[throwaw12]

> The problem is the governments in those places, and not the private company.

Do you think Meta will comply if North Korea or Iran requests same censorship?

If your answer is "No, they will not comply", then problem is the company

[nixon_why69]

It's more complicated than that. The US government is currently at war with Iran, alongside UAE and the Saudis as allies. Meta is a US company.

I'd say the US government is more important to Meta than either the UAE or Saudi government. What do you think US government people are saying to Meta about this?

[Aurornis]

> Do you think Meta will comply if North Korea or Iran requests same censorship?

Those countries don’t allow Meta to operate at all.

> If your answer is "No, they will not comply", then problem is the company

I don’t understand what point you’re trying to make. Large companies comply with the laws of countries they operate in. It’s not optional. If you have a presence there you either comply with their laws or they shut you down.

In some of these countries they might even arrest any employees of the company they can get their hands on to send a message, even if they didn’t have decision making authority. That’s not something you subject your employees to.

[marcosdumay]

They can't operate there. AFAIK, that's the only difference.

A company can not operate in a country and not follow its rules.

[8note]

i dont think meta does business in those two countries?

thats not a very relevant comparison.

[lotsofpulp]

Does Meta do business in either of those jurisdictions?

If the answer is “No”, then it makes sense they would not follow laws they do not have to.