Facebook begins censoring images of prophet Muhammad
washingtonpost.com
washingtonpost.com
"Just this December, Facebook agreed to censor the page of Russia’s leading Putin critic, Alexei Navalny, at the request of Russian Internet regulators."
"Critics have previously accused the site of taking down pages tied to dissidents in Syria and China; the International Campaign for Tibet is currently circulating a petition against alleged Facebook censorship, which has been signed more than 20,000 times."
"“I’m committed to building a service where you can speak freely without fear of violence,” Zuckerberg said in his Hebdo statement."
The outlandishly egregious doublespeak of Zuck aside, Facebook is a data mining company devoted to making money from its users. The only terms on which it can be said to support free speech are the terms under which it is able to mine user data, then sell user data. In less polite terms, Facebook is a no-limits whore for anyone with cash, so we should expect to see exactly what we are seeing.
Here's a question: what are the conditions under which Facebook will censor the content in the US/European market? I guarantee you that it's coming, provided the right topics are being discussed and the right groups are interested in squashing discussion.
Breast-feeding mothers in Europe and US have had their images removed.
EDIT: Not sure if that still happens, but it's easy enough to find articles on WWW about it.
Should pages that advocate violence be removed? What if it's political, like "Death to Israel"?
http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2014/08/fa...
Or what if it's in line with official US policy? Like "death to ISIS," or "death to Boko Haram."
Who said Facebook's censorship was arbitrary?
Naively, we can now say Facebook views breasts as "offensive" as pictures of Mohammad or decapitation videos.
Several years ago an image of a friend I (re)posted was subject to FB policy-based deletion. I'm not sure whether this was because reposting other people's images was frowned on at that time or the sight of the top of a male ass wearing female underwear poking out from jeans in a group called the "ass appreciation society" was a bit too racy (I can't find the email I received about it, and I believe the original pic is still there) but I'm convinced it was several orders of magnitude less likely to have caused anyone offence than a Muhammed-cartoon-meme.
It's become a bit of a running joke.
The censorship here is the responsibility of the Turkish government, not Facebook. It's supposedly a democratic country so maybe even represents the will of the people living there.
And anyway, when social sites block "objectionable" pages on their own or under criticism, but with no involvement of the legal system, anyone who complains about censorship is quickly shut down with arguments that it's a private company under no obligation to protect free speech. Why expect them to defy sovereign states when they usually can't handle a little outrage on Twitter?
YouTube - http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/mar/27/google-youtube-...
Twitter - http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2014/03/21...
I was in Istanbul at the time, and I'm certain the Streisand effect more than offset the censorship, and badly damaged Erdoğan's reputation at home and abroad.
Banning popular sites shines a bright light on repression. Resistance can be more effective than collaboration.
Shouldn't you just let that country block for itself what it doesn't want?
If you have products available in your country that are unlawful in another then you wouldn't stop individuals from that country from buying them in your country, you'd let the other country police the import, surely? Seems analogous to me.
Sounds like a blanket rationalization that can be applied to virtually any kind of corporate-powered environmental or human rights abuse at the hands of despotic regimes everywhere:
"Abusive practice X is the responsibility of government Y, not hapless company Z, which would surely perish if it did it did not bend over and fulfill government Y's every whim and fancy."
GitHub does the same.
GitHub doesn't put out puffy and patently false statements about being "committed to building an environment where you can speak freely without fear of violence."
Or put another way: As much as Americans like to act like it, we can't enforce our ideals around the world without significant investment that I don't think anyone wants us making after the last couple of times.
Facebook Inc.
Buyukdere Cad. Maya Akar Center No:100-102
B Blok K:18 Esentepe
Istanbul, Turkey
tolga.ismen@ismen.av.tr
+90-212-2726364
+90-212-2726365For me at least: it's the idea of making a public pronouncement that you support some political view (because that's easy). Then you do something that, at least on the face of it, goes against that position when there could be business repercussions (because that's hard).
Why not just keep your mouth shut?
But there is not one bit of me that doesn't believe Mark really does support free speech everywhere. He didn't have to say that, but he did. He made that effort, even though he knew it opened his flank. And of course he knew that, because he's not a complete idiot.
This is the real world. Where while complying with the law, you protest it, because that's how you act in a civilized society.
"How you act in a civilized society" leads to normalization and eventual acceptance of problems caused by compliance.
Lots of talk in your comment about the "real world", without a hint of irony that our "civilized society" only exists in its current form thanks to revolutions and wars.
The idea that protests should only occur within the confines of the law tells me you have a bit to learn about the "real world".
>He made that effort
I know the Facebook crowd might think so, but saying "Je Suis Charlie" takes effort?
A service choosing not to censor, and then potentially being censored in turn by ISPs in another nation, could be costly, sure. It wouldn't seem to be in the same ballpark as a military invasion of another nation? (Honestly though, when has a USA military invasion ever actually been about enforcing ideals?)
When this issue was discussed yesterday, I pointed out that it's not Zuck's actions that surprise us, because money. Rather, we're surprised by what he says while taking those actions. It's incongruous to appropriate the rhetoric of freedom while happily making money undermining freedom.
The only incongruity is on the part of people who believed Zuck when they have plenty of data that they shouldn't.
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
It's not that complying with the law would be noble or right, but it's not really reasonable to expect everyone in a country to be a martyr.
YouTube and Twitter refused to take down material in Turkey, and they were both banned for two months.
If anything, their principles enhanced their brands in Turkey and around the world.
If I disagree with the TSA and decide to go through without caring about their scans they're going to detain me. It doesn't matter if I "shouldn't do it".
Google left China rather than submit to their censorship regime, and the Chinese market is like 18 Turkeys.
And if you do remove content, you can make that action transparent on Chilling Effects[1]. Facebook doesn't do that, either.
There are alternatives.
And if you decide to build censorship tools to stay in the good graces of the regime, then don't say "I am Charlie" while you're doing it.
Many companies could decide not to operate in USA due to the snooping, gagged court orders, civil rights attacks, selective and repressive law enforcement, etc.
I get this is a hard issue to speak in "western" sites because many see it as "us vs them" but let me tell you, I could easily subdivide "us" many times and make your portion "them".
Maybe it got flagged off temporarily by his adversaries, but it's fully available now.
You're ignoring all my other examples of censorship, though.
I knew it was going to be a hard issue so the downvotes are not unexpected.
China wanted to censor inconvenient history. Turkey wants to censor offensive (to them) religious images. I think that's the important comparison, not the size of the market.
This means Facebook has a lot of power to resist censorship.
Make repression costly for the regime in terms of widespread public outrage and international pariah status.
Maybe Erdoğan will pay those costs, maybe he won't.
But if you make censorship free then you're certain to get a lot more of it.
If this were used instead as an opportunity to get Facebook to make censorship moves like this more transparent, I'd be in full support.
Does Facebook have any offices, servers or employees in Turkey? If not, they aren't required to do a thing. Even if they did, they just don't store that content on those servers (and maybe compartmentalise dealing with such data away from any employees based there) and they're fine. If that wasn't the case, then any random tinpot dictatorship (such as turkey) could make arbitrary things illegal for anyone in the world, and expect compliance from every single person in the world.
I'm sure turkey would want anyone in the world they could force to be to be brought under sharia law too, not just facebook. Does that mean we should even if we don't live there and don't visit? I for one, don't think so.
lol, what are you talking about? I suggest you remove your head from your arse and read a bit more about Turkey
Argentina's constitution says they own the Falkland Islands, yet they don't either. The US constitution guarantees freedom of speech, protection from unlawful searches and surveillance, probable cause for any search, and separation of church and state, yet the actual reality is almost the direct opposite of all of those.
As such, Turkey going "hey, look, we're secular" is worthless when they act like a psychotic dictatorship.
The laws of Lebanon require you to observe a boycott of any products and services that originate in or transit through Israel. Meanwhile the laws of the US forbid you from observing the Arab Boycott of Israel. What do you do?
> you can't just flagrantly break the law in other countries simply because yours believes differently
Facebook, and many American tech companies like it, have no problem breaking the law in other countries when it suits their bottom line. Primary battlefield: privacy rights.
> As much as Americans like to act like it, we can't enforce our ideals around the world
Facebook, and many American tech companies like it, enforce their puritan values around the world by fanatically censoring all kinds of harmless content (mostly, "boobies") on their services.
These companies are clearly willing and able to make both commercial and ideological choices with complete disregard for local laws and values.
And your argument about enforcing their values around the world is enforcing THEIR values, not American ones. Yes, their values are influenced by their being American no doubt, but it's facetiously cynical to imply the two are related in any way, shape, or form.
Isn't that Uber's basic approach?
Yes, you absolutely can. Jurisdiction: As long as you're following the laws of your own country, and you don't plan to live in, visit, or do business in some other country, you have no obligation whatsoever to respect that country's laws.
In this case, it sounds like Facebook cares about doing business in Turkey (specifically, continuing to reach the citizens of Turkey).
I think you're missing a major point: unless FB has something like a CDN physically located inside of Turkey -- or has some other corporate presence there -- then it is under no legal obligation to comply with its laws (or court orders) whatsoever. The reality is that FB is complying with the Turkish government's requests for no other reason than that it chooses to, because it considers the (perceived) business advantages to be more important than the social and human costs of doing so.
The issue is Zuckerberg shouting "I am Charlie" while simultaneously building the machinery of censorship.
https://www.facebook.com/zuck/posts/10101844454210771
If you think some censorship is better than an outright ban, fine. I don't agree, but I understand your rationale.
But don't build the tools of repression and ride the "I am Charlie" bandwagon at the same time. FB is blocking the same class of content that Charlie Hebdo gave their lives to publish.
Zuckerberg n'est définitivement pas Charlie.
C'est écœurant.
> I find France's own crackdown on non-protected free speech during and shortly after their legendary march for free speech to be much more ironic than a business obeying local law.
It has nothing to do with Facebook following local laws.
And it does not mean Facebook or Zuck agrees with saying the things Charlie Hebdo says.
LOL... hyperbole much? "Building the machinery"?!? Every content provider has the ability to not show a page if they get a court order to not do so. It's part of doing business.
All this gen-y moral relativism is pretty depressing. Zuck's recent catering to autocratic, theocratic, and dictator-led regimes is concerning. You can't have this platform of "give us all your personal info for social sharing - its fun and safe" at the same time you're at the beck and call of every horrible regime.
Marketshare vs ethics is a thorny issue, but I hope this is a wake-up call to those in countries with unfriendly governments about using US web based services. We will sell you out and not care one wit. We are not an idealistic people. The truth here is that the west is enabling these terrible regimes, the same way Cisco largely built the Great Firewall of China. I don't think its fair or wise to just throw our hands in the air and say, "Meh, local law" as we build oppression machines.
Its also amusing how incredibly statist libertarians become when it comes to following the law, regardless of its merit. I guess protest and ideals are for leftists only. This also has me greatly concerned about the future of the Oculus Rift. If we're going to be so friendly with censorship, what does that say about the future of things like the fabled metaverse? Can my friend from Turkey visit my home in the metaverse if I have "wrong" materials inside of it? Will I need to give Zuck read/write access to all my virtual things to make sure no theocrat in Turkey is being offended?
Its sad that geekdom, in general, has shifted from an Abbie Hoffman style "screw the man" to a very conservative "follow the man" as we realized we could make a lot of money from bits and bytes. Its weird seeing people who just a few years ago were completely outraged at the Bush administration, but seem to have no problem with Erdogan. As if Erdogan's party speaks for all Turks the same way Bush hypothetically spoke for all Americans.
Regardless, its a sad day for the millions in Turkey still fighting for their secular values.
I am shocked by the massive irony of me saying "Follow Law" and you turning around and accusing me of moral relativism.
Stop using buzzwords you don't understand! If you wish to ignore the laws of a land based on your subjective judgement of them, then you are the ethically relative, not me.
Even Jesus was outspoken about rendering unto Ceasar, among other phrases supporting the idea that local government should be respected. There is NOTHING morally relative about following local law, it is a tenant that is literally enshrined in most major religions and moral systems that have survived for millennia.
The ability of people to reject basic social ethics that have existed since near pre-history using trendy buzzwords is pretty depressing.
You honestly think "follow local laws" is gen-y? That no society on earth ever insisted you follow their local law until millennials came around?
How depressing that one of the most basic tenets of civilized society, respecting local law, is now considered "moral relativism" and is blamed on the youth of today.
So "Follow the local Law" seems to me to be the very definition of moral relativism.
When a company blocks a page in another country due to that country's court order: censorship! Where's the freedom of speech?!?!
I am an American, but: if my fellow Americans want to see censorship in play, take a look at the fight Al Jazeera had to get into cable networks (especially in the days after 9/11). And they had to start a subsidiary, Al Jazeera America, to get around some hurdles.
Forgive my naivete. Is there precedence for this? Are there pages blocked in the US due to US court orders (and available elsewhere in the world)?
Denying the Holocaust is a hell of a lot different than saying, "Hey! Look! Here's a picture of a person!"
If that were true it would still be entirely lawful (in USA) wouldn't it?
I'd certainly argue it's more about criticism of Islam than intention to offend. If you want to silence criticism that uses visualisation then proclaiming the central figures in your ideology to be unlawful to represent in imagery is a perfect way forward.
Thus there are various interpretations of Islam's allowance and tolerance of depiction of the things, the quick, the people, the prophecy and its particular prophet Mohammed. Sunnis, which are Turks and majority of Arabs as far as I know, loathe and are averse to depictions to some extent. More religious older people in Turkey refrain from being depicted anyhow, while some are fine with memorial pictures of themselves and relatives. Majority of the community is though, do not oppose any sort of picturing apart from Mohammed's, and they are taking and publishing pictures of themselves and other people and objects, animate or not, as everybody does. I have heard that Shiites are also lax regarding prophetical depictions, but I have not encountered personally the shiite culture, so, I do not really know.
So, it all boils down to the fact that when someone, Muslim or not, publishes visual material regarding Mohammed, and the God in an islamic context, they should be ready to face different reactions from different parts of the Islamic community. And, as we are living in the internet age, where information goes from Alaska to Iraq in the speed of light (figuratively), its no surprise that living in a non-muslim community does not matter at all in this context.
One would be offended when somebody tries to hurt or offend someone who he considers to be more worthy to him than himself, right? Well, the verse Ahzab 6 [1] says that Mohammed is more worthy to a Muslim than himself.
[1] I have tried to phonetically reproduce names of soorahs and religious terms, I do not guarantee they are correct.
[2] Now, I am not that familiar with hadiths and how these are really cited, but here are some citations nevertheless: Müslim 2107/96; Müslim 2107/90, 94; Buhari 5957, 5958; Müslim 2107/87, and others.
I don't agree with this kind of coddling censorship because people don't have the right to not be offended, but it's undeniable that people who publish images of Mohammed are doing so with the full knowledge that it will (stupidly, immaturely) deeply offend Muslims, and that many will use this to intentionally target Muslims.
But I think it is highly relevant to distinguish "speech that offends" and "speech that incites hatred"
It might be useful to censor the latter and not the former. The purpose of a "hate speech" law might be to avoid/reduce the social breakdown of having a part of society discriminate against the other. In that sense, saying (for example) that "all arabs are terrorrists" is much worse than drawing mohhamad. The drawing offends muslins, but does not try to persuade me to treat them differently/believe they are different
(tl;dr you say they say 'it's relative'. I say it might not be relative, regardless of what people say.)
Enforcing any penalty would be a problem. If Facebook has no assets in Turkey, Turkey would need to go after Facebook's assets elsewhere, perhaps in California. U.S. courts probably wouldn't enforce a judgement of a Turkish Court that was at odds with the First Amendment in the U.S. Constitution, though the cases on this are mixed.
It's also interesting to compare this "graven images takedown" system the U.S.' DMCA takedown system. Here you can post some pretty offensive things on the 'net, but god help you if you post a picture of Mickey Mouse!
Yes. This has happened with Twitter during the country-wide protests in summer 2013 and with YouTube when sensitive political conversations were leaked just before presidential elections in march 2014.
If Facebook was censoring content in America to assuage Turkey, there would be a good reason to gripe about it. It is not doing that.
this is absolutely crazy and very uncommon sense.
so the image is him because people claim it is him, but in reality the truth is, it is not him, just bunch of ... perceive it is him.
I can't sue a journalist overseas for slander that occured about three years ago and still exists; for the most part, I only recall it as an example of how the "international justice," issue cuts both ways. We have the United Nations for a good reason and in both Costa Rica and another country, some of my best friends worked there.
If another country, not the USA, wishes to use an invention of my people (the internet) to crap on me, well, they should also either suffer the consequences of American justice...OR, even better, we should all realize that living in one place doesn't and should never subject one to another place's definition of right and wrong.