[zaidf]

It’s even worse: many people are demanding Facebook monitor Messenger chats for abuses in Mayanmar while at the same time not wanting Facebook to monitor Messenger chats. This is just a perfect example of constant catch-22s I see in people’s expectations of tech companies. You can’t expect Facebook to both not monitor chat messages AND prevent chat messages that do harm. You can have one or the other.

[geodel]

This is the doublethink the most people like to indulge in. The free speech I like must be protected at all cost and that I do not like should be handled via glib statements: 'free speech is not free reach', 'private companies are not obliged to give platform to anyone' and so on.

[ceejayoz]

> You can’t expect Facebook to both not monitor chat messages AND prevent chat messages that do harm.

Not monitor, or not use for advertising targeting?

I'm fine with spam/malware/virus prevention in my Messenger or Gmail. I'm not enormously comfortable getting an ad for baby clothes after I send a private message to someone that I'm pregnant.

[dwighttk]

wasn't it WhatsApp and message forwarding that people had a problem with in Myanmar? Not p2p.

[pas]

India, but yes. And again, not exactly p2p, because large (meaning 100+ people group chats) that spread false alarms.

[dwighttk]

I was reading something about Myanmar[1], but I got it conflated with another article I can't find talking about WhatsApp message forwarding.

[1]https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/15/technology/myanmar-facebo...

[pas]

Can you please show one such instance of impossible demand? I thought that's two very distinct group of advocates.