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

FB messenger silently censoring links, claims they were sent

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 488 posts

Re: FB messenger silently censoring links, claims they were sent

#101

Post by bopbeepboop »

rnd0 wrote: post #92
systemvoltage wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's one thing to censor !!! Are we nonchalantly accepting its OK to censor and moving on to the argument about deceiving users? Edit: should add more context to this. I don't think we should be casually OK with censorship. Next thing you know, FB will silently(or not) start censoring political opponents, activists they don't like, etc. I am quite unsettled by how the west is doing the same as China. Censorship is…

>Are we nonchalantly accepting its OK to censor and moving on to the argument about deceiving users? Personally I'm disturbed at the non-chalant attitude taken towards shadow moderation in this thread. Shadow banning and shadow moderation may make one's job easier but it has a disastrous effect on the forum or community by injecting a definite level of deceit into the moderator/poster relationship. Any forum where sh…

On HN, shadowbans are implemented via automatic flagging.

Re: FB messenger silently censoring links, claims they were sent

#102

Post by stouset »

ionwake wrote: post #100
stouset wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s way more likely to me that this is simply because the Internet used to be the (nearly) exclusive domain of people who were culturally like you: educated, technologically sophisticated, libertarian-leaning affluent white males. Not that you’re necessarily any or all of these things, but if you were around for “the uncensored Internet” you likely felt comfortable with that as your cultural in-group. I say this as…

You didn’t make a point in your reply.

You may have missed it in your rush to downvote me.

Re: FB messenger silently censoring links, claims they were sent

#103

Post by treesprite82 »

voidfunc wrote: post #35
ummonk wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The whole Ivermectin thing is dumb and stupid. But are you seriously saying silent censorship of links in Messenger is okay?

Sure, its a private communication service. Why isnt it okay? You are using FB infrastructure to communicate, they absolutely should get a say in what you are allowed to share.

If you asked me to pass on a letter then I tell you that I've done so, you'd be annoyed if you found out that I actually just threw it away. If I told you up front that I wasn't willing to pass it on then you could find someone else to do so, but the silent nature inhibits that.

Even without the silence, there's concern about the power and influence held by a few large social media companies with billions of conversations taking place through them. There's been some bipartisan interest in forcing them to either act more like a common carrier or be subject to the full responsibilities of a publisher.

Re: FB messenger silently censoring links, claims they were sent

#104

Post by rnd0 »

sqqqqrly wrote: post #13
kevmo wrote: post #8

Facebook has been suppressing links and profiles that don't make them money for years.

Why does anyone use fb? I never have had an account. I do help my mother-in-law with hers a bit. My company asked me to create a Twitter account. I deleted it a month later. The soln to bad speech is better speech.

>Why does anyone use fb?

If you want to communicate or reach out to people, you go where the people are. Currently that's FB.

On a separate note, the problem with saying that the solution to bad speech is better speech is that it doesn't take crapflooding by bad actors into account. Your good speech is kinda worthless if it's drowned out by disinformation, lies or just plain non-sense.

Re: FB messenger silently censoring links, claims they were sent

#107

Post by efitz »

Big tech is out of control and drunk on their own power.

Freedom of speech, even obnoxious, obscene, wrong, or even evil speech, has always been a core American value.

Now, we have young people running these companies who think that they are wise enough to discern “good” from “bad” speech, and that they have a moral right, nay, a moral duty, to “protect” people from bad speech.

Censorship has NEVER ended well. Anywhere. Anytime. Censors ALWAYS have the best of intentions, and always believe that they alone know the truth and that merely being exposed to contradictory ideas is harmful. And they always end up tyrants.

I don’t care about anti-monopoly or section 230 or whatever. I’m asking my representatives to pass legislation that requires any company with a nontrivial user base or size (eg 1 million monthly users or 50 million annual revenue, pick your own numbers if you have better ones), to act as common carriers.

That is to say, that they may not adopt TOS/TOU or preferential behavior that discriminates for or against any lawful activity or creed, period.

Re: FB messenger silently censoring links, claims they were sent

#108

Post by rtkwe »

rnd0 wrote: post #92
systemvoltage wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's one thing to censor !!! Are we nonchalantly accepting its OK to censor and moving on to the argument about deceiving users? Edit: should add more context to this. I don't think we should be casually OK with censorship. Next thing you know, FB will silently(or not) start censoring political opponents, activists they don't like, etc. I am quite unsettled by how the west is doing the same as China. Censorship is…

>Are we nonchalantly accepting its OK to censor and moving on to the argument about deceiving users? Personally I'm disturbed at the non-chalant attitude taken towards shadow moderation in this thread. Shadow banning and shadow moderation may make one's job easier but it has a disastrous effect on the forum or community by injecting a definite level of deceit into the moderator/poster relationship. Any forum where sh…

I've got bad news for you about HackerNews then, HN has 'dead' users who can post but are only shown if you specifically opt-in and they can't be replied to at all.

Re: FB messenger silently censoring links, claims they were sent

#109

Post by kevin_thibedeau »

lmilcin wrote: post #54
graeme wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hacker News does it. Reddit does it sitewide. Individual moderators do it sitewide. Shadowbanning is an essential tool for moderation, for dealing with trolls, spammers, abusive people. You can argue the tool is being used too widely by Facebook, but it is silly to pontificate against the practice as a whole. You reaaaaallly would not like the uncensored internet.

Hold your horses. It is not "the internet". It is private chat. You need to understand difference between communication that is meant to be public from one that is meant to be private. Law makes clear distinction.

Facebook is not a common carrier. You aren't having a private conversation on any of its properties. You're communicating with Facebook and they relay non-public messages to recipients.

Re: FB messenger silently censoring links, claims they were sent

#110

Post by lmilcin »

cmeacham98 wrote: post #98
lmilcin wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hold your horses. It is not "the internet". It is private chat. You need to understand difference between communication that is meant to be public from one that is meant to be private. Law makes clear distinction.

Facebook is not an outlier in this case: Reddit shadowbans affect DMs too. Not sure why you brought the law up, as far as I know what FB is doing is 100% legal.

Do you not understand what private communication is and how it is different from Reddit?
Post reply on HN