Facebook Allows Turkish Government To Set the Censorship Rules 121
New submitter feylikurds writes: Facebook has been blocking and banning users for posting Kurdish or anti-Turkish material. Many screenshots exists of Facebook notifying people for such. You can insult any single historical figure that you like on Facebook except one: Turkey's founder Mustafa Kemal 'Ataturk'. However, he should not receive special treatment and be protected from criticism, but rather should be treated and examined like everyone else. In order to be accessible within Turkey, Facebook has allowed the repressive Turkish government to set the censorship rules for billions of their users all around the globe. Facebook censors Kurds on behalf of Turkey. To show the world how unjust this policy is, this group discusses Facebook's censorship policy as it relates to Kurds (Facebook account required) and how to get Facebook to change its unfair and discriminatory policy. Makes re-reading Hossein Derakhshan's piece worth the time.
Slippery slope... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Farcebook's greatest mistake, was to apply this censorship to people outside of Turkey.
Re: (Score:1)
Zuckerberg Dog (Score:3)
Once the infrastructure is in place for censorship, that infrastructure will be used.
Sadly the average person really doesn't care. They could probably just announce that they are selling all your data to North Korea, and then release some photos of the dog posing with Kim Jong Un and everyone would be fine with it.
Re: (Score:1, Interesting)
Wow. (Score:1)
That's quite the write-up... I feel like I've just been to a rally.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
As an aside, I wonder why the EU is hesitant to consider admitting Turkey? Or why the United States insists on advocating in favor of such a course of action.
I know it sounds crazy, but maybe it could be something about Russia? All our great empires hold strategic alliances that appear odd from a certain point of view, but this is their game.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
I was actually thinking about their "complex" (understatement) relationship with the Kurds.
"Complex"? Really? Mr Erdogan (and a large part of the population of Turkey, I assume) don't like Kurds. For racist reasons. At the same time, Mr Erdogan is turning the secular state created by Kemal Atatürk back into an islamic state. I'm not surprised that Turkey is bombing the Kurds, and thus helping IS. Soon, Turkey will be an ally of IS, not an adversary. This of course makes that Turkey can't be part of the EU in the next 50 years or so.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
Just how complex is genocide?
Some great stories available here - http://kurdishdailynews.org/fe... [kurdishdailynews.org]
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Oh please! What the hell is a 'natural' ally?? ISIS is an American/Saudi creation, arising out of the 'moderate' rebels in whatever country the US is 'liberating' at the moment.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Like it or not, the Internet has been de-elitized.
This is one of the biggest blunders of modern times. The popularization of the internet has spurred generations of click happy idiot morons. The perception that people know and understand technology is flat out wrong. If that was actually true, IT departments the world over would not exist. People are just too god damn lazy and (in some cases) too god damn stupid to understand or want to understand the internet or any other life changing technology.
"It should just work. Don't care why or how, but it bett
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Remember when the Internet was uncontrolled.
Err; the Internet is still uncontrolled thank you very much; remember, Facebook != Internet; that is all.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
So was AOL in it's day. Those people should be kept off the general net if at all possible.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
I wonder why the EU is hesitant to consider admitting Turkey?
EU so far does not have any dictatorships as members, and doesn't want to start. Also, Turkey still illegally occupies half of Cyprus. Those two alone are enough for a permaban without even looking at Turkey's financial governance etc.
Re: (Score:3)
Hungary's getting pretty damn close. In fact, I'd say Hungary is closer to one than Turkey. Last election in Turkey, the ruling party didn't get a majority of the seats in parliament and had to form an alliance with a party it doesn't control. That's not something you generally see in a dictatorship.
Re: (Score:3)
As for Cyprus, the EU and US fully endorses and supports Turkey, because Turkey is their biggest ass kisser in the middle east...
Neither EU or US recognizes Turkey's claim to Cyprus as legitimate, quite the opposite of endorsing and supporting. (In fact, no country recognizes Turkey's claim, so the world properly regards the presence of Turkish troups as an occupation. Not even bad actors like Russia and China were willing to break ranks over that one.
Re: (Score:2)
Posting ad hominem as anon reveals a lot about you. Make no mistake about it: I personally am critical of the Turkish regime, as is the US administration and the EU administration as evidenced by no ascension anywhere on the horizon. But indeed, filthy politics, and real economic constraints, tend to get in the way of the necessary calvary charge.
Re: (Score:1)
EU had already admitted Greece, and see how "well" it worked? Turkey is much bigger than Greece, has even more different culture and economy from the West Europe, and most of the Turkey is not even in Europe.
Re: (Score:1)
Few people in Eastern Europe want to become slaves of Russian Empire again. And they are free to go and do whatever they want now, I would suggest you to look up dictionary, what is the meaning of word "slavery" if you don't know. Greece has an option to leave eurozone and use whatever currency they want and manage their economy whatever way they want, and it was German politicians who suggested leaving eurozone now. They don't want to leave no matter what.
Re: (Score:1)
As an aside, I wonder why the EU is hesitant to consider admitting Turkey? Or why the United States insists on advocating in favor of such a course of action.
Probably because they're reluctant to allow a Muslim country that will instantly become the second biggest in the European Parliament.
Turkey is a secular country, whose majority religion is Muslim. It's not a theocracy like Iran.
Historically, the issue has been that it was economically weak compared with Western Europe, but with the likes of Greece and Romania in the EU there is no longer such a clear divide.
Cyprus is a relatively minor point of contention in the scheme of things.
Re: (Score:3)
The problem when we had USENET, IRC, etc. was that the users back then were FAR more technically adept than the average user now. There's just no way you're going to get Grandma to figure out how to use IRC or USENET so she can look at pictures from her grandkids, or write posts about Obama being a Muslim communist who's using FEMA to set up concontration camps. This is why Facebook is so successful: it's fairly easy for any moron to use. Also, its nature is different: it basically lets any moron set up
Re: (Score:2)
[Remember] when USENET, IRC, and other mediums that were hard to censor were the rule rather than the exception?
I remember hating the geek's frustrating, jargon-ridden, clients for these services with the passion of a thousand suns. I used them only because they were serviceable over very low bandwidth connections.
If the Internet looks different now, the geek has only himself to blame.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
When USENET, IRC, and other mediums that were hard to censor were the rule rather than the exception?
They were not hard to censor; in fact, it would probably have been much easier, since the volumes were much lower. It was just that few realised the potential of this new technology; I remember well how, for years, my workplaces only had a very thin internat connection - in one place there was 1 PC, placed in the reception, connected via a modem, for the whole company to use. It was regarded as a curiosity that probably would fizzle out after a while.
They may profess to follow Western ideals, they may even actually believe in them, but when push comes to shove they'll always do what's necessary to enrich the bottom line.
Welcome to Capitalism, where the only valid measure of an
Re: (Score:1)
I can't seem to login to my account anymore.
Apparently they don't believe my name really is Ikate Facebork.
Why do so many sites require facebook for login? Why can't they setup their own login system?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Having a single login for 30 websites is somehow better?
I rather take my chances with a unique combo for each site.
I Always figured it just meant they were just too lazy to set something up in house and or secure it.
That does sound plausible although I think it protects the company more so than the user.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I've heard of an Asian who is having trouble with his name on FB. They don't like "Foo Kew".
Technically yes, but... (Score:1)
Facebook has allowed the repressive Turkish government to set the censorship rules for billions of their users all around the globe
1.5 billion +/- is technically billions, but this statement is inflammatory.
Re: (Score:2)
Are they sure? (Score:5, Interesting)
I didn't actually see any evidence of Facebook censoring content because it's insulting to Ataturk on the linked page. The "evidence" appears to be a document that doesn't mention Facebook anywhere, but, let's take it as read that this really is a list of Facebook content abuse standards.
Even with that assumption, things related to Turkey are not listed as always banned. They are under a section labelled "escalate", meaning, if it gets hot, send it to management.
It may well be that Facebook has decided to enforce Turkish laws about this in order to get themselves unbanned there. But it may also be that upper management just wants more precise control over this hot potato. Once I see a clear message from Facebook saying a group was suspended for violating Turkish censorship laws, then I'll agree.
Re: (Score:1)
Facebook will do what is best for its stock price. (Score:4, Insightful)
Period.
Re:Facebook will do what is best for its stock pri (Score:5, Insightful)
Honestly, there is not article to read here ... a link to a previous article on Slashdot, and a group on Facebook.
Is the claim that if I post something on Facebook critical of Ataturk that I will get censored?
Because if Facebook is going to censor the whole world for a single country, then that would pretty much be the worst thing they can do for their stock price.
Tragically (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Tragically (Score:4, Informative)
I'll help out.
Here's the group description:
The most recent post after that is someone saying, "My submission is on the frontpage of one of the largest sites on the Internet!", followed by a link to this /. story.
It seems like slightly more than half of the posts in that group are people complaining about what's alleged in this article, and slightly less than half are people actually posting screenshots of FB moderation.
Re: (Score:2)
Circular Logic (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I imagine you can always just make a new account. It's not like email addresses are in short supply, or that a person is limited to one Facebook account per lifetime.
Sometimes the bans or blocks may be at the post-level, rather than the account-level. That would allow the account with the "sanctioned" content to continue to post in other areas.
Facebook overlords (Score:1)
I, for one, welcome our free speech abolishing, profit driven facebook overlords!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, if Facebook is provably censoring outside of Turkey, instead of inside of Turkey to comply with Turkish laws ... then, yes, this is a big deal.
I see no evidence they are, but if Facebook starts applying this censorship globally then this is a scary precedent. Because next they'll ban blasphemy, ban criticizing the Thai PM, and basically start banning anything which is banned anywhere.
Of course, the problem is there is nothing to support this except the group which claims it is true.
But if it is true,
Re: (Score:2)
They've *always* applied US censorship rules worldwide. Now they just added a few more.
For example: breastfeeding pictures, nudes in paintings of classical masters, your own naked photo's - all banned. None of it illegal in the EU. So don't complain when the chickens come home to roost - censorship was built in from the start.
Re: (Score:1)
None of it is illegal in the US either, so what the fuck is your point?
The point is that Facebook operates according to US moral standards, and therefore it bans topless pictures even though they're not illegal in the US, in the same way it bans hard core pornography (which is also not illegal in the US).
You can censor things on other grounds than their legality.
Facebook Embraces Turkish Censorship (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Ataturk was a punk (Score:3)
I was only in Istanbul once, and only long enough to have dinner, fall asleep and run to the airport. But my Serbian monther-in-law has some very strong opinions about Turks. She's usually such a sweet little old lady, but don't get her started on the Turks. I mean, the Ottoman Empire was gone before she was born, but damn, she's still mad about something.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
The Turks have always been big on genocide and what is currently going on in southeast Turkey pretty much continues the tradition (see burning forests to depopulate villages - can you tell the difference between that an ethnic cleansing?)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Geez, man. What are you so upset about? You better take care you don't have a stroke worrying about all that.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
I was being ironic too.
Re: (Score:1)
Comments do not get deleted here. Well, unless they are that one comment - do not threaten the president and you should be all set. You can say anything you want. There is no censorship here. We'd notice and we would be very, very angry. To see all comments browse at -1.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm of Greek descent, and when my grandmother developed Alzheimer's about 18 years ago, we found that she would take knives from the kitchen and hide them in her bedroom and in her purse. We put them all back and this happened a few times before we found her purse just full of knives. When we confronted her about it, she scowled and said she needed them in case any Turks came by. Thankfully she never hurt herself or anyone else. But yeah man, I get where you're coming from.
Re: (Score:1)
Nothing to do with Facebook policy (Score:1)
Everything to do with US foreign policy.
Turkey is _important_, and they get away with plenty of things to do with the kurdish independence movement simply because they are important.
This will not be something Facebook chose to do lightly; it'll have been diplomatic-level pressure and then very serious state department pressure.
This bullshit has little to do with Facebook or the internet.
This appears to be bogus (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
My attempt to get myself censored or banned was unsuccessful: https://www.facebook.com/wogsl... [facebook.com]
At work so I am not going to follow your link but I have noticed a double standard if you identify as a democrat, leftist or a member of the LGBT community. They allow those people to say a bunch of hateful bigoted things about Jews and Christians. Every report, no matter how blatant, receives a "we found that it does not violate the community standards blah blah blah". But if I were to call a gay person a coward for hiding behind a fake community page to attack christians on christian stories, I get banned
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
There's plenty of Christians in this country who seem to think that not allowing them to discriminate against non-Christians and not allowing them to tailor the laws according to their personal preference is hateful and bigoted. I'm not sure how many of them there are (I don't know any) but they exist and are pretty loud. Therefore, I don't accept a Christian's claim that somebody is maligning them. I like to see what the people are saying before passing judgment.
Christians are not alone in their over
Wait a sec, even Mohammed? (Score:3)
You can insult any single historical figure that you like on Facebook except one: Turkey's founder Mustafa Kemal 'Ataturk'
I would think that Turkey has something to say about Mohammed as well, considering they seized copies of Charlie Hebdo's survival issue due to the horribly, horribly offensive image of a crying prophet holding up a sign saying "All is Forgiven". (Aside: This really goes to show how deluded a lot of people are on these issues. If your scale is calibrated such that Turkey is deemed "secular" then a place like Texas is going to come out as "ultra-secular / atheistic")
Also, is this censorship happening on only Turkey's localized Facebook or is it on English Facebook as well? TFS doesn't make this clear, and although it's impossible to say it without coming off as a little smug ("I don't own a TV!"), I don't actually have a Facebook account so I can't read TFA.
Turkey vs. China? (Score:2)
If Facebook is so willing to bend completely to the Turkish government's demands for censorship, I wonder why, then, it remains banned in China - being that the key (publicly accepted) reason circled around censorship.
I know that the Chinese government isn't so keen on allowing Facebook to operate in China at all, given that they are in support of local competitors, but in order to legitimately prevent Facebook from competing if they wanted to - they'd need to essentially abide by the same rules as the loca
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Behavioral Retargeting (Score:2)
Anyone who uses facebook will notice how it picks and chooses what to show you. Even if you jump through their overly complicated grouping methods, it will only limit what to show you. The only way to get a good stream is to view each person/group independently, which is over kill. You cant add secret groups to lists, so you have to view each secret group directly. RSS feeds no longer work, and stories are limited to 20 at a time.
They even scan for posts that relate to what you post, including categori
Re: (Score:2)
Lets not kid ourselves, the hate for anything non-progressive, left leaning gets a hammer on facebook.
Bullshit. The hate for anything non-centrist is what you mean. I've posted truly left-of-left stuff on fb and had it disappear, or the URL content (and preview) get stripped but the post remains so it looks like I'm just ranting and frothing about nothing, so before I stopped sharing important things on fb I started putting the URLs into my text every time. And I'd go look and the website would still be there, and there would be no notices from fb about canning my content, just stripped. Stuff I'd posted be
Re: (Score:1)
Racism. (Score:1)
Old news? (Score:2)
This is pretty much old news, going back to the leaked document that gawker got in 2012 (http://gawker.com/5885714/inside-facebooks-outsourced-anti-porn-and-gore-brigade-where-camel-toes-are-more-offensive-than-crushed-heads).
What I can't tell for sure, and as someone not particularly affiliated with the Kurdish or Turkish causes, haven't experienced directly, is Facebook applying all of these standards (e.g. denigration of Ataturk) to all Facebook users, or does it only affect users from Turkey?
That is, if
I know why Facebook is doing this... (Score:2)
They're testing this set of censorship techniques in case they are one day required to use them in the US and Europe.
Re: (Score:1)
That sounds better than turducken [wikipedia.org].