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

Our domain and 700 non-profit sites got blocked by Meta

simonbackx.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 180 posts

Re: Our domain and 700 non-profit sites got blocked by Meta

#161

Post by wpietri »

throw10920 wrote: post #126
wpietri wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's honestly not clear to me that many of these companies can afford proper moderation. Twitter's revenue is about $1.20 per user per month. Facebook's is about twice that. Proper moderation is expensive, with each incident requiring significant time from one or more smart people with native fluency and cultural understanding plus deep familiarity with the platform rules and all the tricks bad actors will try to pla…

These companies explicitly and intentionally cultivated profit models built around providing services for free and subsidizing them with data collection and advertising. Their low revenue-per-user is a direct result of that, and if they can't afford to provide proper moderation, that's entirely their fault, and does not absolve them of the responsibility to provide it anyway.

Oh, totally agreed. But I think this is one of those things that kinda crept up on us, and so status quo bias may mean they can keep getting away with it.

As an example, look at the flu. It kills way more people than drunk driving, [1] [2], but society has been pretty casual about that. The massive covid-era drops in influenza deaths show that it was always possible to do much better; we just never cared much because we were used to it. Similarly, I think we're used to Facebook and Twitter being Facebook and Twitter, so there won't be much outcry for change unless they do something especially bad.

[1] https://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/burden/index.html#:~:text=Figu...

[2] e.g., https://www.valuepenguin.com/drunk-driving-statistics

Re: Our domain and 700 non-profit sites got blocked by Meta

#162

Post by wpietri »

pb7 wrote: post #111
wpietri wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wait, so you're saying most entrepreneurs aren't creating new things just to change the world, to make a difference, to put a dent in the universe, to fulfill a deep vision, and/or because their team or their userbase is like a family? I find it hard to believe that VCs, would-be billionaires, and their extensive PR teams have been lying to us all these years.

Your snark lands flat because knowing that you will lose control of your company at an arbitrary point affects every single of one of those points listed. How will I fulfill my vision if the government will take over when it finally gains traction? Government isn't known for their execution. Well, only one type.

You do realize that most VC-funded entrepreneurs "lose control" of their companies already, right?

Re: Our domain and 700 non-profit sites got blocked by Meta

#163

Post by kragen »

blahyawnblah wrote: post #138
kragen wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Did they undelete your events as part of the settlement?

I'm not sure small claims would do something like that

Parties to a lawsuit can propose to do anything they want in a settlement.

Re: Our domain and 700 non-profit sites got blocked by Meta

#164

Post by indymike »

jrochkind1 wrote: post #62
indymike wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This is why massive companies like Meta and Alphabet needs to be nationalised. No. Giving this additional power to the government will not have the outcome you want. When something becomes too powerful, the solution is not to further concentrate that power into less accountable hands.

> into less accountable hands. While I'm not totally behind "nationalize all the things", do you really think the government is less accountable than Meta? (or Alphabet etc?) I guess that raises the question "accountable to whom", but in general, for all it's problems with accountability (and there are many), and acknolwedging that different US governments can stack up differently (say local vs federal) -- I'd still…

> While I'm not totally behind "nationalize all the things", do you really think the government is less accountable than Meta? (or Alphabet etc?)

Yes. Absolutely, and without any qualification whatsoever and in every jurisdiction at every level.

Government enjoys sovereign immunity, qualified immunity, direct statutory immunity (laws that prevent suing the government) and operates the forum where they are held to account (be it a regulator or a court). It is very difficult to sue the government, and even more difficult to mount a campaign to change a law in a non-corrupt country. This applies to a tiny sanitation district,

Private companies are easily sued, regulated, and if their behavior is bad enough, reputation damage alone suffices to hold them to account.

Re: Our domain and 700 non-profit sites got blocked by Meta

#165

Post by smileysteve »

paintman252 wrote: post #2

This is why massive companies like Meta and Alphabet needs to be nationalised. They simply have too much power over lives of billions. This article is just another reminder of this. At scale that Meta operates, this algorithmically decided domain blockings mean nothing to them, but everything to hundred's of non-profits. There need to be legally mandated protections so things like this never happen again.

So the government, for and by the people can have a money drain that is used for disinformation and cyber bullying?

Just delete Facebook, it's not worth it.

Re: Our domain and 700 non-profit sites got blocked by Meta

#166

Post by kjkjadksj »

indymike wrote: post #164
jrochkind1 wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> into less accountable hands. While I'm not totally behind "nationalize all the things", do you really think the government is less accountable than Meta? (or Alphabet etc?) I guess that raises the question "accountable to whom", but in general, for all it's problems with accountability (and there are many), and acknolwedging that different US governments can stack up differently (say local vs federal) -- I'd still…

> While I'm not totally behind "nationalize all the things", do you really think the government is less accountable than Meta? (or Alphabet etc?) Yes. Absolutely, and without any qualification whatsoever and in every jurisdiction at every level. Government enjoys sovereign immunity, qualified immunity, direct statutory immunity (laws that prevent suing the government) and operates the forum where they are held to acc…

Your last sentence is not true for facebook and other companies that operate at such scale. Good luck mounting a successful lawsuit against their legal team. Good luck getting their sheep users to jump ship given they haven't already after countless events that harmed their reputation. Good luck passing pro consumer regulation when industry is allowed to lobby, fund political advertisements, and donate money to campaigns.

Re: Our domain and 700 non-profit sites got blocked by Meta

#167

Post by NonNefarious »

jackewiehose wrote: post #156
soundnote wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

OAuth in general feels like an increasingly bad idea. Log into everything with Google? Oops, one arbitrary account lock from Google and you're beyond fucked.

I agree. And besides that I also think it's an incredibly bad idea to train users, who are technically not very firm, to enter their credentials on some random page that asks for it. I'm a pro and even I can't tell how this is supposed to be safe. How would you explain the security aspects to someone who can't distinguish between google-search and the browsers address-bar?!

It's bad enough that loads upon loads of sites require people to use their E-mail address as a user ID. What a stupid policy, one that embarrasses many companies that should know better (YES, THIS MEANS APPLE).

When you force people to log in with their E-mail address, what percentage of the public also thinks they need to use their E-mail password? I'm going to guess at least half. Now, if that site is compromised by a hack or disgruntled employee or whatever, people's E-mail accounts are wide open and identity theft galore can ensue.

Not to mention that your E-mail address is on thousands of spammers' lists. Combine that list with lists of common passwords, and you have a shitload of compromised E-mail accounts right there.

Nobody should have tolerated this amateur-hour policy, but here we are.

Re: Our domain and 700 non-profit sites got blocked by Meta

#168

Post by NonNefarious »

base wrote: post #13

I don't have a specific solution for you, but I also run a domain with some thousands of subdomains and is always a fight to not be banned from Google, Meta, internet operators etc. Sometimes is enough one bad actor under one of your subdomains to have a full ban on the whole domain. What I suggest is for your and your clients to contact Meta through the Business Center support. Their support for paying clients is mu…

I wonder if these assholes (Meta, Google) could be prosecuted under a Net Neutrality law for blocking particular sites.

Re: Our domain and 700 non-profit sites got blocked by Meta

#170

Post by NonNefarious »

UnpossibleJim wrote: post #90
CharlesW wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apple is nothing like Facebook and Google in this respect. One of the reasons I gladly pay a premium for Apple products is that I can talk with a human, over the phone or at an Apple Store.

Doing business as a software developer through the Apple store is a different beast. Putting in tickets to see why your software failed can be a nightmare if it isn't a glaring mistake. They may treat their customers well, but they don't always treat their devs with the same respect. EDIT: I will note, it has been a few years since I've submitted to the app store, so I hope things have changed.

Apple is a scummy, back-stabbing business "partner." Everyone from small-time developers to publicly-traded companies gets screwed by Apple burying their apps (or simply not showing them at all) in searches that spell the publisher's name exactly right. They lie about app discovery to developers, lie about it to judges, and lie to the users doing the searches.

However, the public hysteria over "big tech" should not be dragging Apple into everything, because developers are essentially the only aggrieved party. Unlike Google and Meta, Apple is not the gatekeeper to the Internet for millions of people. And I can almost always get a human being on the phone or chat from Apple, which today is truly worthy of praise.

Post reply on HN