- 
		
			The more I think about it the debate shouldn't be Facebook vs Australian law. Our conversation should focus on the fact that Facebook would rather make more money than assure a significant percent of an entire country is properly informed.
 - 
		
			All that free speech rhetoric at Facebook goes down the drain when their own wallet is on the line.
 - 
		
			Forget the question of the efficacy of the law, or effectiveness... Focus should really be on the fact Facebook has decided to threaten the stability of a country's information ecosystem over a relatively small cost; & it is both capable & willing to make good on that threat
 - 
		
			The fact that it is even capable of making such a threat have a meaningful impact shows the lie in their 'aw shucks we have so much competition' line. It's proof positive that their very existence exerts unethical levels of control over the web.
 - 
		
			The next time they claim to be some great defender of free speech, all we have to do is point to this incident. How can they claim to be advocates of free expression when they aren't willing to put their own wallet into it under the rules of a freely elected government?
 - 
		
			If Facebook cared at all about the high minded ideals it claims, about connecting the world, then it should follow the laws without protest, with a thank you, with a happy smile to pay its part. But no, here's where we see the true colors. It turns out FB's only value is avarice
 - 
		
			What's the point of debating the law when Facebook's reaction tells you everything you need to know about Facebook and why governments might feel the need to take measures against it?
 - 
		
			Here's all the proof you need: Facebook contains no good intentions... Only cover stories and well-spun PR strategies.
 - 
		
			And no matter how well they are spun, people are starting to take notice of the monster under the big blue F: jason_kint/1300660053679263745
 
Chronotope’s Twitter Archive—№ 124,177