[0800]

Their vision of the future is fully inspired on, if not outright copied from, the US. China doesn't care about "keeping up appearances", but it is very much doing the same as the US, only more blatantly.

And where in China it may be the government, in the US it is EvilCorp or some other entity not bound by the constitution.

[TomMarius]

How can there be an entity that isn't bound by the constitution?

[0800]

You have no right to free speech or right to assemble on Facebook.

My face is recognized, tagged, and stored in Facebook servers, shared with intelligence agencies, and cross-referenced with all other photo's. And I don't even have a Facebook account (leading some employers to distrust me -- "what do I have to hide?" -- and lower their "social credit score" of me).

In contrast, I am relatively safe against China's spying apparatus.

[TomMarius]

Having "free speech" on Facebook would break Facebook's constitutional rights. Facebook doesn't owe you anything, it was not done for public money. It's private property. If you believe they use your personal information maliciously and/or without consent, you can (in the EU at least) sue.

[0800]

Companies don't have constitutional rights nor obligations. If wrong, please correct me on this.

As it is private property, it is free to set its own rules, even if those rules impede on my free speech. If Facebook was a government, it could not make those rules as per first amendment.

You can still sue of course.

Look, I feel AI-powered surveillance is scary, and think China is going too far (perhaps showing us a glimpse of the future) in this. But where it is state-run surveillance in China, it is capitalist-run surveillance in the West. That Europe needs to step up and protect its inhabitants is a sign of what happens if you give companies free reign in handling (private) data: A big privacy mess.

[TomMarius]

Let me rephrase. If you'd force Facebook to allow "free speech" (you want to force someone to let you do something on their property and you call that free?), you'd break Facebook owners' constitutional rights to private property.

Not having "free speech" on Facebook isn't because the constitution doesn't apply to companies, it's because Facebook is like someone's house - private property - first amendment doesn't apply in my grandma's house as well.

They still have to oblige to your right of privacy etc, as I said, in Europe, you could sue (FB can't even use the photo tagging feature in EU because it'd be against the laws).

The constitution is just a basic law, it applies to corporations as well, it just doesn't speak about them much.

BTW, I don't really think you guys in the US should believe that your government will or will not do something because of something like the constitution - remember NSA? Remember Kim Dotcom?

[dragonwriter]

> Companies don't have constitutional rights nor obligations. If wrong, please correct me on this.

You’re wrong. Most Constitutional rights are granted to all persons, and corporations are legal persons (and were well before the Constitution), and, furthermore, are generally vehicles for action by natural persons such that depriving them of rights is seen to effectively curtail the rights of natural persons; for both reasons, corporations are generally held to have Constitutional rights.