This isn't completely Facebook's fault. A totalitarian government infringing on free access to information will eventually put major pressure on those companies that provide the information.
However, Facebook's primary interest is retaining users, and the Vietnamese government was forcefully preventing that by shutting off access to Facebook's servers.
I agree with the article when it states that this sets a dangerous precedent for other nations seeking to censor information.
Therefore, this was an extremely difficult decision for Facebook with no clear upside: comply with Vietnamese law and retain users and traffic, but give other countries the precedent of doing the same thing Vietnam did; or, lose the entirety of Vietnam traffic and users. At least that's how I see it. Whether this was the right or wrong decision for their business model will manifest itself in their shareholders.
Now, I've stated only the business side of it so far. Ethically and for PR, this was absolutely the wrong decision. This will lead to a further diminishing of Facebook in the public eye, and I believe will have the effect of users in tightly-regulated countries moving to other platforms for fear of what happened in Vietnam to happen to them.
And as many others are stating, this gives massive leverage to Facebook as a political tool. The Internet itself is intrinsically unbiased: information exists not as people's ideas and words, but as bits in a machine. When you impose censoring mechanics on the Internet, it obviously detracts from its value as a means of distributing information. By limiting people's ideas and access to free information, as Facebook is now doing, it gives nations more power than ever in imposing ideologically dangerous regulations on their people.
I believe will have the effect of users in tightly-regulated countries moving to other platforms for fear of what happened in Vietnam to happen to them.
In tightly-regulated countries, either there are no other platforms to move to in the first place (blocked without even a chance for negotiation), that other platforms are already more tightly-regulated than Facebook (local platforms fully under governmental control), or that they are more vulnerable than Facebook against such coercion (emerging small platforms that can be blocked when reaching a threshold).
The Internet itself is intrinsically unbiased
The Internet is intrinsically biased towards openness and freedom of association. That's what makes censorship especially standout on the Internet.
it gives nations more power than ever in imposing ideologically dangerous regulations on their people.
Nations have the same power before and after this. The whole debacle started with Vietnam blocking access to Facebook, which is already a more powerful move than allowing a compromised Facebook.
For further actions, you may consider blocking this person and/or reporting abuse
We're a place where coders share, stay up-to-date and grow their careers.
This isn't completely Facebook's fault. A totalitarian government infringing on free access to information will eventually put major pressure on those companies that provide the information.
However, Facebook's primary interest is retaining users, and the Vietnamese government was forcefully preventing that by shutting off access to Facebook's servers.
I agree with the article when it states that this sets a dangerous precedent for other nations seeking to censor information.
Therefore, this was an extremely difficult decision for Facebook with no clear upside: comply with Vietnamese law and retain users and traffic, but give other countries the precedent of doing the same thing Vietnam did; or, lose the entirety of Vietnam traffic and users. At least that's how I see it. Whether this was the right or wrong decision for their business model will manifest itself in their shareholders.
Now, I've stated only the business side of it so far. Ethically and for PR, this was absolutely the wrong decision. This will lead to a further diminishing of Facebook in the public eye, and I believe will have the effect of users in tightly-regulated countries moving to other platforms for fear of what happened in Vietnam to happen to them.
And as many others are stating, this gives massive leverage to Facebook as a political tool. The Internet itself is intrinsically unbiased: information exists not as people's ideas and words, but as bits in a machine. When you impose censoring mechanics on the Internet, it obviously detracts from its value as a means of distributing information. By limiting people's ideas and access to free information, as Facebook is now doing, it gives nations more power than ever in imposing ideologically dangerous regulations on their people.
In tightly-regulated countries, either there are no other platforms to move to in the first place (blocked without even a chance for negotiation), that other platforms are already more tightly-regulated than Facebook (local platforms fully under governmental control), or that they are more vulnerable than Facebook against such coercion (emerging small platforms that can be blocked when reaching a threshold).
The Internet is intrinsically biased towards openness and freedom of association. That's what makes censorship especially standout on the Internet.
Nations have the same power before and after this. The whole debacle started with Vietnam blocking access to Facebook, which is already a more powerful move than allowing a compromised Facebook.