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

111–120 of 488 posts

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

#111

Post by gpas »

cbozeman wrote: post #37
ZoomerCretin wrote: post #20

In case anyone is wondering what Pulitzer-prize winning piece she is attempting to share, check out her link yourself: https://gnews.org/1476750/ , as well as a fact-check disproving all of the dangerous and false claims inside: https://www.techarp.com/science/greenlight-ivermectin-japan/ I, for one, am glad Facebook is censoring this baseless pseudo-medical advice being given which has been responsible for a massive…

Good thing you're not supposed to be a fucking moron and take large doses, then, and actually get a prescription from a doctor. Ivermectin is now well-known as a prophylactic against COVID-19 and its variants if administered in appropriate dosages.

> Ivermectin is now well-known as a prophylactic against COVID-19 and its variants if administered in appropriate dosages.

Please share some reliable source corroborating your statement.

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

#112

Post by skissane »

graeme wrote: post #48
blunte wrote: post #18

It's one thing to censor, but it's another to intentionally deceive your users into believing that they sent something.

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.

> Shadowbanning is an essential tool for moderation

Does it really work? A lot of people have no trouble working out that it has happened to them. The theory is that a troublemaker won't realise they've been banned, and so will continue sending their trouble into the void instead of coming back as a new account to cause more trouble that everyone else can see. In practice, it doesn't take long for the troublemaker to work out what is going on, so this only slows them down slightly at best. For some major sites, people have even created shadowban detection tools, so even troublemakers who are too clueless to work it out for themselves can discover it.

This site only really has half-shadowbanning. A lot of people have showdead on, read the dead comments too, and vouch for interesting/constructive ones. Maybe that works for this site; but even if that is true, it doesn't really tell us how well a pure shadowban implementation, without showdead, works. Very few sites with shadowbanning have an equivalent to showdead.

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

#113

Post by lmilcin »

kevin_thibedeau wrote: post #109
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 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.

It is private conversation because it is not meant to be made public by its users. Not because Facebook isn't "common carrier".

Piece of paper isn't common carrier. If I write a note to my wife and give it myself it is private because I wanted and expected it private. If I taped it to a billboard it means I no longer expect it private and it is public.

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

#114

Post by spiderice »

exdsq wrote: post #34
TechBro8615 wrote: post #5

This has been happening for years. Just try sending a message containing the string `joebiden.info` and see what happens. We’re way past the rubicon. Get your information as best you can and just hope you’re somewhat aligned with the mainstream.

I just tried and it worked?

100% did not work during the election. I was able to convince my siblings to leave Messenger (where we had our “sibling” chat) because if it. Censoring public FB posts is one thing, but I don’t need zuck telling me what I can say in a private conversation. That’s too far.

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

#115

Post by ummonk »

shuntress wrote: post #44
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?

So, you definitely agree then that the Post Office should be using public funds to run a messaging service (similar to messenger, WhatsApp, iMessage, etc), right?

I’m not complaining about the censorship - I’m complaining about the UI pretending to have sent the message.

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

#116

Post by cblconfederate »

This isnt anymore even about freedom of speech but about a product constantly and intently manipulating and deceiving its users. It must be pretty shitty people working there, who relish in playing games with humans as if they're monkeys. Even their automated systems sound like total crap. I have a game on facebook for a decade, where users sometimes try to send some link to their friend through messenger. FB blocks it every few weeks and users have to beg them to unblock it every time. What a terrible company to invest in

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

#117

Post by cmeacham98 »

lmilcin wrote: post #110
cmeacham98 wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Serious question: What's the difference, for your definition of "private communication", between a FB Messenger message and Reddit DM?

I can't think of any reason one would be considered private and the other not.

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

#118

Post by rnd0 »

uniqueid wrote: post #91
rnd0 wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>You reaaaaallly would not like the uncensored internet. I remember the uncensored internet -it was vastly superior to what we have now. Vastly.

So were the people who used it. Times have changed. Maybe the last time you went to a bar you saw the bouncer eject some hulking meth-head, drool dribbling down his bib, for getting handsy with strangers and throwing a bottle at the bartender. Well, that meth-head has a social media presence today too.

Not really -usenet of old had stalkers and harassers; that's how the killfile was invented.

That is a very, very good analogy, however.

The internet of old had a wider variety of establishments that you could go to. If you wanted a rough-and-tumble dive bar experience it was there. If you wanted a polished experience it was there too.

The effect facebook and other social media has had on the internet is the same effect that walmart had on small mom and pop stores -you can still find one here and there but no, not really.

Incidentally, for all of the censorship and increased barriers to entry (for creating forums) your drooling meth head still presents a danger in the form of doxxing, inciting riots (Jan 6th, any one?) and harassing people.

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

#119

Post by rtkwe »

lmilcin wrote: post #70
omginternets wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>You reaaaaallly would not like the uncensored internet. Respectfully, speak for yourself.

People don't seem to understand the ramifications. I prefer truth to being enslaved into conformance by "the algorithm".

Every platform that tries "we're 100% free speech no censorship or moderation" winds up learning the same lesson which is that their problem isn't with moderation it's that you don't like the kind of moderation decisions that are being made. Parler ran this gauntlet on fast forward [0], Gettr did it too [1], places that have tried holding on to the free speech absolutist position eventually burn to the ground in one way or another like the various children of 4chan.

[0] https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20200630/23525844821/parle...

[1] https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20210825/17204647438/trump...

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

#120

Post by rnd0 »

rtkwe wrote: post #108
rnd0 wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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.

I'm not even remotely surprised, and that doesn't really change my point.
Post reply on HN