Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Facebook Censored Me For Mentioning Open-Source Social Network Mastodon

changelog.complete.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 304 posts

Re: Facebook Censored Me For Mentioning Open-Source Social Network Mastodon

#201

Post by tommymachine »

otterley wrote: post #190
tommymachine wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's actually no such thing as "misinformation". It's a completely made up concept. There's just information. a la: "Look, this person said this. Here's another person, who said something else." All of this is just regular old information. In publishing, editorial makes some amount of sense because the brand of the publisher is staked behind the claims being made. But in social media, it's the personal(/account) b…

Publishing provably false statements or reports with intent to deceive (or even just gross negligence) falls pretty squarely under the definition of misinformation. This isn’t very controversial, except among nut cases.

Oh. I see. So when a computer system sends signals over a wire, if it represents "provably false statements", it's actually misinformation, and not information. All those 1s and 0s instantly switch from information to misinformation, the minute their final representative form embodies a "provably false statement".

Who decides what's provably false, by the way?

Are the novels of Tolkien "misinformation", since it could presumably be easily proved that the events described in them didn't actually happen?

And what is the burden of proof for "intent to deceive"? And in which court is this all decided?

Who decides? Just people in your group right? What ever your group happens to be. Sure hope we all worship your god then, because the other gods are all "Misinformation".

Re: Facebook Censored Me For Mentioning Open-Source Social Network Mastodon

#202

Post by ezekiel68 »

Ech. I understand the general point OP is making but I don't mind admitting I see things differently. I am free to enter Joe's Cafe and do 99.9% of normal things one might do in any similar setting. But if I enter Joe's cafe and solicit my friends there that if they don't like the way Joe runs his cafe they should be aware of Lenny's Cafe, I feel that Joe has every right to stop me from doing that. To pedants: Yes, I know the analogy isn't perfect. But please don't pretent it isn't relevant.

This said, I remember when many MAGA friends announced they were leaving for Parler or MeWe or Gab and I never heard any of them claim their posts were removed (the ones who didn't leave right away).

Re: Facebook Censored Me For Mentioning Open-Source Social Network Mastodon

#203

Post by ribosometronome »

rglullis wrote: post #86
wussboy wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If my kids were late coming home from school, and I asked you if you know what has happened, and you either: 1. Don't say anything because my neighbour tapes your mouth shut 2. Lie and say, "They were brutally murdered by your neighbour", resulting in a dead neighbour followed by my kids showing up unharmed from school ...can you explain in this scenario how censorship is worse than misinformation. I'm not trying do…

I think there is a tiny little bit of a jump if you are acting this quickly and this harshly on information without verifying. Concretely to your hypothetical: don't attribute to misinformation the issue that is most like your barbaric reaction. Not to say that the liar should not be punished, it should bear a big responsibility in the consequences of the actions. But at the end of day it was not the liar the one tha…

It would be, but also you showed him pictures to prove it, he just didn't know they were photoshopped. And linked him to a news article on thebostontribune.com that was reporting that his kids were dead. And his family and friends were sharing their condolences.

It's not as if folk AREN'T acting on misinformation or showing that they aren't really capable of distinguishing between the two. Tons can. And tons won't realize that The Boston Tribune isn't real.

We're having to deal with almost literally shouting "fire!" in a crowded theater when there's no fire, only there's special effects and major campaigns to convince people there's fire, not just taking some guy at their word and stampeding because of it.

Re: Facebook Censored Me For Mentioning Open-Source Social Network Mastodon

#204

Post by whoknowswhat11 »

nitrogen wrote: post #147
whoknowswhat11 wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is a weird UK rule then. In the US the common issues are things like tying, predatory pricing, exclusive dealing, loyalty discounts, bundling etc. Allowing competitors onto your own platform is an unusual requirement in UK I think - I haven't seen a case like that in US but don't follow closely.

Communication platforms are a bit different. Nobody would be okay with Comcast blocking the signup page or mentions of Google Fiber or your municipal broadbrand network, or Verizon disconnecting your call if you mention AT&T.

I think folks really do not understand the difference between Verizon calls (regulated under common carrier rules) and Facebook (a social network).

Facebook claims to be a social network. Those types of networks normally DO NOT allow you to promote other social networks.

Even review platforms which are a bit more communication in nature block posting other sites reviews.

Re: Facebook Censored Me For Mentioning Open-Source Social Network Mastodon

#205

Post by rvz »

spoonjim wrote: post #92
stncls wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, Facebook's upper management is definitely not freaking out about Mastodon. However, from my own experience working at a large, somewhat ethically-challenged organisation (not fb), it would not surprise me in the least if they gently yet actively pushed down a competitor, provided it can be done discreetly.

Mastodon is a “competitor” to Facebook the way a grandma doing middle school tutoring in her backyard is a competitor to Harvard.

Yes. It doesn't cost them anything to censor simply mentioning the word 'Mastodon' since they can do it anyway and it sounds like a weak version of anti-competition.

What you're really looking for is what happened to Parler which looked like a serious act of anti-competitive behaviour which showed the true brutish nature of these large companies destroying an alternative social network.

That was a much worse form of 'anti-competitive behaviour' than this.

Re: Facebook Censored Me For Mentioning Open-Source Social Network Mastodon

#207

Post by ribosometronome »

inkblotuniverse wrote: post #131
justbored123 wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Buddy Buddy WAKE UP, Facebook is not a public service, it's not there to serve a nobody like you, it's a private company that exist to make money. You can't use their service to trash them and promote their competition, that is not a reasonable business model for them. To finance you by giving you a free platform to promote their competition and trash them is not a good trade for them. DO YOU UNDERSTAND???

If it serves the public, it's a public service. Utility companies were private companies until people decided they weren't.

What companies would not be public services under that definition?

Re: Facebook Censored Me For Mentioning Open-Source Social Network Mastodon

#208

Post by tommymachine »

otterley wrote: post #190
tommymachine wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's actually no such thing as "misinformation". It's a completely made up concept. There's just information. a la: "Look, this person said this. Here's another person, who said something else." All of this is just regular old information. In publishing, editorial makes some amount of sense because the brand of the publisher is staked behind the claims being made. But in social media, it's the personal(/account) b…

Publishing provably false statements or reports with intent to deceive (or even just gross negligence) falls pretty squarely under the definition of misinformation. This isn’t very controversial, except among nut cases.

There's a lot of "misinformation" in your comment here.

Re: Facebook Censored Me For Mentioning Open-Source Social Network Mastodon

#209

Post by tommymachine »

otterley wrote: post #190
tommymachine wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's actually no such thing as "misinformation". It's a completely made up concept. There's just information. a la: "Look, this person said this. Here's another person, who said something else." All of this is just regular old information. In publishing, editorial makes some amount of sense because the brand of the publisher is staked behind the claims being made. But in social media, it's the personal(/account) b…

Publishing provably false statements or reports with intent to deceive (or even just gross negligence) falls pretty squarely under the definition of misinformation. This isn’t very controversial, except among nut cases.

What's the burden of proof for calling someone a nut case?

Re: Facebook Censored Me For Mentioning Open-Source Social Network Mastodon

#210

Post by shkkmo »

whoknowswhat11 wrote: post #204
nitrogen wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Communication platforms are a bit different. Nobody would be okay with Comcast blocking the signup page or mentions of Google Fiber or your municipal broadbrand network, or Verizon disconnecting your call if you mention AT&T.

I think folks really do not understand the difference between Verizon calls (regulated under common carrier rules) and Facebook (a social network). Facebook claims to be a social network. Those types of networks normally DO NOT allow you to promote other social networks. Even review platforms which are a bit more communication in nature block posting other sites reviews.

> Facebook claims to be a social network. Those types of networks normally DO NOT allow you to promote other social networks.

I don't see how that makes it legal.

Herey other examples of potential actions that would also clearly qualify as illegal anti-competive behavior:

Microsoft could decide to block the download pages for Chrome and Firefoz from being shown in IE.

Google could block results related to Bing in their search engine or browser.

I don't see how this behavior by Facebook is any different. If it can be shown that this was done deliberately by Facebook, I have little doubt that it would also qualify as anti-competive behavior.

Post reply on HN