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

121–130 of 488 posts

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

#121

Post by lmilcin »

cmeacham98 wrote: post #117
lmilcin wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Same way I can expect my phone operator to not change meaning of my texts between me and my wife but allow me to block messages from strangers I don't want to be bothered by.

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

#122

Post by acituan »

krastanov wrote: post #51
swayvil wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For another example of such totalitarian shenanigans consider the practice of "shadowbanning" : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shadow_banning Ostensibly used for spam/troll countermeasures. In practice used to dick with whoever they choose for whatever reasons please their black little hearts. Reddit and Twitter are notorious for it. Other "social media" organisms too. AND ANOTHER MORE IMMEDIATE EXAMPLE Consider the w…

How is this different from booing you for saying something stupid/wrong (or otherwise disliked even when smart/true) in a public venue. If anything, downvoting seems more honest and less "censorish" than booing, because you still get a chance to respond.

Downvotes scale much better, both temporally and spatially. Boos take more energy, presence and surprisingly even investment.

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

#124

Post by seattle_spring »

rnd0 wrote: post #85
seattle_spring wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Moderation is not the same as censorship.

Only if you're going to take an absolutist stance that "censorship only applies to governments". But that's not the only definition. wikipedia defines censorship thus: "Censorship is the suppression of speech, public communication, or other information. This may be done on the basis that such material is considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or "inconvenient".[2][3][4] Censorship can be conducted by governmen…

Do you think HN would be a better place if it didn't have moderation (or, as you put it, "censorship")?

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

#126

Post by rnd0 »

Hokusai wrote: post #96
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.

It was not because uncensored content. It was bastly superior because there was a lack of comercialization. Before SEO, before targeted ads, an internet made by educacional institutions and people with hobbies. Nowadays allow everybody to post anything and you will only see SPAM for the rest of you life, it will become impossible to see anything of value.

I'm not sure if I agree or disagree with you -you definitely have a point,though.

From my point of view it's less commercial vs non-commercial (though I think most of the problems either stem from, or are aggravated by commercial factors) as much as it is diversity versus consolidation.

Ten, fifteen years ago there was a greater number of varied forums and social gathering places with a greater number variety of viewpoints. Now while there's the odd vb bulliten board here and there you have fewer and fewer populated forums -everything seems to have coalescened (socially speaking) into twitter and facebook.

Basically, from my point of view, Social Media has consumed the rest of the social internet (meaning forums). I think there's more than one cause for that but that's what I see as the main thing making the past superior to the present -the ability to not just have your own place, but to have a chance at it reaching out to more people than just you and your friends.

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

#127

Post by pndy »

Longlius wrote: post #77
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.

No, I actually really would. I grew up with the uncensored internet and it was, on the whole, less abusive and manipulative than today's internet culture.

It felt like actual tool or big box filled information you could dug through and find stuff you needed. It wasn't restricted by corporate greed or policed by variety of groups who were trying to impose opinions, policies or "culture" on other people claiming at the same time it's for everyone's sake. It wasn't of course a perfect place but it wasn't commercialized as it is today - and that's what happen: the years of simplicity we're done and it was necessary to make the Internet appealing and accessible to average people, by a certain price.

Seeing the monopoly of Google in browser sector, the whole predatory ads sphere, manipulative social media and the attitude corporations and politicians have towards ordinary people regarding the technology, I don't think I want to see what will be the next big thing in the evolution of the Internet and related tech.

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

#128

Post by bdibs »

swayvil wrote: post #46
trophycase wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What? 90% of the garbage circulated on facebook is republican qanon conspiracy theories at worst, and tabloid reactionary garbage at best.

What flavor of think do you suppose they filter for?

Probably the flavor that leads to burning black churches and attempting to overthrow US democracy?

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

#129

Post by b215826 »

JasonFruit wrote: post #71
otterley wrote: post #55

Why anyone should care if you can't send links to websites run by kooky nutjobs with false or highly questionable COVID information to other people via FB messenger?

Because of the precedent that sets. For example, some would hold that socialism is as economically illiterate as anti-vaccine opinions are medically illiterate to you. Should socialist links be likewise censored?

> socialism is as economically illiterate as anti-vaccine opinions are medically illiterate to you

Edgy comment, but unfortunately, even with all the sophisticated jargon and advanced mathematics, economics isn't a real science with objective truths, but medicine is. Don't get me wrong, I too believe that capitalism is the only form of economic system that works, but to equate socialists (however misguided you think they are) with anti-vaxxers is a bit much.

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

#130

Post by kbenson »

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.

But those comments from dead useres can be "vouched" for if they appear to be in good faith, and one or more of those seems to take people out of dead status, I think. I'm not sure what points threshold grants that ability, or how long it has existed, but I do it every few month or so when I see a comment that seems to be perfectly fine but the comment is dead.

I think that might be a pretty good mechanism, all said and done. Someone acts in a way the community doesn't accept enough times they go dead, and then if they act acceptably they start getting people responding and participating to them as they come out of dead status. They only get attention, and positive attention, from acting responsibly.

Post reply on HN