fake-news-us-election-mark-zuckerberg-donald-trump)

------
zecg
> “It’s better for Facebook to be a part of enabling conversation, even if
> it’s not yet the full conversation,”

It's also nice to be surrounded by people, even if you're hitting them on the
head one by one as they drop into a mass grave.

------
natural219
Now that fervor over "fake news" is reaching a boiling point, and people are
now paying attention to the fact that information (particularly that from
social media) shapes their entire material, even political, lives...

...makes totally sense for them to go full bore & embrace philosophies of more
central control over who gets access to what information. After all, isn't
that what everyone is clamoring for?

------
codeisawesome
The world is eating software.

------
mheiler
It's an improvement for the people in China.

------
bitL
This is necessary as a salami method of bringing changes to China's policies
in a generation or two when the old guards die out, a usual exercise in social
engineering, given West is still relevant by then. Having said that, I am glad
I am gone off Facebook and have means to block their tracking over unrelated
Internet sites.

------
bootload
_" The social network has quietly developed software to suppress posts from
appearing in people’s news feeds in specific geographic areas"_

Censorship, suppression tools, fake news, Fb is moving into dystopian
Sterling, Stephenson and Gibson territory.

 _“It’s better for Facebook to be a part of enabling conversation, even if
it’s not yet the full conversation,”_

Is the mission statement changing here? In 2010 I remember ploughing through
_" The Facebook Effect"_ on a plane to Singapore, reading about ^glowing
reports^ of dissidents using Fb to organise themselves. The winds have
changed. I'm more inclined to agree with Eben Moglens description of Fb as _"
PHP do-dads where you get spying for free"_.

[0]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Facebook_Effect](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Facebook_Effect)

[1]
[http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/02/17/eben_moglen_freedom_...](http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/02/17/eben_moglen_freedom_box/)

------
return0
At some point not far from today the western governments should legislate
freedom of speech in social media. We are now at 40% of people getting their
news from them. Is that not a big enough number to stop pretending they are
"just private companies"?

------
amckinlay
Are there any open source alternatives to Facebook similar to what GNU Social
is to Twitter?

~~~
ctrl_freak
Yeah, if you're referring to a mediocre replacement which no one uses, I guess
there's diaspora:
[https://www.joindiaspora.com/](https://www.joindiaspora.com/)

------
Double_Cast
"Let a hundred flowers bloom; let a hundred schools of thought contend."

------
odammit
I've always been curious if China's censorship of content included examining
files for steganography.

I could imagine a tumblog of cat pics packed with all things you aren't
supposed to know.

------
lgxz
1\. They order you to censor contents; 2\. They order you to give them the
account of censored contents; 3\. They find real person of the accounts and
put them into prison.

~~~
paradite
1\. They do not order you to censor contents.

2\. They kill the real person on the streets.

------
toodlebunions
Isn't everyone going to want access to this same tool?

------
cmdrfred
Facebooks new business model CAAS Censorship as a service, at home and abroad.
William Randolf Hurst would be proud. Time for me to cancel my account.

------
meshr
What's a shame. So all facebook users will sponsor worlds biggest censorship.
Next step, facebook will sell censorship rights to anyone.

------
fiatpandas
Knowing that the reality of censorship is the same as existing networks (e.g.
WeChat), what appeal does a Chinese Facebook have for Chinese?

------
yzh
The question is, do people in China really need Facebook now? I used to live
in China and I still have lots of connections there, none of my friends are
using Facebook-like social network services. People are using Wechat (a
mobile-based semi-private social network), weibo (a Twitter clone with more
features), and Zhihu (a Quora clone), and a zillion live streaming share
sites. All the Facebook clone sites in China are dying.

That being said, I agree that this is still an evil move for Facebook.

------
clusmore
Funnily enough, I'm in China right now and it appears NYT is blocked here
because I can't load the article.

------
ljk
what are the chances this story will be considered as "fake news" and end up
getting buried by facebook?

------
amelius
Why don't the Chinese use VPNs or Tor on a larger scale to circumvent all of
this?

Is it a matter of convenience?

~~~
venomsnake
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Firewall](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Firewall)

------
agumonkey
So much for fixing fake news. Or maybe Zuck is getting into Minsky semantics
territory.

------
kristopolous
If you're in china, create a forest of information.

------
devy
Disclaimer: I was born and grew up in China in the first half of my life and
been calling USA home the second half. And I am fortunate enough to be the
first generation who grow up during the PC era and Internet era.

With the high likelihood of getting massively down voted given the predominant
sentiments here, I am still going to to play the devil's advocate. So here it
is: I am applauding Facebook's plan to enter China to connect 721+ million
people(netizen count is not 1 billion as some of you claimed, see [1].
Population is 1.4 billion and a little over half of that have access to
Internet.) and their pragmatic approach to get to that goal.

So you may ask why I am applauding FB bending over backwards to the censorship
(which btw I don't agree to). Considering these:

1\. Majority of the rules people here disputes in Chinese media censorship
laws are political related[2]. But Facebook is NOT a political platform per
se. So to me, by entering the Chinese market, it makes sense to put aside some
ideology disagreements as a trade off to serve and connect the 721 million
people who otherwise wouldn't have for a slew of FB services. And it's
probably making a lot of economic sense for FB as well.

2\. The tech-savvy few who will always be able to access the uncensored
Internet anyway, so by agreeing to the local laws of censoring on one social
platform does not significantly impact the freedom of speech. In fact, VPNs
are popular and becoming the norm for younger generation who access
information, which was dubbed as "climbing over the wall"[3]

3\. Any company or mission claiming "organize the world's information" or
"connecting the world" but fail to service half of the world is a joke. And
yes, Chinese Internet users are accounted for that half[1] of the Internet
world. By retreating or not entering(or getting involuntarily banned for that
matter), they are doing a dis-service to the Chinese Internet users due to
lack of absence[4].

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_number_of...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_number_of_Internet_users)

[2] [http://www.hrichina.org/sites/default/files/PDFs/State-
Secre...](http://www.hrichina.org/sites/default/files/PDFs/State-Secrets-
Report/HRIC_StateSecrets_02.pdf)

[3]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_censorship_circumvent...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_censorship_circumvention)

[4]
[https://books.google.com/books?id=V1u1f8sv3k8C&pg=PA313#v=on...](https://books.google.com/books?id=V1u1f8sv3k8C&pg=PA313#v=onepage&q&f=false)

------
eva1984
Laugh aloud, so long ideological America, welcome to the era of pragmatism!

------
markharris99
So there have been other posts discussing ethics.

About how developers should stand up and rail against their managers/CEOs when
the company has asked them to build something unethical.

Where are all the developers now? That's right, underneath their desks coding
away. The great ZUCK has spoken and as true CUCKs they bowed down and did his
bidding.

No one on the development team is going to speak out. They need their
lifestyle maintained.

The hipocrasy is not unexpected. To the world, developers will scream ethics.
In private, they will cave, back to their safe spaces no doubt!

------
kapitza
Mr. Zuckerberg was even more optimistic about the possibility of using the
same tool to suppress fake news in the US. "China is a beta-test with a
billion users," he said.

~~~
barsonme
Funny. Almost reads like an Onion article :-)

------
Jerry2
Facebook sold out. So sad. Time to rm my account.

~~~
rodgerd
"Sold out"? This implied they were ever anything other than a money-making
machine.

~~~
ng-user
This guy's got it.

------
olalonde
I think you're being a bit hyperbolic, HN uses the same mechanism (shadow
banning) for moderation.

~~~
rwmj
Shadow-banning in HN works differently in that users can choose to see shadow-
banned comments. If I ever felt that a user was being censored then I could
(a) read the censored material, and (b) tell the user that they were being
shadow-banned. This has never happened so far, I see no evidence that HN is
shadow-banning as a form of political control.

~~~
vuanotinu
You can't tell a user he's shadowbanned because posts by shadowbanned users do
not have a reply button.

~~~
detaro
You can vouch for dead comments, they become visible and reply-able.

------
EJTH
Why create a new one? Who not just use the one they use for Europeans and
Americans?

------
kristianov
Breaking news: CEO of Fortune 500 company is a hypocrite. /s

~~~
boredpudding
Why hypocrite? It's way better for Facebook to do business in China with
censorship, than do no business in China at all. Otherwise other companies
will just take that role and do the same Facebook would do.

~~~
netsharc
"It's better for us to cooperate with this regime which goes against our core
values of enabling speech, rather than not make money."

Oh wait, that's not their core value is it. Their core value is... MONEY!

------
aedron
A million users isn't cool. A billion users though...

------
mSparks
And then one day. By accident or design. It stops working.

------
meira
Hello, Uber 2.0. WeChat greets you.

------
imaginenore
"Social" Network.

------
cryoshon
Zuck: Yeah so if you ever need info about anyone at Harvard

Zuck: Just ask

Zuck: I have over 4,000 emails, pictures, addresses, SNS

[Redacted Friend's Name]: What? How'd you manage that one?

Zuck: People just submitted it.

Zuck: I don't know why.

Zuck: They "trust me"

Zuck: Dumb fucks

------
trub
tight. compromising human rights values for capital gains! nice!

------
DominikR
Who is "we Austrians"? I'm an Austrian and I have no problem with Facebook not
censoring that video!

Just so everybody here knows why the Austrian government wanted it banned: It
showed how Muslim immigrants beat up a 16 year old girl and broke her jaw,
reportedly as punishment because she dared to pull the veil off a Muslim girl.

That doesn't sit well with our government that wants to invite all of the
Middle East here!

And probably the same is true for jakobegger, who enjoys freedom of speech
only when it is an opinion that he isn't offended by, otherwise censorship is
very much appreciated.

~~~
dang
I have no opinion about Austrian politics but you can't post like this here,
and we've asked you so many times not to, that I'm banning your account. It's
one thing if people intend to use HN in good faith and don't know what the
rules are; quite another to just keep flouting them. The personal attack in
your comment was also egregious.

Using HN primarily for political or ideological battle is poison here.
Regardless of what your politics or ideology are, this site exists to gratify
intellectual curiosity, not weaponized conversation. This is particularly
critical, because we can't have both: the one simply tramples the other, and
that's not ok.

We detached this subthread from
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13020908](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13020908)
and marked it off-topic.

------
trub
tight

------
morgante
I'm flagging this article because while the topic itself is totally on-topic,
the discussion has devolved into ridiculous discussions of "censorship of fake
news" which is a totally different problem.

~~~
hartator
Or maybe not. I am pretty sure dissident views in China are or can be labeled
as something close to what we mean by "fake news". Having a big beta test for
Facebook in China can also facilitate the expansion of a similar tech to the
U.S.

~~~
morgante
Nobody is proposing that the government decide what is "fake news" in the US.
Thinking that developing such an algorithm for China (a massive market where
censorship is a requirement) is a beta test for a similar tool in the US
(where attacking "fake news" is a minor problem) has their priorities out of
whack.

------
devoply
What part of the business' only imperative is to make money for its
shareholders did you not understand? Do you really think any of these people
care about any of the values that you hold dear? Maybe in the back of their
minds. Maybe. But business as usual means that you do whatever to make money,
and to make more money and increase your social and political power and market
share. Sell secrets to governments? Sure. Unless it gets out and causes bad
P/R. Then you do damage control, that usually involves scapegoating a someone,
but that's just an opportunity for another company to exploit, and there are
an infinite number of those and a limited number of consumers.

~~~
idlewords
There is not an infinite number of companies like Facebook.

~~~
devoply
No there are an infinite number of companies that can be created that service
government needs. So someone will. Recently a company cut its staff in half
because Twitter and FB cut them out of their streaming service after the media
and ACLU reported that they were using to monitor protesters. But what do you
want to bet that another company will not take its place? Supply and demand.

~~~
idlewords
There is also not an infinite number of other companies.

------
siculars
Remember when Apple was like na, we're not gonna build that feature for you
Uncle Sam cause then you and every other government will abuse it. They must
have allowed China to backdoor the iPhone. Also, this is evil.

Forget China and forget doing things they want them done. There are more
people in the world not in China than in China. Would you rather the world be
more like the USA or more like China? For better or worse I say USA.

This is how manufacturing left the US. We allowed it to happen. Why is there
no regulation that says if you build stuff anywhere it has to be to US labor
standards? I think that's what Bernie and Trump were getting at. Fair trade. I
would put this Facebook debacle in that bucket.

Downvote away!

------
dkarapetyan
Don't they own all that content according to their TOS? So what exactly is
being censored when the content is owned by the same company that is choosing
whether to show or not show certain content?

Edit: I stand corrected. They don't own the content. They can just do whatever
they want with it.

Muddied thinking when it comes to these things doesn't help anyone. Facebook
is not a champion of democracy or human rights. They're a business. No one
should expect their core value system to be aligned with anything more than
making more money and we should use the proper words. When they virtually own
the content by asking you to allow them to do what they want with it we
shouldn't call it censorship when it is suppressed. It's not like facebook
went to the library and burned all the books that said bad things about China.
It's more like the book was never put on a shelf to be accessible to begin
with.

~~~
detaro
> _Don 't they own all that content according to their TOS?_

No they don't. They have extensive usage rights to it, but they don't own it.

