[bpatrianakos]

I don't think it would be out of line at all. I got downvoted to hell for expressing similar opinions before but I think this is a perfectly reasonable opinion.

Facebook is in the business of social networking, not activism.

The number of users using Tor compared to the general population is bound to be so low that they either shouldn't care enough to bother blocking it or if they did for some reason, really wouldn't put a dent in their daily actives.

Activists very well could be screwed, but that's really not Facebook's concern. Their no pseudonym policy makes perfect sense. Whether or not you like it or would use services that enforce it is an entirely separate issue. I feel like I don't have to explain this but I will anyway. Using a real name helps them help you find people you know (or at least whose name you know). That's the whole point. To start implementing policies conducive to anonymity defeats the entire purpose of Facebook.

I understand why Facebook is such a great tool for activists and dissidents and why a social network built especially for those people would not be ideal. That said, at the end of the day Facebook has no obligation to support such people. The fact that it's such a great tool for activists is just a side effect of the app's main purpose and use by the general population. I'd even go so far as to say that if they blocked Tor purposely in the future no one would really have any right to be outraged. I mean, you can certainly and understandably be outraged, but you really can't say Facebook has wronged you as being a tool for activists isn't really their mission. Complaining that Facebook wants to collect info to show you ads is like complaining that the coffee shop requires that you give them money to be served. Tracking is the way you pay to use Facebook and I doubt they'd ever implement paid accounts to get rid of the tracking and ads.

I'm sure there are some who work at Facebook who feel a moral obligation to support those activities but at the end of the day its a business and it isn't a business founded upon principles that fall in line with those of activists. If Mozilla created a social network, maybe then we could say the company has a moral obligation to encourage anonymity where people wanted but that kind of philosophy is just not in Facebook's DNA.

     if you must conduct sensitive work, why do it on Facebook, a network that is committed to sharing things in public?

Because of exactly that. It's public and the general population uses it for an entirely different reason. If you're doing sensitive work and need to get the message out then Facebook is a great tool for the job so long as you can remain anonymous. I know that's totally contradictory sounding but it's reasonably possible. Currently you can use Tor and other measures (assuming this issue is resolved) like using a fake name (which is technically a pseudonym but what I really mean is a name meant to look like a real person but isn't). Everyone uses it, you can let the world know important info, and though you can be rooted out, it makes it more difficult as you're a needle in a haystack. Compare this to a tool built specifically for activist communication - it's basically a big honeypot for unfriendly governments. They know that every user is a political dissident and now they really don't have to narrow down their search. They can just start hacking and tracking every user on the site.

[andrewcooke]

your logic is fine, except for the assumption that ethical obligations come only from maximizing profit.

why do you have such a low ethical standard for companies? i realise it's fairly common in the usa, but what's the motivation? is it just that you get your opinions from the same companies, and so eat what you are fed? is this what you want from your world?

do you simply feel you have no choice, and are stating a "hard reality"? something as complex as a society's expectations of ethics is so complex that it can (and will) respond to public opinion. by posting something like the above you're not just stating what you think is fact, but advocating it. there's no separation between those two roles when your trapped inside a system with feedback...

[ChuckMcM]

Culturally I suspect it comes from the principle of freedom of action, such that people are free to choose to act they want to act and others are free to interact/not-interact with them based on the choices made. So Facebook might choose to act unethically and then people would choose not to use them. Facebook would fail and a new more ethical company would arise in its place.

That at least is the optimists view. The demonstration of crapitalism [1] shows that if part of the selection function is missing (in this case privacy) then everyone loses.

I really liked your notion of advocating the status quo as a trap.

[1] Crapitalism is when some definition of "quality" is taken out of the product selection mix, allowing simply "functionality" followed by "price" as the selecting mechanisms. This leads to inexpensive products which do what they say for a very short period of time. Ultimately resulting in higher replacement costs (which sadly benefits the manufacturer).

[bpatrianakos]

My ethical standards for companies vary from company to company. I mentioned Mozilla in my other comment. If they had done this I would hold them to a higher standard because of what they stand for. Facebook has a totally different mindset as a company. Their priorities are what make me hold them to such a "low" standard.

I also try to put myself in the company's shoes. If I were them, this issue just wouldn't be my priority. It's a nice to have, not a must have and if I had to make the choice between what's best for the company (which also means most of its users) I'd make the choice to disappoint some people.

What I want from my world and what I expect from Facebook are two different things. I'm all for privacy and I want Facebook to respect that. But I also can't expect the world to cater to my every want no matter how morally just I believe my requests are. Taking my opinion on what I think we should expect from Facebook and turning it into a referendum on my morals, lack of morals, or cynicism is not only drawing false assumptions but severely exaggerating things. I can be in favor of using Tor to access Facebook and Facebook's right to refuse me access to it because of it at the same time. Things aren't so cut and dry.

[baddox]

I believe that the truth values of ethical sentences are subjective (actually, I believe that ethical sentences don't have truth values, but that's a longer story), so while I certainly have ethical preferences for how individuals and organizations should behave, I only approve of "enforcing" my preferences through my own social/commercial choices, rather than utilizing external violence (like government regulation) to enforce my ethical preferences.

[dragonwriter]

Government literally does nothing but enforce ethical preferences (all action decisions, government or otherwise, must be based on value preferences), so this is equivalent to saying you don't support the existence of government.

[baddox]

That's correct. I don't support the existence of government.

[yuvadam]

> Facebook is in the business of social networking, not activism.

Your distinction between "social networking" and "activism" at its core is a distinction between privileged users who are allowed to speak their mind however they please (seeing that the gracious host considers it to be 'profitable' and 'acceptable') and oppressed users whose speech, unfortunately, falls under the "activism" category, and as such should go seek alternative methods of spreading their vile thoughts.

Only a man of privilege can make such a distinction and keep a straight face.

I'd like to see you make the same claim as a citizen living under an oppressive regime.

[bpatrianakos]

Seriously? Facebook has to allow you to connect with Tor even if they're constantly having to mitigate attackers using it?

Are you entitled to demand that free websites cater to you because you have some sort of moral authority?

You make it sound like all morally superior people (which I'm presuming is decided by you?) should have the right to get whatever they want and companies can't deny you service for any reason because... big companies are evil because they're big and being rich makes you a bad person? Is it okay to infringe on someone else's rights to exercise your own because you believe your motives are morally superior? What people like you always seem to forget is that there are others who don't feel the same way as you and your rights aren't the only ones that matter. It's basically fundamentalism.

Go ahead and be pissed off when Facebook or Twitter or some other company does something that makes it harder for you to use their services in a way it was never intended to be used for. Be pissed when actions that cater to their target market leave you out in the cold. But don't come back and act like they owed you something. Your cause isn't their problem. You're trying to make your way through life like they are and you can't just go around demanding that everyone you encounter owes you something because of some believe that you have moral superiority.

Give me a fucking break. There's a whole world wide web of tools that you suit you better. Rather than demand a tool not made for your purposes bend to your will, why not go use something else?

And I come from privilege? How would you know? Because if someone disagrees with your views it must mean they're the enemy and in your case it seems your "enemy" is anyone who comes from privilege. That's silly. I could just as easily say "anyone who would think what you think must come from a background of laziness and wanting a handout from everyone". I might come from privilege. I might not. Even if I did, that fact alone doesn't make me wrong. That's just another way to write someone off and make yourself feel better. It's the same as calling someone a fanboy when they praise a product you dislike.

[baddox]

Your moral outrage must have been even more intense back when Facebook actually was limited to certain privileged users (students at certain colleges).