Facebook/WhatsApp is trying to have it both ways. Either it's a for profit private company (and it can do things like that), or it's an important communication medium for a democracy (and access should be open).

When it comes to blocking telegram, Facebook/WhatsApp wants to be the provate for profit company. When some judge blocks WhatsApp, suddenly they're an important service for a democracy.

Facebook refuses to cooperate with German authorities when it comes to investigating and prosecuting death threats through their platform, while at the same time, they want to do advertising business in Germany. They'd simply like to have all the money and none of the responsibility and accountability.

> Either it's a for profit private company (and it can do things like that), or it's an important communication medium for a democracy (and access should be open).

Blocking telegram is classic bone-headed stupidity. It's like an invitation for government lawyers to burrow under your skin and lay their eggs.

But inconsistency only shows that one of their positions is wrong, and it's that one.

Paying an appropriate amount of tax in the countries in which it operates might be another. All that democracy stuff costs money and has to be paid for somehow.

It isn't a company's job to pay more taxes than it owes, it's a country's job to set sensible taxes.

Stop trying to tax "corporate income" for multinational entities that can trivially shift profits into other countries, and instead tax the thing they actually do in your country.

And if they don't actually do anything in your country, what makes them owe you anything?

But Facebook can't have it both ways. They can't pay almost no tax and then call themselves defenders of democracy.

I think it is a fair comparison. Facebook isn't for free expression, they are for their business. The Brazilian Gov can be questioned in the Justice System, but doing so against "Freedom". Facebook dubious position about the right to be informed and the desire to control the information we access is a greater menace to freedom of expression than any ignorant Brazilian lower judge.

Every business is there for themselves. But laws or rulings blocking access to any business are anti-freedom. It's pretty simple.

Sometimes there are legitimate reasons that overcome that. But not with a simple communication channel.

I don't know in which country you live, but I am very happy we have rulings here in Germany blocking access to businesses if those businesses are not following the law. WhatsApp, even if a US based company, is defacto providing a service in Brazil, it means they have to follow Brazilian laws. Dura Lex Sed Lex. You have more context on the other submission[0] showing that WhatsApp had way enough time to take the requests of the judge into account and act on them. They preferred to go the "we are too big to be shut down" way, which is not the way the law works and then complain about freedom and democracy.

[0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11614116

Blocking access should be a last resort, for businesses that are doing something extremely harmful. It's a consumer protection measure, not a punishment. If a business is breaking the law, you punish them with fines and the police, not by redirecting the mail/phone/packets directed at them.

The citizens are the ones initiating contact with WhatsApp servers. They're the ones really being blocked here. Even though they've done nothing wrong.

> WhatsApp had way enough time to take the requests of the judge into account and act on them.

Sure they had time, but the request was physically impossible. What is supposed to happen if a judge demands a picture of you eating breakfast 8 days ago?

>Sure they had time, but the request was physically impossible. What is supposed to happen if a judge demands a picture of you eating breakfast 8 days ago?

You go to court and explain it's impossible. Sticking your fingers in your ears and singing is a poor strategy and deserves to be punished.

If you've never been to the country, ignoring a court summons sounds like a sane idea to me.

This may work well in Germany, but here in Brazil everything government does we feel it's due to corruption or incompetence - and most of the time, it is.

Here in Brazil, if you have a store, you can't refuse to sell to me because I'm gay, black, woman or any other motive. Business aren't entitled to do everything that are better for their business.

> Facebook isn't for free expression

That is literally the opposite of what Zuck, the founder and CEO of Facebook said in this article: "the idea that everyone in Brazil can be denied the freedom to communicate the way they want is very scary in a democracy"

For an apple to apple comparison, how about last year when Facebook promised to help Germany censor any criticism of their immigration policy under the guise of 'stopping Hate Speech'?

Facebook aren't taking a stance against censorship here. They are taking the same stance they always did: Pro-Facebook.

Hate speech has always been a violation of Facebook's ToS. The "deal" with Germany was simply that Facebook agreed to be better at actually enforcing their own terms.

You ignored the actual argument, that political policy was being falsely labeled as hate speech.

I have no idea if it's true or not, but that's what you need to address if you want to discuss the nature of the deal.

> I have no idea if it's true or not

Of course it's not, it's an absurd claim. There's a very clear distinction between political argument and, well, this:

http://www.dw.com/en/pegida-founder-lutz-bachmann-found-guil...

That article doesn't say anything about Facebook deleting posts of his. And the only thing he's specifically listed as doing, calling specific groups cattle/scum/trash, well, Facebook sure doesn't seem to delete similar language in general. "It's against the rules" does not imply that enforcement is fair if enforcement is highly biased and ignores 99% of cases.

It is in large part speculation and conjecture. The evidence I thought I had doesn't really hold up to scrutiny.

All the same, if you don't support the right of horrble people to say horrible things, you don't actually support free speech.

Different different but same.

Countries generally can ban certain forms of communication. To contrieve a couple of examples you can have freedom of speak and still not be allowed to shout outdoors at night in the middle of residential neighborhoods. Or send smoke signals there.

And Facebook don't have to prioritise ads from competitors (I think).

That said, banning certain, non-harmful links in user-to-user communication or a whole class of non-disturbing communication comes off as extremely bad form to be.

So, IMO pointing out Facebooks hypocrisy is well justified and doesn't mean we agree with Brazil.

  That said, banning certain, non-harmful links in user-to-user communication or a whole class of non-disturbing communication comes off as extremely bad form to be.

For me it's one of the main reasons, why I refuse to use Facebook

Facebook is openly supporting government censorship, too. The only reason WhatsApp didn't comply is that they couldn't, because they really don't have the data, as others pointed out. Facebook/WhatApp aren't the good guys here.

Facebook does much more then that... they also hide information by using their "smart" sorting algo of stories/posts, for example.

The API is open for everyone. If you want a feed with each and every post from your friends and the pages you follow, you can build one yourself.

Why can't you sort news by "newest first" then?

Either this options has become very well hidden, either it has totally disapeared. Either way, I cannot find it.

Also, don't forget that this didn't actually show all of the news. Just the news that passed the timeline algorithms in the chronological order (instead of just putting them all over the place). That's why nobody complained when it got removed, it just wasn't doing what it was supposed to do when it was there.