Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Facebook Tells India It Won't Help Censor the Web

samzenpus posted more than 2 years ago | from the censor-it-yourself dept.

Censorship 168

An anonymous reader writes "Indian Communications and IT minister Kapil Sibal yesterday announced a proposal to have technology companies like Microsoft, Facebook, Google, and Twitter pre-screen user generated content so that community sentiments are not hurt. Social media platforms are being asked to censor whatever politicians deem objectionable and too offensive for the Internet. Sibal called a news conference when the story broke, and following it, Facebook responded to say that it can't help in the effort."

cancel ×

168 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

fuck the curry pakis (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38294240)

amen!

Re:fuck the curry pakis (4, Insightful)

Chrisq (894406) | more than 2 years ago | (#38294930)

"fuck the pakis" certainly would not be on India's list of banned sentiments.

Duh... (4, Funny)

masternerdguy (2468142) | more than 2 years ago | (#38294242)

Of course not, censorship would hurt their business model. People need to share their dirt to sell it!

Re:Duh... (3, Insightful)

Tharsman (1364603) | more than 2 years ago | (#38294522)

"In unrelated news, Facebook tells India it will grandly give them all secret profile information on any indian national no matter what country they live in, they may even give them a few non indians to sweeten the deal."

Re:Duh... (1, Troll)

MichaelKristopeit424 (2018894) | more than 2 years ago | (#38294622)

and how would india responding to facebook by blocking the entire site with a national firewall affect facebook's business model?

you're an idiot.

implication of exploitation = highest level of humor.

slashdot = stagnated.

Re:Duh... (2)

masternerdguy (2468142) | more than 2 years ago | (#38294660)

Hey look its my new favourite person.

Re:Duh... (1)

MichaelKristopeit341 (1967638) | more than 2 years ago | (#38294726)

hey look, it's a cowardly, pathetic feeb referring to themselves as "master".

you're an idiout.

Re:Duh... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38294736)

i think i speak for all of us when I ask you to calm down and drink your prune juice.

Re:Duh... (1)

MichaelKristopeit341 (1967638) | more than 2 years ago | (#38294830)

who is "us"?

you are exactly what you've claimed to be: NOTHING.

cower in my shadow some more, feeb.

you're completely pathetic.

Re:Duh... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38294828)

Oh you're back huh? I really like how you're -1 by default now. And yes I enjoyed every minute of going back to your posts and dumping 15 mod points at a time on modding you down on every different account number of your's that I could find.

Re:Duh... (1)

MichaelKristopeit342 (1967640) | more than 2 years ago | (#38294972)

ur mum's face're -1 by default now.

if you're still able to read and respond to me, it looks like all your effort is for naught.

enjoy your ignorant hypocrisy, while cowering in my shadow some more, feeb.

you're completely pathetic.

Re:Duh... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38295054)

It's like poking a hornets nest with a stick, only to find it released a swarm of roflwasps that make you rofl.

Re:Duh... (1)

MichaelKristopeit344 (1967644) | more than 2 years ago | (#38295100)

why do you cower in my shadow? what are you afraid of?

you're completely pathetic.

Re:Duh... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38294918)

Congratulations on the correct usage of you're. However, it should have a capital Y. Oh and "idiout" is spelled idiot. Idiot.

Re:Duh... (0)

MichaelKristopeit342 (1967640) | more than 2 years ago | (#38295058)

capitalization is a tool of the weak minded, as it serves solely to ease the reading comprehension of morons. nevertheless, you're comprehension is demonstrably so low that you further require the use of conjunctive adverbs to delineate sentences. you are, however, still a moron.

when responding to someone who spells "favorite" as "favourite", it only makes sense to coddle their obvious ignorance and spell "idiot" as "idiout".

cower in my shadow some more, feeb.

you're completely pathetic. congratulations.

Re:Duh... (1)

BluBrick (1924) | more than 2 years ago | (#38295240)

capitalization is a tool of the weak minded

Check the spelling of your username, feeb.

Re:Duh... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38294976)

He is your master.

Re:Duh... (0)

MichaelKristopeit343 (1967642) | more than 2 years ago | (#38295080)

you are an idiot.

cower in my shadow some more, feeb.

you're completely pathetic.

Re:Duh... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38295242)

and how would india responding to facebook by blocking the entire site with a national firewall affect facebook's business model?

you're an idiot.

implication of exploitation = highest level of humor.

slashdot = stagnated.

Then you could not get any tech support....

Re:Duh... (1)

defaria (741527) | more than 2 years ago | (#38294796)

Apparently free speech means nothing to you. But let me ask you this: Exactly how much do you pay for Facebook? Huh? Thought so. Geeze!

Re:Duh... (3, Insightful)

masternerdguy (2468142) | more than 2 years ago | (#38294814)

Free speech shouldn't be used as a blatant cover for why they aren't censoring. They should tell the truth, that censorship would interrupt their revenue stream.

Re:Duh... (4, Interesting)

insertwackynamehere (891357) | more than 2 years ago | (#38295016)

How do you know that's the truth? There is a good chance the powers that be dislike censorship as much as everyone else in the software realm and now that they have some real power are exercising their right to resist censorship in a way that makes an impact.

Simple (5, Informative)

Toe, The (545098) | more than 2 years ago | (#38294248)

Facebook doesn't want to censor: they want free flow of as much information as possible. The more that's out there, the more data they have to mine and sell.

Re:Simple (2)

arcite (661011) | more than 2 years ago | (#38294348)

The medium is the message.

Re:Simple (1)

InsightIn140Bytes (2522112) | more than 2 years ago | (#38294688)

I find this double thinking funny. If it would had been then everyone would had celebrated how brave and new Google is, but when it's Facebook it's obviously because they want money. People are sheep, but the ones thinking they're not such are just perfect example of ones...

Re:Simple (1)

ByOhTek (1181381) | more than 2 years ago | (#38294378)

Sort-of.

They want it to flow to them. They only really care about /one/ of the exit pipes...

Re:Simple (1)

flosofl (626809) | more than 2 years ago | (#38294552)

They only really care about /one/ of the exit pipes...

Yeah, the one they screw us in.

Re:Simple (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38294868)

Facebook doesn't want to censor

Facebook censors all the time. I've had my account arbitrarily terminated because I made an objectionable post. They refused to tell me which post they were referring to; only simply that I violated their ToS and that I had no recourse of appeal. I have no clue because I generally don't even push the envelope.

I am not the only one who has had this story either.

Facebook is very kafkaesque and they're more than happy to muzzle people arbitrarily.

Re:Simple (4, Funny)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 2 years ago | (#38295204)

We call this a "Zuckerpunch".

PR Giveaway (4, Insightful)

TheSpoom (715771) | more than 2 years ago | (#38294254)

It's in Facebook's best interest to say no anyway (since censoring comments would only make people want to leave and thus would reduce revenue at the additional cost of developer time), and by doing so they appear to be heroic. This was perhaps the easiest press release ever.

Re:PR Giveaway (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38294352)

If it is the "the easiest press release ever' then where are the other press releases from the other company's specifically Google? They have a stance somewhere Must be weighing heavily in the Google bureaucracy somewhere

Re:PR Giveaway (2)

paiute (550198) | more than 2 years ago | (#38294574)

If it is the "the easiest press release ever' then where are the other press releases from the other company's specifically Google? They have a stance somewhere Must be weighing heavily in the Google bureaucracy somewhere

Ignoring it is the best press release.

Re:PR Giveaway (1)

Dog-Cow (21281) | more than 2 years ago | (#38294582)

FB's premise is that you can share your information with others. If they start censoring for political reasons, they risk violating that premise. Google has none of that.

Re:PR Giveaway (2)

bhagwad (1426855) | more than 2 years ago | (#38294738)

You got it backwards. Just read FB's press statement. They didn't say anything about not helping the government. Google on the other hand is the only company to have explicitly said that they won't censor controversial content.

Re:PR Giveaway (0)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | more than 2 years ago | (#38294432)

This. I bet they'd love if more 3rd-world countries with a small Internet user base would ask for censorship, so that they could pose heroically and say "NO little country, I will not censor, for I support freedom of speech!" while blocking TPB links.

Re:PR Giveaway (5, Informative)

xaxa (988988) | more than 2 years ago | (#38294702)

Small Internet user base? Little country? Are we still discussing India?

There are more Indians online than British people. India is 6th. CIA world factbook [cia.gov] (and that's from 2009, I wouldn't be surprised if India is now ahead of Germany. Most Germans who want to be online are; that's not the case for India.)

Let's have some respect for the world's largest democracy, please.

Interesting... (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38294256)

I think it's interesting to see India asking for IT help.

Re:Interesting... (1)

SteveFoerster (136027) | more than 2 years ago | (#38294504)

Apparently what they want isn't on the script?

Re:Interesting... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38294800)

Well all their people are working in America.... the smart ones at least.

Re:Interesting... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38294982)

from what I read he wanted humans to do the screening, not computers. I'm sure he has an indian comapany ready to do it for them ....

Re:Interesting... (1)

sconeu (64226) | more than 2 years ago | (#38295266)

Has Kapil Sibal tried rebooting his Internet yet?

Well ... (5, Funny)

lennier1 (264730) | more than 2 years ago | (#38294314)

If you want to filter something, block his campaign ads when it's time for re-election.

Re:Well ... (1)

ByOhTek (1181381) | more than 2 years ago | (#38294396)

Oh dear God, I could really use some mod points right now.
+1 insightful.

Re:Well ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38294554)

indian politicians dont use campaign ads. the entire world doesnt work the same way as your western countries.

Re:Well ... (1)

MichaelKristopeit340 (1967534) | more than 2 years ago | (#38294672)

by blocking his campaign ads, you would be saving him money that he could then spend on the distribution of ads to people that might be swayed by them.

you're an idiot.

Wait, wait, wait, wait (3, Funny)

Moheeheeko (1682914) | more than 2 years ago | (#38294318)

...Facebook...doing something....good? Does not Compute.

Re:Wait, wait, wait, wait (1)

masternerdguy (2468142) | more than 2 years ago | (#38294360)

Don't worry, they aren't doing this out of some mission to better mankind and stand up to oppression. They're doing it for their own profit: they need an uncensored environment to collect as much data as possible.

Re:Wait, wait, wait, wait (1)

Baloroth (2370816) | more than 2 years ago | (#38294426)

Of course. So? It's still a good thing for humanity.

Re:Wait, wait, wait, wait (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38294446)

In the same way that giving experimental drugs to prisoners is good when it find a cure for AIDS.

Re:Wait, wait, wait, wait (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38294564)

That hurts people, this helps. I hate Facebook but can't complain about this.

Re:Wait, wait, wait, wait (1)

pak9rabid (1011935) | more than 2 years ago | (#38294658)

They could still collect the data and just not display it to end-users, thus they'd still have the data to mine.

Re:Wait, wait, wait, wait (2)

Stan92057 (737634) | more than 2 years ago | (#38295066)

You have it wrong blocking content would cost millions and then open themselves to lawsuits from India because they didn't block enough. But ya it all comes down to money and not breaking any US laws while doing so.

Re:Wait, wait, wait, wait (1)

ByOhTek (1181381) | more than 2 years ago | (#38294406)

Stopped clock, twice a day. You know the old adage I'm sure?

Re:Wait, wait, wait, wait (1)

ZombieBraintrust (1685608) | more than 2 years ago | (#38294484)

Well it helps that what he was asking for is impossible to impliment. The scope of what he is asking for is the same as asking that Google employees review every email that people send with GMail. Or that AT&T have employees listen in on all telephone conversations.

*sarcasm* ;-) (1)

rts008 (812749) | more than 2 years ago | (#38294680)

Or that AT&T have employees listen in on all telephone conversations.

That's what AT&T bought the NSA for, silly! ;-)

Re:Wait, wait, wait, wait (1)

T Murphy (1054674) | more than 2 years ago | (#38294722)

They just don't want to be held liable when their censorship settings are shown to be flimsy and easily bypassed.

Kinder, gentler Facebook (1)

HideyoshiJP (1392619) | more than 2 years ago | (#38294320)

Well, I suppose this makes a nice press release, but make no mistake about Facebook's motivations. This is a decision solely based on cost/revenue. Facebook does not care about its users.

Facebook (2, Interesting)

arcite (661011) | more than 2 years ago | (#38294322)

They won't help censor the web because that would interfere with them spying on their users.

Re:Facebook (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38294550)

Exactly! Censorship is a form of privacy, and Facebook doesn't do that.

all governments around the world (4, Interesting)

FudRucker (866063) | more than 2 years ago | (#38294346)

would like to be in control of ALL the information you have available. the internet is a thorn in government's sides, right now the benefits of the internet outweighs the liabilities and when that changes you can bet the US Gov will pull the plugs (like shutting down ICANN's root servers) among other things it wont kill it completely but it will kill most of it and joe and jane sixpack wont be going to infowars.com or whatever flavor of underground news and tinfoil hattery they like...

war is peace, freedom is slavery, ignorance is strength

Re:all governments around the world (1)

dkleinsc (563838) | more than 2 years ago | (#38294598)

The good news is that the strategy utterly failed to work out for Hosni Mubarak.

Ad hoc mesh networks (1)

Phoenix666 (184391) | more than 2 years ago | (#38294812)

An increasing number of households, smart phones, and even newer model cars have WiFi transmission capabilities, so why can't we create ad-hoc mesh networks as a backup to the internet the government can control via backbones? As long as houses, phones, and cars have power there will always be a free internet. Confiscating all those is logistically impossible.

Seems to me, that with the un-constitutional reactionary laws the 1% is trying to push through right now that we need to make this happen swiftly.

Re:all governments around the world (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38295280)

I always thought that ignorance was bliss! Oh well, probably not. After all, if it was, then most of the people in the world would be manically happy! :rolleyes:

Hell = auditing youtube comments for an eternity (4, Funny)

zill (1690130) | more than 2 years ago | (#38294366)

Didn't Mr. Sibal suggest that they will use humans to screen the contents? [slashdot.org]

Here's my suggestion: tie him down to a chair and pry open his eyelids clockwatch orange style, and then have him screen youtube comments for 8 hours.

Re:Hell = auditing youtube comments for an eternit (1)

Riceballsan (816702) | more than 2 years ago | (#38294544)

And he also wants to monitor Facebook posts, Imagine reading that drivel all day. I'd almost prefer youtube comments

Facebook's position (5, Insightful)

Aladrin (926209) | more than 2 years ago | (#38294386)

Wow, everyone's really quick to jump on them and claim it's because they have profit motive in having more data. I won't deny that, but there are other factors that are possibly more important.

Human-scanning every single message would be nearly impossible. Even if they managed to handle the staffing problem, they couldn't afford it. And even if they could afford it, there's the ethical issues it presents.

There are plenty of other reasons for them to decline.

Re:Facebook's position (1)

Dog-Cow (21281) | more than 2 years ago | (#38294608)

And all but one of them is tied to profit.

If you think FB has ethics, you are deluded.

Re:Facebook's position (1)

Stan92057 (737634) | more than 2 years ago | (#38295168)

Sure they could afford it they would just outsource it to the Indians themselves or they have cheap slave labor as well.

Re:Facebook's position (1)

Stan92057 (737634) | more than 2 years ago | (#38295190)

Opps ment Or China they have cheap slave labor as well I dont know where the word china went it was there when i posted it.

Re:Facebook's position (2)

fahrbot-bot (874524) | more than 2 years ago | (#38295246)

Human-scanning every single message would be nearly impossible. Even if they managed to handle the staffing problem, they couldn't afford it. And even if they could afford it, there's the ethical issues it presents.

Reminds me of the Better Off Ted [wikipedia.org] episode "Racial Sensitivity" where a glitch in the new automatic sensors controlling the building (lights, door, elevators, water-fountains, bathrooms) - that worked by measuring light reflected off faces/skin - didn't detect "black people"... Management didn't want to face the expense of reverting to the previous system or admit they made a mistake, so they tried other alternatives.

First Management installed separate, manual water-fountains - with a sign that said "For Blacks," then they decided to simply hire minimum-wage white people to follow the black employees around and trigger the sensors. Of course, HR said that was discrimination to only hire white people, so they had to also hire more black people and - you see where this is going... Finally, they convinced Management that this circle of hiring would quickly lead to all the people on the planet working for Veridian Dynamics and that they "simply don't have the parking for that."

Yet another ass licking politician (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38294392)

Mr. Sibal, it's not just the world, the rest of India is laughing at you too.

Censor this!

Dear India... (2, Insightful)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 2 years ago | (#38294398)

Y'know what "hurts community sentiment" more than all the trolls in the world, no matter how socially malformed, photoshop adept, and equipped with free time equal only to their misanthropy?

Your own bloody, medieval, sectarian clusterfucks... [wikipedia.org]

How about you work on the "brutal violence in response to hurt feelings about whose invisible friend is better" problem and then worry about scary things on the internet?

Re:Dear India... (2)

Joce640k (829181) | more than 2 years ago | (#38294594)

Yep, religion rears it's ugly head, again.

A much better answer is to ban any religion that thinks going out on the street and being violent is the right response to something they saw on a web page.

Root of all evil...etc.

Re:Dear India... (0)

techno-vampire (666512) | more than 2 years ago | (#38294788)

How about you work on the "brutal violence in response to hurt feelings about whose invisible friend is better" problem and then worry about scary things on the internet?

I know that it gives you a warm fuzzy feeling inside to sneer at people who believe something you don't, but making fun of people who don't think the same way as you do simply makes you look childish, shallow and boorish. Now, I happen to agree with your basic premise that India should spend more time teaching people that violence isn't the right way to work out their religious differences, but I do think that you could be a little more polite about it.

India, of all places, should understand the problem of religious violence. After all, the term Thug [wikipedia.org] originated there, and started out referring to members of a cult who robbed and murdered travellers partly for religious reasons.

No Incentive to Censor (2)

stating_the_obvious (1340413) | more than 2 years ago | (#38294410)

First, it's additional work... but more importantly, it's additional liability since you are now responsible for what gets posted...

Jobs (1)

koan (80826) | more than 2 years ago | (#38294430)

This would create a lot of jobs, which to some people are more important than trolling the Inet with Photoshopped pictures of leaders and religious figures.

Re:Jobs (1)

ackthpt (218170) | more than 2 years ago | (#38294532)

This would create a lot of jobs, which to some people are more important than trolling the Inet with Photoshopped pictures of leaders and religious figures.

Most likely jobs in India. Hmm. That's a really interesting scenario, if you think about where it could end up.

Re:Jobs (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38294556)

Jobs? These jobs would be a waste of resources, doing nothing of real value, costing Facebook money that could be spent on real goals. Jobs with no productive output should not exist.

This is gonna hurt.... (1)

forkfail (228161) | more than 2 years ago | (#38294466)

... but....

Good on Facebook.

ouch.

Good (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38294472)

Good for Facebook, censorship is just plain wrong.

If that is what the people want (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38294494)

Why should Facebook get to decide what to do with objectionable content? India is a democracy and if the Indian people feel it would be appropriate to block some kinds of undesirable content, ISTM Facebook should simply comply.

Taiwan spy agency denies 'magnetic' attack (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38294496)

"Taiwan's intelligence agency on Tuesday flatly rejected allegations that it had launched "electromagnetic wave" attacks against the running mate of an opposition presidential candidate.

"The National Security Bureau has not owned the alleged technologies, nor have we used equipment to harass the alleged targeted person," the bureau said in a statement.

Lin Ruey-shiung, the running mate of independent candidate James Soong, surprised the public last week when he claimed to have been subjected to "electromagnetic wave" attacks by the bureau on September 20 outside his home and over the following three days.

"If I hadn't quickly moved out (of my home), I would have lost my mind," he told reporters."

- http://ca.news.yahoo.com/taiwan-running-mate-claims-magnetic-attack-003709546.html [yahoo.com]

russian spies models radio hacking HOW TO JAM RADIO FREQUENCIES spying spy counter terrorist fleas

Not only will Facebook not help Censor... (3, Funny)

ackthpt (218170) | more than 2 years ago | (#38294514)

They'll indvertantly have accumunated a lot of private info on Indian politicos and the State and accidently exposed it all through a defect in code, which will redirect all Indian FB users to pages of it, but for one day only, until they find the bug and fix it.

So there :P

Self censoring (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38294538)

Isn't FB self censoring, since you can choose your friends?

What about the US? (1)

spune (715782) | more than 2 years ago | (#38294566)

So when will facebook stop censoring the web in the US? For example, links to strikes and other labor rights activities are regularly blocked.

Re:What about the US? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38294902)

[Needs Citation]

Solution (1)

jdavidb (449077) | more than 2 years ago | (#38294674)

Sibal is asking companies to help him filter the Internet because the country has several religions and faiths. He argues what might seem humorous to someone can be really offensive to another and he wants to avoid further incidents of communities taking to the streets and vandalizing public property.

Bear with me, I have a solution to propose for this, from the Bible, from a time when another large country in Asia faced a problem with the presence of several faiths and ethnicities and some were getting ready to take to the streets in violence.

the king granted the Jews who were in each and every city the right to assemble and to defend their lives, to destroy, to kill, and to annihilate the entire army of any people or province which might attack them, including children and women, and to plunder their spoil. (Esther 8:11)

It worked. When the Jews were granted the legal right to defend themselves, only idiots got violent against them, and they received a rough justice as a result, with little cost to the government.

Just a suggestion. It's a lot better than taking away civil rights.

Speech doesn't commit violence. Governments do.

Impractical (1)

necro81 (917438) | more than 2 years ago | (#38294730)

It is utterly impractical to think that you could pre-screen user-generated content. Facebook has, what, 800 million users. How many millions of screeners would you need to sift through all the potential content out there - even if were solely restricted to India? How do you keep all those screeners from going braindead reading through all that stuff? How do you keep them from gouging their eyes out with the inane horror of it all. And, most importantly, how do you decide what gets censored, and enforce that it gets kept out?

Can't or won't? (1)

sohmc (595388) | more than 2 years ago | (#38294762)

Article says won't but summary says can't.

There is a world of difference between those two words.

Re:Can't or won't? (1)

lgarner (694957) | more than 2 years ago | (#38295116)

Which article did you read? Normally I wouldn't ask, but given your post you must have read something.

Oblig XKCD (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38294822)

http://xkcd.com/865/ [xkcd.com]

Community moderation (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38294824)

How about community moderation. Let the people censor themselves. It works great at bannination.com [bannination.com] .

Suuure. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38294832)

Just like you never censored Draw Muhammed Day groups?
All in the name of "hate speech" was it?
Yeah that hate speech that isn't hate speech unless you put your dictionary in an industrial stretching machine and stretch it to the width of a planet.
That's just one example of countless many things they have censored.

Whatever makes them look like heroes is all good for them, standing up for peoples rights and taking down the big bad government.
Fuck Facebook, they are hypocrites.

Whoa! (1)

RobinEggs (1453925) | more than 2 years ago | (#38294892)

That's very interesting....

An evil thing Facebook won't do.

Or is that just what they want us to think...?

Conspiracy theorists, start your foiling!

Is this a cross-up with a Dilbert post? (1)

thepainguy (1436453) | more than 2 years ago | (#38294952)

This is very pointy-headed boss.

The real question is: Who will get on the bus? (1)

s.petry (762400) | more than 2 years ago | (#38295002)

I imagine that Microsoft may be cooking some stew in the back ground which would help India. What a better way for them to gain market share in an area that they have struggled with!

When you look at how Microsoft already filters content for users, is it that much of a leap?

Grow up (1)

Murdoch5 (1563847) | more than 2 years ago | (#38295070)

He showed company executives derogatory images of the Prophet Mohammed as well as altered pictures of Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and Congress Party chief Sonia Gandhi that appeared on their platforms. He argued these images would offend “any reasonable person.”

Grow up is all I have to say. If you can't take a joke and little harsh humour then go find a rock and live under it, the rest of us will have a great time and party all night. The fact is to many people take offence to what aren't offensive situations. Just because you haven't grown up and matured to know the difference between what you think is offensive and what is actually offensive isn't my problem and it shouldn't be Facebook's, Google's or Microsoft's.

A reasonable person will understand this and just avoid these places on there own, if there really offended by it then why would they go looking in places they think will offend them? How is that reasonable?

Fuck the corrupted politicians (1)

diego.viola (1104521) | more than 2 years ago | (#38295138)

Fuck you corrupted politicians.

Common Carrier (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38295192)

editing / censoring part makes them responsible for all the content. They lose their legal status

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>