A stark example of how digital footprints will be utilized in a post-Roe America

The article is from Aug 10, 2022 but remains relevant

  • Neato@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    42
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    it does not look like Facebook did something wrong

    Illegal. You mean to say it doesn’t look like Facebook did something illegal. It’s undeniable (unless you hate women) that Facebook did something wrong in helping a fascist state oppress women.

    Illegality and morality are not the same.

    • BraveSirZaphod@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      1 year ago

      It would also be literally illegal for Facebook to have not done this. They were given a legally binding warrant.

      If you honestly would personally go to jail rather than comply with a warrant, that speaks pretty highly to your credit, but I don’t think most people would find Facebook to be particularly culpable here. Facebook Messenger does actually offer an encrypted messaging service that, to my knowledge, has never been turned over to law enforcement because it is technically impossible for them to do that. That isn’t the default setting though, and it’s unfortunate that the people involved here weren’t aware of it.

      Just to be very clear, these laws are reprehensible. However, my anger is largely reserved for the politicians and voters responsible for them. It’s a pretty big ask to demand someone personally risk jail time by refusing to comply with a valid warrant.

      • quirzle@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        14
        ·
        1 year ago

        If you honestly would personally go to jail rather than comply with a warrant, that speaks pretty highly to your credit, but I don’t think most people would find Facebook to be particularly culpable here.

        This would be more compelling point if FB were a person capable of going to jail and/or did not have a history of taking the user-hostile side of privacy situations, regardless of whether the law agreed with them.

        That isn’t the default setting though, and it’s unfortunate that the people involved here weren’t aware of it.

        This right here is why I personally believe FB deserves and flak they get from this situation. They could avoid the whole conversation about whether they should turn over the conversations if they made it so they couldn’t. They’ve chosen their data mine over user privacy, and people are right to judge them accordingly.

        • BraveSirZaphod@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          Facebook may not be a person, but there are people within Facebook who absolutely can and would be held personally liable for refusing to comply with a warrant, up to and including going to jail.

          That Facebook Messenger isn’t E2E encrypted definitely is something that can and should be criticized, and they could absolutely do a lot more to educate users on how safe their information is or isn’t. On the flip-side, to their credit, WhatsApp is, by default, E2E encrypted. I’d honestly be curious how much value they really get out of Messenger not being encrypted, since if it’s really that high, the value from WhatsApp would be significantly higher.

          I’m not saying that this is the only reason - because I’m sure they do get some financial value out of it as well - but if you wanted to be charitable, you could say that users generally expect Facebook Messenger to be equally available across devices with full message history, which isn’t really feasible when you’re signing messages with device-specific keys.

      • Kichae@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        It would also be literally illegal for Facebook to have not done this.

        And? It’s not like they’ve ever given a shit about the law when they want to do something that benefits them.

        Unjust laws aren’t worth following, and Facebook has the power to fight them. They choose not to.

        • BraveSirZaphod@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          I’d genuinely be curious what you’d do if police showed up to your door with a warrant ready to take you to jail if you didn’t comply.

          Maybe you’d actually refuse, I don’t know. But I think there are a whole lot more people who want to think that they would refuse and suffer very real consequences of it than would actually do it.

          • xuxebiko@kbin.socialOP
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Thanks to Citizens United, corporations are people. But people are not corporations.

            They do not have an army of corporate attorneys, nor do they employ lobbying firms to buy political support, nor do they have enormous wealth to fall back on. People simply do not enjoy the protections corporations do. Yet its regular people who frequently take a stand against wrong, and not multi-billion corporations.

            Facebook/Meta, a corporate with tremendous resources, made promises about defending access to reproductive healthcare in a post-Roe world and it should be questioned for failing to keep their word. Getting personal (like you just did with @Kichae) just shifts responsibility away from facebook/meta for its actions.

            • BraveSirZaphod@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Regardless, there are very much actual people within Meta that can and would be held legally liable for refusing to comply with a valid warrant, up to and including going to jail.

              I agree that there are plenty to things to criticize Meta for. They could do a lot more to educate users about what privacy they do or don’t have and the legal consequences of that. They could direct more people to Messenger’s private mode, which is end-to-end encrypted. I don’t think the act of complying with a warrant is something that I would really hold against them though, because 99% of people would do the same thing.

    • Infiltrated_ad8271@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Why do so many people find it so hard to understand the position of anti-abortionists and invent a fantasy about misogynist fascists?

      To them fetuses are babies (which is correct at some point before birth, when is another debate) and therefore subjects of rights, so from their position they are defending a much greater right, the right to life. Essentially, from their perspective they are defending human rights, is it that hard for you to empathize with that?

      It’s undeniable (unless you hate women)

      Oh yep, you seem to have a flexible mentality, open to debate and not demonizing others, the opposite of what fascists typically do.

      • xuxebiko@kbin.socialOP
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Oh yep, you seem to have a flexible mentality, open to debate and not demonizing others, the opposite of what fascists typically do.

        And there’s the DARVO. That didn’t take much time.

        If foetuses are babies to anti-abortionists (you’ve dropped the pro-life facade) then anti-abortionists need science lessons, because foetuses are not babies.

        Since anti-abortionists don’t consider women as human beings possessing equal human rights, they don’t care about any baby born or unborn from her. Indeed, they think they have the right to dictate to women on what her rights should be, ignoring that she is born with inalienable basic rights. “Born with” not ‘unborn/ in-utero’ with.

        A right to life without right to agency is slavery. Do you understand that anti-abortionists want women to be slaves?

        • Infiltrated_ad8271@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          It’s probably a waste of time, but okay, I will be kind enough not to delve into your ignorant slander, delusions, straw men and ad hominems.

          Since anti-abortionists don’t consider women as human beings possessing equal human rights (…) A right to life without right to agency is slavery. Do you understand that anti-abortionists want women to be slaves?

          Let us come to the main issue. As I mentioned, this is a difference of importance, not all rights are equal and when there is a conflict one should prevail over the other. Although nothing is written it is easy in some cases, for example, the right not to be tortured is more important than the right to marry.

          If for a moment you are able to consider the premise that fetuses are subjects of rights (say one of 42-week to make it easier), tell me, which is more important, the temporary and partial suspension of the right of agency or the right to life?
          (I do not include slavery because I find it fucking absurd, as well as a trivialization of something very serious. You could have said something more coherent like reproductive freedom.)

          This is not something like seeing the woman as property to be controlled, only considering the rights and interests of “both”. Let us also not forget that it is a self-imposed situation, and the cases in which it is “imposed by third parties” abortion is allowed all over the world.

          • xuxebiko@kbin.socialOP
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Thank you for making clear

            1. your utter contempt for women,
            2. your denial of women as human beings with human rights, and
            3. your misconception that you and other anti-abortionists are arbiters of human rights

            ps: How is an unwanted pregnancy is a “self-imposed situation”? Is it your understanding that women are capable of parthenogenesis?

            • Infiltrated_ad8271@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              *Sigh. As I guessed, your reading comprehension is nil and you are not capable of debate or simple mental work, you can only use fallacies. Well, at least I tried.

          • jwiggler@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Fetus does not have the right to life. It’s not a person, it does not have rights. Simple as that. People have rights, fetus does not.

            • Infiltrated_ad8271@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              Aha, we agree, at least until high fetal development and viability.
              However, that’s not my point, and it’s a pity no one bothers to address it.

      • Pegatron@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        All the pro life arguments are new. Theyre disingenuous and hypocritical. The modern pro life movement was cooked up by hardcore right wingers when they lost the fight against civil rights , in a transparent attempt to create a new voting bloc. Before the 1960s, the Baptists and Methodists were pro abortion and called it a Catholic issue.

        Person hood is a red herring. Even if you accept fetal person hood, no one owes another person the use of their body.

        Lastly, legislators have no place in medical decisions. Doctors are not terminating viable fetuses in the third trimester and never have. There were less than 10 third trimester abortions in the US per year and all we’re either to save the life of the mother or to remove a fetus that had a fatal defect. Banning the procedure will only have deleterious effects and keep doctors from performing vital life saving procedures. We have already seen this in Ireland and central America.

        • xuxebiko@kbin.socialOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          They are not pro-life. If they were pro-life they would work to make life good/ better for those who they insist birth children and for those who they should be born.

          They are pro-slavery, Forcing/ coercing women to be incubators against their will is sexual slavery. They refuse to consider women as equal human beings with equal rights to men, and seek to diminsh women’s independence by forcing on her (and only her, men are not held accountable) to the unwanted burden of gestating, birthing, and caring for children, even at the cosf of her physical and mental well-being.

          Their call of “fetal personhood” is a tool to emotionally manipulate people (“won’t you think of the children?”), while they deny actual living persons their personhood. All their actions & words are geared towards dehumanizing women.

          Tellingly, they also are not against child labour (“wont you think of the billionaire’s profits?”), once a child is born. Their goal is to deny women their personhood, bind women to sexual slavery, and ensure the wealthy have a supply of cheap & easily available labour.