Do they have a choice? It’s either that or they are shown the door, in which case they will probably be replaced by worse local alternatives in terms of freedom of speech and gov influence

▲

ssalka 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

"Somebody's gonna profit from these authoritarian regimes, so it might as well be us!" -Zuck, probably

▲

akudha 33 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-]

“If I don’t sell drugs, guns etc at the street corner, someone else will. Might as well be me, I’d like to make a few hundred Billion while I am at it”

Is this a good justification though? I get what you’re saying, but the same argument you’re making for social media can also be applied to everything else, isn’t it?

If I don’t do human cloning, someone else will. If I don’t make bio weapons, someone else will. And so on

▲

arandomhuman 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

>Do they have a choice?

Yes, they absolutely have a choice. People can choose to not assist with transgressions against human rights in the year 2026 :)

▲

ticulatedspline 2 hours ago | parent [-]

Meta is not people, it's a publicly traded company that's practically legally required to make money and grow infinitely.

You however, as people, can choose not to patronize a Meta that assists with transgressions against human rights.

	▲	slg an hour ago \| parent \| next [-]
		>Meta is not people, it's a publicly traded company that's practically legally required to make money and grow infinitely. Has a company ever faced any sort of legal repercussions for sacrificing profit for moral reasons? That isn't rhetorical. I'm not aware of this ever happening, so I'm dubious of your claim.
	▲	looneysquash 38 minutes ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		And companies are legal fiction. Meta doesn't remove a post, a person does. Or maybe some software built by a person. A person from a government told a person at Meta to block it, and that person did (probably by telling yet more people to do it).

▲

JumpCrisscross 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> Do they have a choice?

Neither the UAE nor Saudi Arabia have extradition treaties with the United States. (On a practical level, they wouldn't be able to enforce one if they had it.)

	▲	mdavidn 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		But they do control the routers that peer with external networks.

▲

Georgelemental 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Russia and China can do that, but I am not sure Saudi and UAE reasonably could. Too small and too enmeshed with the US empire

▲

nailer 3 hours ago | parent [-]

Saudi could - I think people accept Saudi is a religious oligarchy - but the UAE is a playground of international people avoiding tax and ostensibly a first world country, Facebook being banned would highlight how ridiculous the government that did that is.

▲

somenameforme an hour ago | parent [-]

It's an authoritarian autocracy. I'm not using that as a slur against them as it seems like quite a nice place to stay for a while, but it's simply what it is. An American spent the better part of a year in a max security prison there for the high crime of making a video mocking youth culture. [1] I'm rather surprised to find out that Facebook isn't already banned! In looking it up turns out you can get into legal trouble there for things as small as using suggestive emojis, and they are watching. Kind of funny in a way.

Anyhow, yeah - Facebook being banned in UAE would surprise exactly nobody that's familiar with their government. People are willing to tolerate a whole lot of nonsense for 0% taxes!

[1] - https://apnews.com/general-news-4c1f57ed465940659eeb79b41447...

	▲	Georgelemental 37 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		Even disregarding the ability to criticize the government, Western expats seeking 0% tax want to be able to talk with their family, friends, and business partners elsewhere in the world. UAE banning Meta platforms reduces the country's appeal for foreigners

▲

mnewme 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Yes they do. twitter followed way less requests than X does

▲

iAMkenough 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Yes, they have a choice. Profits are more important than values.

▲

Ajedi32 4 hours ago | parent [-]

Right, but it should be acknowledged that this is likely an amoral decision on Facebook's part (or more charitably, a pragmatic decision) not an immoral one.

The governments that forced these changes in the first place are of course acting immorally, that's not in dispute.

▲

echoangle 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I don’t think that’s what amoral means. It’s not malicious but doing something that hurts others just because you gain money from it isn’t amoral just because you’re not doing it just to inflict pain.

Hyperbolic example: If your boss tells you to kill the next customer or you won’t get paid, doing the killing isn’t amoral.

	▲	Ajedi32 an hour ago \| parent [-]
		Good point. Even if Facebook is being threatened they're still ultimately responsible for their actions. Maybe amoral isn't the right word to describe this. I guess it just feels like a lot to me to expect a company to break the law on purpose, even in the service of a greater moral duty. But maybe it shouldn't. Obviously if they did pull out of the UAE and Saudi Arabia over this rather than comply that would be a laudable stand.

▲

nailer 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Facebook acquiscing to dictatorships that block human rights organizations is immoral.

	▲	lostlogin 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		It is. It’s not as bas as the time they helped organise a genocide though, so there is that.

▲

logicchains 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

People here all complain about social American social media companies defying the law when they refuse to cooperate with EU censorship, then they complain about them not defying the law with Saudi censorship, it's a double standard.

	▲	appplication 2 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Yes of course, clearly the EU and Saudia Arabia both have equal censorship initiatives and human rights track records. Apologies for the sarcasm. But I think it’d be helpful for you to expand a little on what you mean by EU “censorship” in this case.
	▲	j-bos an hour ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		Could be goomba fallacy, but listening to people irl, maybe not.