Facebook vs Hong Kong: the West defends “the right to slander”

Facebook против Гонконга: Запад защищает "право на клевету"

© REUTERS / Tyrone SiuHong Kong Pro-Western media SCMP reportsthat the American social network “Facebook” rejected two requests to remove the false and defamatory information. They were directed by Hong Kong police.What the police are asked to remove false and defamatory information?That’s two posts: the first about “sexual violence from the police”, and the second about “the murder of residents of Hong Kong.”Both messages are from the standard sets of “protest” ballot box stuffing, familiar to anyone who read the news on the colored revolutions. Losing authorities to protesters is always and in all parts of the world to cheer their gullible sympathizers write a standard set of texts.
1. Someone witnessed the monstrous tyranny and, panting, said: “the police have Just beaten to death a pregnant woman”.2. Someone rechelbacher objects of future attacks, giving them a demonic traits: “Children just like that, no way, Satan laughing, beat the ghouls in the form of”.3. Someone thus will certainly reports that hordes of ghouls in the form you have trembled and fled: “Members of the 14th fighter police battalion refused to obey orders and went home, infa 146%”.And so on. This sort of thing is published with the indispensable total connections: “do Not think, emotionwise, sobbing, run, where we tell you”.Needless to say, all such shipochanitsa sensation according to the results are invented.
The goal is simple — to create derived at someone else’s disposal protesters illusion “We courageously and heroically confront the huge evil force, which, however, is about to crunch and fall apart as the final boss in a computer game.” As well as masking the emotional intensity of the current situation, the lack of meaning in the events and personal victories/achievements for the participants in the process.The primacy of emotion over reason in this regard is operated long and successfully the emotions easier to call, they are “cheaper”, in terms of energy consumption than reasoning and conclusions. And allow, again, easy to control the crowd in real time.So: the Hong Kong police had scrupulously been posting on Facebook and was asked to remove a blatant lie. In fact, to discuss how “the police continue to kill citizens”, with zero dead bit strange (although the lack of propaganda “the sacred victim of the protest” felt in Hong Kong for several months).”Facebook” not only refused to remove these publications — and explained that they do not contain false information.The author of one of these publications about how “the police shot and killed a student,” wrote even open. Quote:”I’m not going to remove the post, said Yang (the author of the defamatory entry about police killings. — Approx. ed.). — Hong Kong is a free society. And I posted on his page on Facebook that I saw on TV. The people of Hong Kong needs no lessons from police about what we read in social networks”.
That is, the Hong Kong police formally requested the removal of those fake news about which like to speak to Western media and against which allocated huge funds and power.But in this case, since it is necessary to create a “correct and approved on top the information environment”, outright lies about the official state structure is not. The reference to the “I’m an author, I think so, I think I’ve seen it on TV — and in General, people have the right to read in social networks what you want”, fixes the situation.
The fight against fakes, thus, is selective — when needed, promotion of outright false information is called the “right of the people to read what they want.”Moreover — there is a very interesting precedent, when the author of false information may refer to the fact that once he had heard it somewhere in other media, it seems to be taking his responsibility for spreading false information. It is “second time about” and “I didn’t start” — so, you can.It is easy to assume that the selectivity of this approach are extremely high. Enough to try, for example, post on “Facebook” material that the us Armed forces are stealing Syrian oil, saying, “I saw it on television”. I think this text before it will detect the “flying squad” and the subsequent repression, depends on how the page is visited. For a popular account of the path from publication to the ban will only take a few hours.What is particularly revealing in this case. We are not talking about conditional North Korea or Iran. They themselves do not protect the information and financial effects on the social networks do not have, so their status is at “Yes about any fakes can at least every day for the CNN show, the audience will eat everything”. But in this case we are talking about Hong Kong police operating according to British laws of 1997, is completely independent of Beijing’s structure, consisting of citizens with passports of the United Kingdom.
Just the world such a political situation, not to these trifles.What will be the policy of the American social networks in relation to the defamation of Russia, can not be interested in: we all have read, and repeatedly.Ruslan Pockets