Stasi as a Service.

Locally, facebook isn’t much needed for this kind of tracking and targeting. We already have the NSA dragnet for phones and who knows what else.

What is (or would help) stopping it from happening here?

People understanding and caring about how they are tracked, leading to choosing how they use tools and making data collection and use a political issue.

The article is about brigading public content, not tracking.

The underlying question here is: Should Facebook be forced to obey the government of a country in which it operates or be an agent for US values and ignore the government of any specific country in which it operates.

I don't think there's a simple answer here and the default should likely be 'listen to government, regardless of how terrible they are' because we want to respect other countries' sovereignty as we want our sovereignty respected.

"US values" aren't the issue. It's Facebook values, whatever they chose to be.

Here in the US we have battles over whether to cooperate with and enable the US government (military and immigration are two obvious flareup points, as is all the free speech and privacy protections that require a warrant to overcome.)

When an issue is a matter of "US values", the US government can step in and give Facebook an order or engage with the enemy directly.

I wholeheartedly disagree. No matter how terrible? Seriously? What if an oppressive government asks for a list of religious minorities? A list of people with with certain medical conditions?

Funnily enough if you asked certain parts of the U.S govt it's very likely they would say: "obey local laws, just make sure you keep operating".

Facebook can provide a valuable "window" for figuring out what's going on inside a country, will have some (probably small?) direct intelligence value, and provides a potential (not proven...) platform for influence operations. We can only speculate on _exactly_ how friendly Facebook is with the three letter agencies but they are very unlikely to be "estranged". In-Q-Tel know potential when they see it.

The behaviour of U.S. platforms overseas tends to make more sense if you ignore U.S. values for a moment and consider U.S. _interests_.

The alternative is of course replacement by a homegrown service or, more likely, one from a rival nation. There's no outcome where human rights win.

Respecting sovereignty and supporting dictators in maintaining power are separate things. One does not imply the other.

Our 401Ks are not amoral tools. They provide necessary resources that companies use to grow. A publicly traded company in our country should not be allowed to support oppression, genocide, exploitation, and other violations of human rights anywhere. If we allow it, we are all complicit in crushing the lives of others. We are culpable for their suffering.

> In the field of modern business, so rich in opportunity for the exercise of man's finest and most varied mental faculties and moral qualities, mere money-making cannot be regarded as the legitimate end. Neither can mere growth of bulk or power be admitted as a worthy ambition. Nor can a man nobly mindful of his serious responsibilities to society view business as a game; since with the conduct of business human happiness or misery is inextricably interwoven. -- U.S. Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis. "Business — The New Profession", La Follette's Weekly Magazine, Volume 4, No. 47 (November 23, 1912), p. 7.

The right, just, moral, and American thing for Facebook to do is to treat Vietnamese people the same way they treat western people. Ban people who abuse the reporting system. Ban folks that dox others. Push back against unreasonable government demands. Provide comprehensive privacy features for vulnerable folks, with local-language instructions and how-to videos. Facebook would quickly get banned in many places and the company would make less money. This hasn't happened yet because of the greed and callousness of Facebook's leaders, the greed and cowardice of Facebook's employees, and the U.S. doctrine of shareholder primacy.

>Respecting sovereignty and supporting dictators in maintaining power are separate things. One does not imply the other.

A lot of sovereign states are run by dictators. How could those things not be intertwined?

> Our 401Ks are not amoral tools.

401ks are an elective retirement tool. Nobody is forced to use one. Even better, if there is such a market for something akin to "fair trade" investment, I bet such a thing exists or you could start one.

Most people focus in returns instead of morals, what do you do?

The answer is simple; we just pretend it’s not because doing the right thing involves a business giving up money.

The logical extreme of this question is: was it wrong for IBM to assist Nazi Germany with the Holocaust?

So you want Facebook out pull out of Vietnam? Because that's the only recourse I see here. If they choose not to cooperate, they'll be thrown out of the country.

What then?

Then people use private communication channels?

Then people use anonymous or confidential webhosts to post content?

Then bribe the government official to change the rules?

Why isn't this occurring now?