> This month Thailand’s digital minister accused Facebook of not complying with requests to restrict content, including insults to the monarchy. On 10 August he gave Facebook 15 days to comply with court takedown orders or face charges under the Computer Crime Act, which carries a fine of up to 200,000 baht (£4,860) plus an additional 5,000 baht per day until each order is observed.
It's even worse in America, FB volunteers to censor non-illegal content all the time, because, like, businesses reasons. Almost everyone believes in censorship, except it's only called censorship when they disagree with it.
When people support the censorship, it's called preventing fake news, combating misinformation, deplatforming hate, or whatever.
It's started to bum me out that everyone wants to eliminate others from voicing opinions they disagree with, even if they'll never hear or come in contact with it!
I have never seen someone decrying others "deplatforming hate" acting in good faith or coming from a nuanced mindset, but it would appear from your comment history (yes, I did check it... I will admit I was sceptical) that you're not a thinly veiled white supremacist. Perhaps I'll read points like these more charitably in the future.
Thai citizen here. I've always seen the lese majeste laws as immoral, but unfortunately talking about the monarchy in any negative way is so taboo that many are not willing to do it publicly for fear of being penalized severely.
Anecdotally, public opinion of Rama X is lower than Rama IX. The latter was, objectively speaking, very prolific in the arts and sciences. The former, well, for one, spends excessive time abroad and has gotten into a number of controversies. It's definitely got more people questioning the lese majeste laws.
Didn't the king himself speak out against penalizing people that had criticized him? Might have been the last one, was quite some time ago I read about it and the article suggested that the monarchy is in very high regard in Thailand.
That said, I think it should be permitted to criticize everything without repercussions.
Facebook seems to punch down. If you're an oppressed or persecuted minority, you are out of luck and subjected to hate and incitement. If you are in a politically favored group, or a threat to FB's bottom line, FB is ultra-sensitive.
But a country’s policy is decided by the citizens, if you live in a democracy.
Facebook’s policy is decided by its CEO and few others. Citizens/users have no saying.
There’s a big danger in shifting most of the public discourse to private platforms. We already have many example, YouTube banning anti-Erdogan keywords is just the first popping to my mind.
I never said it’s OK for the government to control speech undemocratically like happens in China, maybe I didn’t explain myself well.
My point is: I would prefer the government decides democratically what can and cannot be told. And I am fine with a very liberal standard, in which almost everything can be told.
I am pretty much a free speech absolutist. Everything can be said in my opinion.
But, if limits are imposed by a democratic government they will at least follow some democratic standard. Limits imposed by private companies will only follow the money!
I think there is no point in blaming Facebook here . Facebook has to follow a country’s laws if it wants to operate there and there are well known laws in Thailand against criticizing the monarchy. If not followed, then Facebook has a real risk on being banned in that country.
17 comments
[ 6.0 ms ] story [ 44.1 ms ] threadhttps://www.facebook.com/RoyalistMarketplace/
Page still exists it looks like, just enforcing the local laws. It's another one of those damned if you do damned if you don't cases.
When people support the censorship, it's called preventing fake news, combating misinformation, deplatforming hate, or whatever.
It's started to bum me out that everyone wants to eliminate others from voicing opinions they disagree with, even if they'll never hear or come in contact with it!
Anecdotally, public opinion of Rama X is lower than Rama IX. The latter was, objectively speaking, very prolific in the arts and sciences. The former, well, for one, spends excessive time abroad and has gotten into a number of controversies. It's definitely got more people questioning the lese majeste laws.
That said, I think it should be permitted to criticize everything without repercussions.
https://napoleoncat.com/stats/facebook-users-in-thailand/201...
Don't expect many of them to comment here about this subject. Or anywhere. The risk is too great.
The only way of having some moral (rather than commercial) principles guiding the choice, is to regulate it at government level.
I can quit Facebook.
Quitting a country is not practical.
Facebook’s policy is decided by its CEO and few others. Citizens/users have no saying.
There’s a big danger in shifting most of the public discourse to private platforms. We already have many example, YouTube banning anti-Erdogan keywords is just the first popping to my mind.
Tell Facebook no, they may kick you of.
Tell the government no. You go to jail. Say no to that and you get shot.
The moment it’s okay for government to control speech, you have China.
Having armed government agents showing up at a house because they don’t “agree” with the official stance is a dictatorship.
My point is: I would prefer the government decides democratically what can and cannot be told. And I am fine with a very liberal standard, in which almost everything can be told.
I am pretty much a free speech absolutist. Everything can be said in my opinion.
But, if limits are imposed by a democratic government they will at least follow some democratic standard. Limits imposed by private companies will only follow the money!
The moment government is allowed to say what is not “protected speech” it will be abused.
Only one viewpoint will be allowed. Voting will be meaningless when only one side can get its message out.