Blocking access to pages from countries where the court order was issued seems entirely reasonable to me. GitHub does the same[1].
The censorship here is the responsibility of the Turkish government, not Facebook. It's supposedly a democratic country so maybe even represents the will of the people living there.
And anyway, when social sites block "objectionable" pages on their own or under criticism, but with no involvement of the legal system, anyone who complains about censorship is quickly shut down with arguments that it's a private company under no obligation to protect free speech. Why expect them to defy sovereign states when they usually can't handle a little outrage on Twitter?
I was in Istanbul at the time, and I'm certain the Streisand effect more than offset the censorship, and badly damaged Erdoğan's reputation at home and abroad.
Banning popular sites shines a bright light on repression. Resistance can be more effective than collaboration.
>Blocking access to pages from countries where the court order was issued seems entirely reasonable to me. //
Shouldn't you just let that country block for itself what it doesn't want?
If you have products available in your country that are unlawful in another then you wouldn't stop individuals from that country from buying them in your country, you'd let the other country police the import, surely? Seems analogous to me.
The censorship here is the responsibility of the Turkish government, not Facebook.
Sounds like a blanket rationalization that can be applied to virtually any kind of corporate-powered environmental or human rights abuse at the hands of despotic regimes everywhere:
"Abusive practice X is the responsibility of government Y, not hapless company Z, which would surely perish if it did it did not bend over and fulfill government Y's every whim and fancy."
GitHub does the same.
GitHub doesn't put out puffy and patently false statements about being "committed to building an environment where you can speak freely without fear of violence."
The censorship here is the responsibility of the Turkish government, not Facebook. It's supposedly a democratic country so maybe even represents the will of the people living there.
And anyway, when social sites block "objectionable" pages on their own or under criticism, but with no involvement of the legal system, anyone who complains about censorship is quickly shut down with arguments that it's a private company under no obligation to protect free speech. Why expect them to defy sovereign states when they usually can't handle a little outrage on Twitter?
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8703650