I think it is demonstrably proven that Facebook has no qualms about aiding and abetting government campaigns of crushing dissent across the world, despite its claims of "cherishing free speech". Facebook (and Twitter) has been doing the same in India [1].
I always thought it was interesting that the governments of Cambodia and Vietnam allowed Facebook where the media is tightly controlled. Cambodia used to have a couple independent papers. The Post became state-controlled-by-proxy [1] and the Daily was shut down by the government [2]. The existence and popularity of Facebook basically allowed them to shut down the older independent outlets without significant outcry from the public.
Maybe there is some calculus that shows it's better to get people online through access to Facebook, I just hope there's more journalistic competition and/or transparency in the future. Giving in to autocrats seems dangerous.
Locking someone up for disagreeing with you just highlights your insecurity. And I think the point here is that Facebook is a primary news source for many people. It may be enabling government censorship due to the company's monopolistic status.
Though I'd say the governments there are fairly secure. The Vietnamese communist party has been in power since 1945, China's since '49 and the Cambodian lot only got kicked out when Pol Pot, after having genocided a third of the population, attacked Vietnam who then invaded and got rid of him, and the new lot have been in power since 1984. Sadly throwing opponents in jail seems to kind of work. This of course predates facebook.
Maybe there is some calculus that shows it's better to get people online through access to Facebook, I just hope there's more journalistic competition and/or transparency in the future. Giving in to autocrats seems dangerous.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Phnom_Penh_Post#cite_ref-3...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Cambodia_Daily#cite_ref-1:...