
Facebook is not equipped to stop the spread of authoritarianism - dhirajd
https://techcrunch.com/2018/12/24/facebook-government-silence-dissent-authoritarianism/
======
AlexandrB
Nor should it be.

The way discussions about Facebook policing content are framed rubs me the
wrong way. Facebook _should not_ be put in a position where it's responsible
for dealing with authoritarianism, extremism, and other societal ills. The
only reason it _seems_ like it has to do this is that we've allowed Facebook
to become a near-monopoly on a certain form of social networking.

The solution is not trying to compel or convince Facebook to act as an arbiter
of morality for the world; it is to _break Facebook up_ and restrict it's
ability to monopolize the online space. Real competition in social networking
would mean communities could form their own rules and norms around what's
acceptable - like in the forum era - without relying on a central authority
such as Facebook to do it for them. A decentralized protocol/system like
Mastodon allows this kind of partitioning of the social space.

Would this _stop_ authoritarianism? No. But it would turn censorship into a
game of whack-a-mole, and limit the spread of authoritarian ideas to the
social networks whose communities are already OK with that.

~~~
closeparen
"Communities could form their own rules and norms around what's acceptable" is
exactly the problem. The criticism against Facebook is that it failed to stop
this, and communities emerged with norms too far away from mainstream.
Facebook "didn't do enough" to enforce mainstream norms on all its dark
corners. Facebook critics generally want _more_ centralization so that people
are exposed to opposing viewpoints and a uniform sensibility on what is and
isn't true.

More decentralization is a recipe to spiral further and further into
fragmented echo chambers with their own self-reinforcing ideologies and their
own alternative facts.

~~~
ordu
_> Facebook critics generally want more centralization so that people are
exposed to opposing viewpoints and a uniform sensibility on what is and isn't
true._

The sad part of it, to my mind, is those who critisize Facebook for this want
to be exposed for opposing viewpoints to be able to fight opposing viewpoints.
I do not want my viewpoints were exposed to those who oppose it. Opposition is
too way ready to fight, I'm not. I'm happy to discuss them, but not to fight
for them. Even your comment hints the same: you want exposure to make some
viewpoints impossible, to fight them to death.

These critics are declaring openness and freedom but they are authoritarian by
their nature, they want to one (their) viewpoint to win all others. It is
irremovable contradiction between declared goals and real ones that cannot be
fixed by Facebook.

The story from Bangladesh shows it in some sense. Authoritarian reign wants to
be exposed to opposing views to fight them. Students do not want to be exposed
to opposed views, they want to expose to their views only those who is ready
to accept them.

SJW want to be exposed to opposing views to be able to scream "fire him". They
also want to expose others to their views to hurt them.

Trolls of different colors and sizes want their shit to be exposed to a fan of
public opinion and to make fun of hurting others.

I do not want my views to be exposed for general public because the goals of
that public are under doubt, they do not want to learn my viewpoint to shift
their beliefs close to mine, they want to learn my viewpoint to fight my
viewpoint.

The trouble is not a degree of exposure, the trouble is people thinking that
contradicting viewpoints should fight to death. And too many people looking
not for viewpoints but for a fight of viewpoints. Of course it leads
viewpoints to guard theirselves in a fragmented echo chambers, to self-
reinforcing ideologies.

~~~
rhcom2
> I'm happy to discuss them, but not to fight for them.

What is "fight for them"? You want to discuss your views but not be criticized
for them? Are you surprised people fighting for social justice have a strong
reaction against viewports they feel are attacking their very personhood?

~~~
AnthonyMouse
> You want to discuss your views but not be criticized for them?

Yes, that is how civilized discussion works. You criticize the idea, not the
person who disagrees with you. Ad hominem attacks that escalate into trying to
get people fired are not a debating tactic, they're an attack on the mechanism
of open discussion itself.

~~~
rebuilder
It seems hard to maintain civil political discourse in an environment where
the discussion is public and participation is largely open to all. I think
this is to some extent because when we think of discussion, we think of
answering questions like "what should we do", but without privacy and barriers
to entry, discussions enter the other realm of politics where the main
question is "how do we get it done". The former requires openness to self-
doubt, which in the latter context is harmful to achieving goals.

------
scarejunba
All these comments make no sense. The state police and its agents forced
people into logging in to their accounts and then tortured them for what they
saw there. This is good old rubber hose attacks.

Facebook isn't the bad guy here. They were the target because they provided
the function of being a great place to share stuff.

All this bullshit about Mastodon and whatnot isn't going to help anyone. I can
just imagine the police. "Oh no, you are using a decentralized tool to
describe the protests. I guess we can't torture you. After all each of the
communities on this decentralized tool have their own independent rules and
what you posted doesn't violate the rules of the community you posted it in.
You're free to go."

~~~
bogomipz
>"All these comments make no sense. The state police and its agents forced
people into logging in to their accounts and then tortured them for what they
saw there."

If FB didn't enforce a "real name" policy then the police wouldn't have been
able to identify and/or hold those people to account. The comments make good
sense.

~~~
manfredo
Facebook doesn't actually enforce the real name policy unless you are
deliberately impersonating someone. I created something like 6 alt accounts,
none of them were flagged.

~~~
bogomipz
Yes they do enforce it. Just because you haven't been called to defend one of
your fake accounts does not mean they don't enforce it. See:

[https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jun/29/facebook-
real-...](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jun/29/facebook-real-name-
trans-drag-queen-dottie-lux)

and

[https://techcrunch.com/2015/12/15/facebook-makes-changes-
to-...](https://techcrunch.com/2015/12/15/facebook-makes-changes-to-its-real-
name-policy/)

~~~
manfredo
These two examples seem to be relegated to very specific subpopulations, that
are doing something that would easily attracy Facebook's attention - nameley
identifying as the opposite gender they did previously. The overwhelming
majority of people can probably make a profile with a false name and use
Facebook without issue.

Ultimately, though, people probably don't use fake names on Facebook because a
large portion of the service's value is lost when trying to keep one's
identity obfuscated. None of your friends, acquaintances, or co-workers will
recognize the profile with the false name. Unless the profile picture is real,
but that opens a vector for the government to find out in the real identity of
the user too.

~~~
bogomipz
Maybe read the entire context - the OP stated it is NOT enforced and it most
certainly is enforced. It's not "relegated to very specific subpopulations"
either. It's enforced whenever FB feels like enforcing it:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facebook_real-
name_policy_cont...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facebook_real-
name_policy_controversy)

------
jszymborski
Facebook can't stop the spread of authoritarianism, because it was designed in
such a way that it can't help but be the perfect tool for authoritarian
elements. They're (arguably wittingly or unwittingly) a digital stasi;
listening and collecting everyone's conversations, tracking and collecting
social interactions and connections between groups of people, tracking and
collecting people's online interests.

They've created a tool where you can literally search entire countries for
dissidents and demographics and political allegiances.

They've given powers that only authoritarian gov'ts have had to upstart
authoritarian elements that haven't power in the region they're trying to
over-turn.

I know this just sounds like sidewalk doomsayer stuff, but we're seeing these
effects globally... this is no longer a "what-if" scenario.

~~~
cabalamat
> Facebook can't stop the spread of authoritarianism, because it was designed
> in such a way that it can't help but be the perfect tool for authoritarian
> elements.

Centralised networks are a perfect match for authoritarianism.

> They're (arguably wittingly or unwittingly) a digital stasi; listening and
> collecting everyone's conversations, tracking and collecting social
> interactions and connections between groups of people, tracking and
> collecting people's online interests.

It's definitely wittingly: Facebook's entire business model is based on
knowing as much as possible out of people in order to monetise that knowledge.

------
40acres
I actually think Facebook is very well equipped to combat disinformation
campaigns on it's platform. At least more equipped than radio and TV. Due to
the political environment of the present day I look at Facebook and other
social media platforms as analgous to when radio became popular.

Radio was definitely a great platform for propaganda among authoirtian states,
but the nature of radio infrastructure lends itself to be controlled by the
state so if the state is authoritarian then they will naturally turn the
radio.

Facebook is a platform that has no borders, and it is ubiquitous in a way that
TV, radio, and even other parts of the internet are not. Add on the all seeing
nature of AI and machine learning and I think over time Facebook could
definitely prevent the spread of these ideas _on it 's platform_.

The major point of contention for me is the question of if it's Facebook's
rightful place to regulate political speech, Zuckerberg definitely seems
adverse to putting his thumb on the scale but at this point I'd say that not
weighing in is a form of weighing in. The bring up the often cited Voltare/Ben
Parker quote: "with great power comes great responsibility", Facebook has
reaped all the benefits of becoming the social infrastructure of the internet,
at some point they have to draw a line in the sand when it comes to accepting
that responsibility head on.

~~~
AlexandrB
> I actually think Facebook is very well equipped to combat disinformation
> campaigns on it's platform. At least more equipped than radio and TV.

The fact that Facebook can even be compared to radio or TV speaks to the level
of centralization the internet has experienced in the last decade. We've
nearly come full circle - from restricted, centralized media like TV, to the
wild west of the early internet, now back to re-centralization with a few huge
companies which control access to a huge chunk of the internet audience.

I think we need a new push for de-centralization.

~~~
lsd5you
Agree with the sentiment, but was there ever a push for decentralisation?
Seems to me that the original decentralisation of the internet was
circumstantial. It was due to the technology of the time (limited resources +
aarpanet nuclear strike resistant design) and where it was first established
(universities - which lack a unifying hierarchy).

~~~
salawat
Are you asking a rhetorical question? You sort of answered it yourself.

And yes, there was always a push to decentralize. However, network effects
lead to some nodes becoming more heavily connected than others until such time
that the consolidation of resource in hypernodes starts to have unintended
side effects that are deleterious to the system as a whole. That tends to
intensify the push to decentralize, while damping pushes to centralize.

Nature as acted out through man.

~~~
edmundsauto
The issue I see with decentralization is that the practical surfaces
(websites, devices, etc) are so difficult for the vast majority of the
population to use. Simply the mental overhead of deciding whether to use Voat,
reddit, Discord, or whatnot will stop a large number of people from ever
participating online.

Decentralization is great for those of us who don't have the cognitive
overhead, but adds a lot of complexity that this tribe underestimates. My mom,
for example, hasn't been able to understand the difference between a text
message and an email, and she's been actively online for about 5 years now. To
her, it's all a way to communicate, but when I try to explain that email has a
subject line, and text messages don't.... it's beyond her grasp.

Decentralizing will help with some of the issues that are currently front and
center to technologists, but it will exclude a huge number of people.

~~~
40acres
I disagree, my earlier point illustrates this a bit more. I think early on the
internet was so novel that only the experienced (programmers, academics,
industry folks) could navigate it. Once the browser, Google, and smartphones
arrived more and more people could access the internet, billions of people now
know the rules of the road, although of course some are more expert than
others.

I think your mother is a bit of an outlier. My dad is over 70 but can navigate
the basics of the internet: how to text, take a photo, stream content on
Youtube, etc. I think now that this basic level of competency has been reached
decentralization can occur.

I think you're correct in terms of the friction, no one but nerds wants to go
through the hassle of setting up their own private, decentralized network. We
need systems that are as frictionless as going on Facebook or typing a query
into Youtube, in my opinion this has been the main flaw of decentralized
platforms.

~~~
edmundsauto
The fact that your father is able to navigate complexity doesn't really
disprove my point. Some percentage of people will be excluded / unable to
participate if things are decentralized. Whether that segment is sufficiently
large, or whether people care about them having access, is left to each
person's opinion.

Centralization has significant advantages. People love one location for what
they need because it simplifies things. That enables more folks to participate
due to lower friction. Whether the downsides outweigh the positives is left to
the reader.

My broader point is the centralized/de-centralized discussion should be framed
in terms of tradeoffs. One is not necessarily superior to the other; it
depends on how each person weights the relative benefits and downsides.

It's important to acknowledge that the general internet public, so far, seems
to prefer the advantages of centralization. That may be because the
disadvantages are hidden, or it may be a legitimate preference.

------
porpoisely
I can't get over the hypocrisy of our media. One day, the media is demanding
facebook censor everything they don't like in an authoritarian manner. The
next day, they want facebook to be a tool against authoritarianism.

Which is it? Should facebook be a tool for or against authoritarianism? Or is
authoritarian behavior good when it suits the media's agenda?

Also, another social media story by techcrunch on the frontpage. They guys are
really overdoing it with the facebook/social media spam.

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18751859](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18751859)

~~~
TomMckenny
The article criticizes the utility of Facebook for torturing and jailing
people for their views. I'm not sure I see how Tech Crunch is being
hypocritical here. And I'm surprised such an article is now partisan.

I also don't understand how Tech Crunch, BBC, LA times, CBC, Miami Herald, CBS
etc, etc, etc, could possibly be part of a coordinated anti-Republican "the
media" conspiracy either.

~~~
porpoisely
They are being hypocritical because they support censoring and even jailing
people for speech on social media platforms.

Also, why are you assuming partisanship or anti-republican anything. I'm not a
republican. Never have been.

Also, you forgot foxnews and wsj in your list of media entities involved in
the "conspiracy". They have been attacking social media for much longer than
any of the media companies you listed.

Any particular reason why you are reading so much into my comment?

I'm against all torturing and all jailing and all censorship. Whether it is of
democrats, republicans, foreigners, etc. You?

------
hugh4life
There is really a philosophical contradiction on many demands put on Facebook
and the social media companies. There are many in western governments and
media who want the social media companies to engage in "repressive tolerance"
at home far beyond preventing physical violence while ensuring space for
dissent in authoritarian nations. If western media and governments want social
media companies to be more principled in dealing with more authoritarian
governments then they themselves need to be more principled about speech in
western societies.

------
ddingus
Facebook can also spread anti-authoritarianism.

There is a catch!

Authoritarians are currently, and successfully, exploiting economic
grievances. This is true in many neoliberal nations.

Middle classes are shriking. Incomes relative to labor and cost of laborers
(what they need to exist, show up for work, feed families) are increasingly
inadequate. This makes people desperate.

They do not want more of the same, and may turn to facists who make promises
they do not intend to keep.

Those of us who speak against authoritarians on a social basis are on the
right side of history. The long arc of social progress favors anti-
authroitarians.

Our struggle today is more economic. While current neoliberal policy is
rapidly improving poverty in some of the most needy regions, one cost is a
lack of progress and some regression in more developed regions, the US, EU and
friends being case in point.

To clear majorities in these developed regions, they see a long arc of
econoomic decline. That is challenging confidence, resulting in more volitile
elections.

An improved economic strategy is needed to bolster already solid social
progress strategy. The lack of it puts social progress at ever increasing
risk.

------
ummonk
_> “Facebook’s real names policy doesn’t exactly protect anonymity, and has
created issues for people in countries like Vietnam,” said Aggarwal. “If
platforms provide leeway, or enough space for anonymous posting, and anonymous
interactions, that is really helpful to people on the ground.”_

So Facebook should allow anonymous posting but it should also magically block
fake bots and Russian troll accounts?

~~~
emerged
There is endless mental thrashing on these topics precisely because there
isn't a solution. Having a singular massively-connected social graph is more
and more clearly not a sustainable environment for humans.

------
superkuh
Asking Facebook to stop authoritarianism _is_ authoritarianism. It's
incredible that such an absurd headline or concept isn't outright mocked.

~~~
krapp
>Asking Facebook to stop authoritarianism is authoritarianism.

No, _forcing_ Facebook to stop authoritarianism might be authoritarianism, but
_asking_ Facebook to stop authoritarianism is simply an expression of a
concern and a request for action.

We really need to stop seeing every opinion with which we disagree as either
fascism or folly, here.

~~~
superkuh
You're right. That was flippant language. What I mean is involving, for
example, the senate and the government use of force that's implicit in that.
The asking hasn't really been asking.

------
xte
Any widespread digital system based on "fueling fire" and +1 reward system
help spread extremism of any kind simply because most active people, most
voted people tend to be "extreme" by themselves.

Try looking at YT channel subscriptions, try to see what happen with sport
event comments and confront that with subscriptions/comments on tech/sci
channels, medium-high level culture contents etc.

As always people in large groups with good enough megaphone start to act as
beast, small groups or other kind of interaction do the opposite.

------
tomohawk
Facebook could take constructive steps like enabling duress passwords that
would either wipe out the account or replace the content with some sort of
alternate content.

Continuing down the path of policing content is a no-win situation.

~~~
tzs
In an authoritarian regime where individuals have very few rights, I don't
think duress passwords would protect individuals, especially if they were
widely used.

Your interrogators would demand to see your real account. You'd give them the
duress password and they'd get the wiped or sanitized account. Then they would
ask you to logout and log back in this time insisting that you give them the
duress password.

If you can't do this, they will assume that you gave them the duress password
the first time, consider that sufficient proof of guilt of whatever they
suspected you of, and away you go to jail or worse.

Of course you can insist that the one password you gave them was the real
account and you never set up a duress password because you obey the law. That
would work in a place with decent civil rights and due process requirements,
but that's not the kind of place the article is discussing.

These are places were you are guilty as soon as you are accused and it is up
to you to prove to them you are innocent, and they consider throwing an
innocent person in jail massively preferable to letting a guilty person off.

------
Waterluvian
Maybe obvious to others but a central point I'm discovering is that
corporations used to be relevant to a single region, maybe growing to be
nation-wide. And if they were to go global, it would be one region at a time,
tackling the unique issues of each region as they go.

But with web-centric corporations, they flip a switch and bam, they're online
_everywhere_.

------
jrs95
If you can't stop authoritarianism just because authoritarians have access to
targeted advertising, then there's a bigger problem at hand than just Facebook
or any particular ad platform.

------
Mtinie
My takeaway focuses on Facebook and other “real name” social networks’ being
the wrong platforms for posting dissenting opinions.

If you want to post radical* content, any tool which makes it easy to connect
said content back to your real identity should be a non-starter.

On the flip-side, gaining enough of a following with throw-away, anonymized
accounts is a challenge unto itself.

I’m not sure what the answers are to help people understand the differences
and offer alternatives. How many of the students described in the article who
were beaten and imprisoned after posting “objectionable” content did so
knowing they’d likely serve as martyrs for their causes?

* in the eyes of the authorities you are disagreeing with

------
GreaterFool
Nobody really is.

However, a "democracy" where the intellectual/media/political elites decide
what is good for the unwashed masses to hear or see yet they become corrupted
by wrong ideology rubs me wrong way. Too many fools think themselves members
of those elites.

OTOH I do recognize that Facebook is a great tool to manipulate! I'm not
blind.

There _is_ a simple solution: either 1) get off Facebook, 2) stop posting
things on Facebook.

Facebook = phone book.

I don't post or reply to posts. I add people I cross paths with and I chat
with them on Messenger sometimes or if we chat more often WhatsApp or Telegram
or something outside FB itself.

------
dhruvp
I think the more interesting point here is how easily people are manipulated
by coordinated marketing/information campaigns. And I think this may be not be
a flaw of facebook but rather its ultimate business value.

At the end of the day facebook is an advertising platform - isn't influencing
people the ultimate goal of advertisement/marketing? At what point do we call
marketing manipulative vs. effective? Obviously you shouldn't allow foreign
countries to engage in these markets for elections but those same strategies
can be carried out within a nation by competing forces and they come with
similar consequences.

I think this is a fundamental problem worth addressing because representative
democracies rely on well-informed, independent electorates for good outcomes.
Marketing on the other hand aims to influence individuals in a coordinated
manner towards a given outcome. How do democracies ensure electorates continue
to make independent decisions in a world where marketing and advertising tools
are increasingly powerful? I think this is a bridge we have to cross - these
tools to influence are here to stay and democracies and electorates will need
to adapt accordingly in ways outside of just regulation.

------
m0zg
Tough spot for Zuck: he can't really do anything about this.

Governments can be very sensitive if someone undermines their control of "free
press". Most people in the US don't understand this, but in much of the third
world papers (not to mention TV) just print what the government wants them to
print, or they find themselves under some kind of scrutiny (taxes, criminal,
etc).

If anything, even with censorship, in those countries FB would be a far less
controllable medium, because it's harder to fuck up an international megacorp
in the same fashion and not cause a massive blowback.

But ultimately, FB has to comply with the local laws, which can be arbitrary.
There's no way out of this simple fact. So whatever mechanism one uses to
"stop the spread of authoritarianism" can't be provided by a corporation, and
it has to be resilient, distributed, and by definition, illegal in those
countries.

And still FB can't touch this, because it'll then be responsible not only for
breaking the laws in the countries where it operates, but also for the lives
of activists, if something goes wrong.

------
BenoitEssiambre
Authoritarianism thrives in divided societies.

Make your algorithms downplay controversial stuff (which is often
controversial because it uses dishonest language tailored to sow discord and
minimize common ground interpretations).

Make your algorithms promote level headed, honest, non-tribal language and
verifiable truths so that areas of global consensus are elevated.

Democracy will work again and we can get rid of the despots.

~~~
dragonwriter
> Make your algorithms downplay controversial stuff (which is often
> controversial because it uses dishonest language tailored to sow discord and
> minimize common ground interpretations).

Controversial stuff is often verifiable truth that is politically inconvenient
for some interested party.

> Make your algorithms promote level headed, honest, non-tribal language and
> verifiable truths

Algorithmically detecting content that is either “honest” or “verifiable
truth” is a pair problems go beyond mere hard AI problems.

~~~
james_s_tayler
Exactly. If you read the literature on dissent it's frightening. Even humans
can't work out who is being honest and what the verifiable truth is.

Read "In Defense of Troublemakers" for an overview of where research on
dissent is at.

It's pretty scary, because there just isn't anything you can do to turn the
political machinery in everyone's heads off and it's default behavior is to
shutdown opinions it doesn't agree with seeking consensus not truth.

It's doubly scary if you read books on our cognitive shortcomings. We are not
capable of computing the truth values of most truth claims. It's so expensive
to know anything that most of our mental models are ultra-low resolution. We
are a guess-and-check species who rationalize and politicize everything. To
top it all off we barely ever think we are wrong.

It's not a mystery why the world is so chaotic and crazy. It's not a mystery
why authoritarianism has run rampant throughout history.

I wish we were far more educated on the subject of how we get things, so
terribly wrong.

~~~
beat
I spent much of 2018 on a quest to try to set my internal sense of judgment
and partisanship aside, and just focus on understanding _why_ people come to
believes that appear to be completely irrational, and why otherwise
intelligent and well-meaning people can be so at odds in their beliefs.

I'm coming strongly to similar conclusions - people are poor thinkers and
totally unaware of this fact. They're not self-critical, but they are very
critical of anyone who disagrees with them.

I summed it up in a quickie comment recently that has stuck with me. "Nobody
thinks they're a racist. When they say racist things, they don't think they're
being racist. They think they're being _reasonable_."

~~~
james_s_tayler
Yup. The one thing I always try to keep in mind is that all the same
observations apply to me too.

------
austincheney
Authoritarianism is an extreme of centralization. Facebook is highly
centralized. If Facebook were not centralized it would be immune from the
authoritarianism, such that there was no web server and messages spread
directly from user to trusted user. In that scenario Facebook would not have
any user content and so there would be nothing for a central authority to
influence.

------
macspoofing
Another thing Facebook should have pushed back on is the idea that they should
stand up to a coordinated and focused attack by major world powers (like
Russia). Standing up for American businesses should be the purview of the
State Department and the Executive Branch.

~~~
spunker540
Exactly— it is ridiculous to think that it’s Facebook’s fault that a world
power like Russia is putting its resources behind fake identities and fake
companies to abuse their platform. The US government should be the one to
blame for allowing that to happen.

It seems like Facebook is blamed for all of the worlds woes at this point,
without any thought given to the fact that there have always been
authoritarian governments and bad leaders, and just because in the internet
age some of these bad things take place online doesn’t mean Facebook or the
internet is causing them.

If anything it just goes to show Facebook is not the ideal platform for
political dissidents and protesters and maybe there is an opportunity to
create something better for that use-case. The platform was designed for US
college students to socialize and plan parties and post photos originally, not
for people to combat authoritarian regimes. Those two use cases are
drastically different. The fact that Facebook is not ideal for all use-cases
shouldn’t surprise anyone.

I agree they now have great opportunities to do a lot more than simply
catering to safe and secure Americans, but they are still a young company with
a lot to learn.

------
relaunched
It seems like it's time to mandate interoperability. It's clear that this
space has remained unregulated a little longer than it should and now that we
know the consequences, government can step in and provide a set a guard rails.

~~~
robertAngst
>authoritarian

And you are asking the government to step in? I hope people can see the irony
and risk in this.

I would love to hear people debate this, to me, this sounds like one of the
worst ideas.

~~~
beat
I assume you're starting from the quasi-libertarian "all regulation is
authoritarian in nature" position, which is a setup for "Authoritarianism is
bad, regulation is authoritarian, therefore regulation is bad".

There's a problem with this argument. Where it is is an exercise for the
reader.

------
chiefalchemist
Facebook can't do what history (and its participants to date) to date has not
been able to do? While my love for FB is closer to an on-again off-again teen
crush, I do not recall at any point FB promising to be the magic bullet
that'll save the world from itself.

That said, as we all know, the internet is a magnifier, and effects of a
network (as opposed to unconnected node) even more so. Again, not FB's fault.
But it does need to embrace it's place and potential in history's ecosystem.

------
gopher2
I like the article, in that they suggest some actual, direct actions Facebook
could take.

More-so, though, it sounds like the protesters and activists should use the
right tool for the job and Facebook is not it. Or if they are going to use
Facebook, they should try to be a bit more savvy about it given the bad,
authoritarian state of the local government.

------
alan_wade
Snapchat is not equipped to eliminate the world hunger.

Pokemon Go is not going to stop racism.

Breaking news! Apple Watch does NOT cure cancer!

------
Gokenstein
Title is misleading: Article is about how Facebook facilitates authoritarian
governments in silencing dissidents: even poor or ill equipped ones.

The title leads you to believe Facebook has or had any interest what-so-ever
in stopping the spread of their best customers...

------
blattimwind
Facebook is well equipped to help the spread of authoritarianism, though.

~~~
mcphage
Yeah, exactly. That seems to be missed in some of these discussions. Is it
Facebook's responsibility to stop the spread of authoritarianism? No, of
course not—but it sure shouldn't be _helping_ the spread of authoritarianism.
And yet it is.

------
alan_wade
Offtopic: it's really weird that it's the end of 2018 and a site called
TechCrunch can't figure out how to make a mobile friendly website. Here's how
it looks on my iPad Mini (not anything non-standard):

[https://imgur.com/a/OQt1Lt9](https://imgur.com/a/OQt1Lt9)

If you click on the weird X button at the top it says "An error has occured",
and if you click back the error still remains.

------
klyrs
In other news, water is not equipped to stop the spread of moisture.

------
qwerty456127
Any ideas on how to equip an alternative for this? As for me I can't imagine a
reliable way to block spread of fake news and suggestive/hate rhetorics by
design.

------
SquishyPanda23
Nor interested. Thiel is publicly opposed to democracy.

------
piracy1
good bit to ask tho.

------
rdiddly
LOL - understatement of the year (and it's been a long year). You might as
well say kangaroos are ill-equipped to stop the spread of marsupials.

Awp, got a downvote from someone who doesn't believe Facebook is
authoritarian. Its merely being a corporation places it among the most
authoritarian social structures in history, hate to tell ya, but let's look at
the characteristics of authoritarianism (paraphrased from britannica.com):

1) _Blind submission to authority is prized over individual freedom of thought
and action._ The very first act demanded of you, upon first contact with
Facebook, is to fill out a form and _submit_ (the word choice is coincidental,
yet apt) your personal details/data. By clicking, you're declaring you trust
their authoritah. If you refuse and go your own way, Facebook users whom you
know will make no bones about their disapproval. Oh you won't go to any gulag
or anything. I'm not saying it's a government.

2) _Power is concentrated in the hands of a leader_ (a.k.a. autocracy) _or
small elite_ (a.k.a. oligarchy) _that isn 't responsible to the people._ This
one is so obviously true of Facebook that I'm starting to feel foolish for
starting this list. "In other news, the sky is blue." But I'll continue. For
starters you can just ask yourself whether you were consulted about any of the
endless string of privacy-policy changes. (Or where to hide and obfuscate all
the opt-outs in the UI.) Or whether you approved any "sharings" of your data
with some person or company about whom you had no idea. You didn't, because
Facebook controls your data. And they control what you see.

3) _Power is exercised arbitrarily and without regard to existing bodies of
law._ [https://www.congress.gov/congressional-
record/congressional-...](https://www.congress.gov/congressional-
record/congressional-record-index/115th-congress/2nd-session/zuckerberg-
mark/327461)

4) _Leaders cannot be replaced by citizens in fair elections._ If we take
"citizens" to mean "users" or "customers" this is true. That's a
characteristic of every corporation. If we take "citizens" to mean
"shareholders," those people get a bit more democracy. Although at Facebook as
I understand it, Mark Zuckerberg is the largest single shareholder, so I'm not
sure how that all plays out, and am rapidly getting bored of this. Wish I knew
more, or gave more of a shit, about Facebook... but I don't know what's inside
a giant stinky turd either and I think I'm OK with that. Can anyone take over?
I'm sorry this comment sucks.

5) _Opposition parties or groups are limited or nonexistent._ On this
criterion, Facebook fails the "Is it authoritarian?" test. These groups are
all over Facebook. (Generating data for Facebook and profits for Facebook.)

------
jokoon
Today I wonder how feasible it would be to spread the fake news that Donald
Trump was poisoned and assassinated by the CIA/democrats/Iran etc, just to
cause panic across his electoral base.

I'm sure there are enough people who would believe it, but I wonder how long
it would take to be debunked.

I don't really know why I thought about that, I just hope people would just
believe it, but I'm curious how the world would react to it.

~~~
jokoon
I meant "I just hope people would just NOT believe it"

------
slackfan
Well no duh, Facebook itself is authoritarian.

------
simplecomplex
Authoritarianism is forcing Facebook to silence speech Democrats don’t like.

That’s authoritarian. Not people freely reading and writing.

I fear my fellow Americans have completely lost the plot...

