Reading that page gave me k5 flashbacks
Facebook has blocked Dreamwidth
171–180 of 196 posts
Re: Facebook has blocked Dreamwidth
#172Hi all! Co-owner of Dreamwidth here. Pretty cool to see my project hit the front page of HN, but definitely a bit of a /shrug moment on the subject itself. "Facebook gonna Facebook" I think is approximately how we feel about this. I know here on HN we're used to hearing stories about scrappy startups trying to carve a piece of the pie big enough to exit on, but that is pretty much the exact opposite of what Dreamwidt…
As a Dreamwidth user, I would like to use this occasion to express my thanks for this decision. I've seen too many blogging platforms being swallowed by large companies, shut down, "improved" into oblivion by marketers and made completely unusable in the chase of "growth". You're doing it right. Thank you.
Re: Facebook has blocked Dreamwidth
#173Earlier quoted context omitted.
This might come off as a little rude, but it's sincere advice from someone who used to work in anti-spam (not at Facebook): I had a quick look through Dreamwidth's "latest" page ( https://www.dreamwidth.org/latest ) earlier today, and a major portion of the posts on there were blatant spam for things like credit card scams, "Work from home and make $1000/day!", and so on. You seem to be hosting a lot of spam, and tho…
You're definitely right -- this is an issue. I could very well believe that we tripped some FB spam measures. We have a very manual anti-spam process right now that relies on humans to detect it and action it. We have a couple of very dedicated folks who end up looking every few hours, but it's not automated, and we don't have full timezone coverage. It's definitely something I'd like to see us improve, but we've bee…
The simplest spam filtering algorithm would be a naive bayes filter. It's essentially keep a count of words that appear in all posts, words that appear in spam posts, and words in non spam posts. Those counts + bayes rule will let you figure out the probability of spam given a word. It's called naive bayes because you assume each word in your post is independent of the others so probability the whole post is spam is just product of the probabilities.
The nice thing about this is it's pretty computationally light and straightforward to implement for any language. I have no clue as to your stack, but if you have python for your backend then sklearn is a good library that has a naive bayes classifier (plus a lot of other better options). Any post with a high probability of being spam, I'd automatically flag and by default just remove with the option for a user to ask for manual review. Main thing you'd need for this or any fancier approach is some dataset of spam/non spam posts. If you have an easy way of retrieving past posts that were labelled spam that should allow you to make a fine dataset. If you don't want to train on your own user posts (although only information kept is word counts here), you can look online for spam datasets and use one of those to train your classifier.
Re: Facebook has blocked Dreamwidth
#174Earlier quoted context omitted.
Apollo is a bad example since Reddit purposely sabotage their website so you use their app. It's perfectly possible to write a good Reddit web client; they chose not to
> It's perfectly possible to write a good Reddit web client; they chose not to Good for whom? "Good for the user" does not mean "good for Reddit".
I'm not really sure how you could interpret that comment as anything else then "Good for the user".
Re: Facebook has blocked Dreamwidth
#175Earlier quoted context omitted.
I find it weird that drawn child porn is illegal actually. It's as if drawing murder or rape would be illegal. Don't get me wrong, I understand 100% the people that find the idea repulsive, would never want to accidentally see it, etc. But that's the same with gore / gruesome scenes: I really don't want to see that, either. That's not what makes something illegal. It might also depend on research into whether it make…
There is a significant amount of research showing that pedophiles viewing simulated pornography has adverse effects, including but not limited to increasing their appetite for consuming more of it.
Would you care to point to any of this research? Specifically the link between viewing simulated pornography and appetite for consuming real-world material, or abusing children. Further, is there any evidence that the majority of people who read simulated depictions (like underage Harry Potter fanfic) are pedophiles? Does the link similarly exist for other forms of pornography? How does fanfiction or erotica compare to visual artwork in this regard?
There's ethnographic evidence (see Patrick Galbraith, Mark McLelland, Suzanne Ost) of such fans from Japan that the assumption they are pedophiles, or that they carry over their desires from "2D" to "3D" is dubious at best. The English government, when banning virtual depictions of fictional characters, admitted they had no evidence on its effects, mode of usage, or popularity among any particular group.
Re: Facebook has blocked Dreamwidth
#176Earlier quoted context omitted.
While hyperbolic regarding the biggest, certainly not the most serious and acknowledging the important distinction caused by the censor being a government, or some other actor as per how severe consequences the censorship are likely to be, the retort that what is published on Facebook can never be free speech can only be true if you redefine what free speech is, and seems to me to be hyperbolic that it diminishes an…
People love bringing up the UDHR. Normally I would be happy. But they are misusing it. There are articles besides the 19th. Tweeting content disagreeable with Twitter, Inc. cannot be a right under the UDHR because of Article 20. Article 20 1. Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association. 2. No one may be compelled to belong to an association. "An association" doesn't mean an organized body l…
Yes, but Facebook or Twitter are not publishers, they are platforms. You can sue your local newspaper if it publishes defamatory information, but you can't sue Facebook and other online services on these grounds because they enjoy Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act; see [1] for a good explanation.
[1] https://www.city-journal.org/html/platform-or-publisher-1588...
Re: Facebook has blocked Dreamwidth
#177Earlier quoted context omitted.
If anything dreamwidth is closer to livejournal. Livejournal predates tubmlr by years and years, but there was a migration from livejournal to dreamwidth for reasons I don't fully remember.
there was a migration from livejournal to dreamwidth for reasons I don't fully remember Livejournal became associated with CP thinly disguised as fanfic. Think Snape and an underage Harry Potter kind of stuff. It was sold to the Russians after its value imploded because all the English-speaking normal users left. The Russian content on there now is as far as I know innocuous; that kind of fanfic is mainly a Western t…
To say that fanfic of fictional characters is merely "thinly disguised CP" not only does a disservice and insult to actual victims of child abuse, but the materials which some such victims use to relieve trauma. The conflation of fiction and reality must end if we are to do right by victims of child abuse and the harmless consumers of such content.
Re: Facebook has blocked Dreamwidth
#178Earlier quoted context omitted.
People love bringing up the UDHR. Normally I would be happy. But they are misusing it. There are articles besides the 19th. Tweeting content disagreeable with Twitter, Inc. cannot be a right under the UDHR because of Article 20. Article 20 1. Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association. 2. No one may be compelled to belong to an association. "An association" doesn't mean an organized body l…
Yes, but Facebook or Twitter are not publishers, they are platforms. You can sue your local newspaper if it publishes defamatory information, but you can't sue Facebook and other online services on these grounds because they enjoy Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act; see [1] for a good explanation. [1] https://www.city-journal.org/html/platform-or-publisher-1588...
Publisher vs. Platform is irrelevant.
You can sue anyone for any reason. Facebook and other online services enjoy broad immunity from civil suits IF AND ONLY IF they make a good faith effort to remove defamatory content.
I understand why conservative bigots are obsessed with Section 230: its repeal is being used as a threat against platforms that remove bigoted content. Conservative bigots know that Section 230 means nothing to the fact that Facebook can delete their bigoted comments, but they ALSO know that repealing it will cost Facebook money so they are pressuring Facebook, saying "If you allow our bigoted content we will drop efforts to repeal section 230".
I will never understand why people believe conservative bigots who say that it has anything to do with free speech.
Section 230 is literally two sentences, easily understandable by average persons. It has nothing to do with speech.
Re: Facebook has blocked Dreamwidth
#179Hi all! Co-owner of Dreamwidth here. Pretty cool to see my project hit the front page of HN, but definitely a bit of a /shrug moment on the subject itself. "Facebook gonna Facebook" I think is approximately how we feel about this. I know here on HN we're used to hearing stories about scrappy startups trying to carve a piece of the pie big enough to exit on, but that is pretty much the exact opposite of what Dreamwidt…
[dead]
Re: Facebook has blocked Dreamwidth
#180I just navigated to dreamwidth.org/latest and got a seriously NSFW picture. I assume this is not normal?