Facebook prevents sharing New York Post story on BLM co-founder's real estate

Post by SpicyLemonZest » Sat, Apr 17, 2021, 12:32 AM UTC

peripitea wrote: post #88

Fogest wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't part of the problem here that a lot of the BLM donation money has gone to fund stuff like buying their big property? There have also been other scandals regarding misuse of the donation money and it has made many regional BLM groups call to question where the money is going. There is very little accountability and transparency yet we have large companies like Amazon feeding them money via donations.

Why are people implying this money must have come from BLM donations? She wrote a book that was on the NYT bestseller list, and presumably has other income streams beyond her work for BLM. I have no idea whether BLM is allocating their money properly or not, but it seems quite plausible that she has earned all the money in question through legitimate means.

Post by ipaddr » Sat, Apr 17, 2021, 12:35 AM UTC

fshbbdssbbgdd wrote: post #43

nate_meurer wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, doxxing is the release of private information. That's the universally understood meaning of the term, and the only useful one. If you want to redefine the term to pertain to public information, then the term is no longer useful. It's just "displaying public information" at that point.

The canonical dox is posting someone’s name and address. If that’s not doxxing, the word has no meaning.

Post by imgabe » Sat, Apr 17, 2021, 12:43 AM UTC

1vuio0pswjnm7 wrote: post #46

Barrin92 wrote: post #7

>A Facebook spokesperson told Newsweek, "This content was removed for violating our privacy and personal information policy." The policy forbids articles that share details that could identify a person's financial and residential information, thus violating their privacy rights. That seems like a pretty flimsy excuse given that I see stories about individuals of public interest buying expensive property on Facebook a…

"The policy forbids articles that share details that could identifiy a person's financial and residential information." Meanwhile selling access to Facebook users whose personal information matches certain financial, geolocation and other personal criteria, is how Facebook makes money. Facebook is allowed to identify a person's residential and financial information, and it is allowed to use this information to sell a…

Post by [deleted] » Sat, Apr 17, 2021, 12:47 AM UTC

cousin_it wrote: post #53

nvr219 wrote: post #3

Of all the ways Facebook restricts speech on its platform this one is pretty low on the list in my opinion. Seems like that particular article has some content that violates their doxxing policy (whatever that is). Other articles about the same topic can be shared including from Fox.

I don't remember FB applying that policy when the NYT doxed Scott.

Post by ISL » Sat, Apr 17, 2021, 1:03 AM UTC

jasonfarnon wrote: post #69

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, but will they prevent you from posting a link to the HN discussion of the Newsweek article about them blocking the NY Post article? Is it possible that Facebook is a big enough share of the internet that they can block the Streisand Effect? My money is on "no".

Maybe the Streisand effect is imaginary. Ie you don't know how many stories are successfully suppressed. Just bc barbara streisand bungled concealing something, doesn't mean something as sophisticated as fb, decades later, is as inept. Of course I'd like to think the Streisand effect is real, but I don't think we have any data.