It's one thing to censor, but it's another to intentionally deceive your users into believing that they sent something.
The screenshots show two red exclamation points showing it wasn’t delivered
FB messenger silently censoring links, claims they were sent
171–180 of 488 posts
Re: FB messenger silently censoring links, claims they were sent
#172It's one thing to censor, but it's another to intentionally deceive your users into believing that they sent something.
You just defined shadow banning.
Re: FB messenger silently censoring links, claims they were sent
#173This is a form of shadow banning and it’s more common than you think. As a matter of fact, HN and Reddit do this too.
If HN/Reddit think that you are posting promotions, *HN silently censors your post, claims it was posted*
Re: FB messenger silently censoring links, claims they were sent
#174Earlier 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…
Shadow moderation became the norm ages ago to deal with spam. You can debate about its limits but somebody with a hardline position smacks of somebody who has never dealed with the real world issues but is cocksure about how things should be done.
Re: FB messenger silently censoring links, claims they were sent
#175Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
What about links that call for violence / genocide? Should those be delivered to avoid setting a precedent?
Yes, I would say so.
Re: FB messenger silently censoring links, claims they were sent
#176Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
In this case, the linked article contains a lie. It's not an opinion. The article claims that a study had a result that it did not have (higher viral load amongst the vaccinated). The authors of the study have already published a condemnation explaining the misunderstanding.
Should Facebook block every lie? Where exactly does that line fall? How, anyway, do you distinguish with certainty between a lie and a misunderstanding?
Re: FB messenger silently censoring links, claims they were sent
#177Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
I said there are people who would say that. Whether I am one is not the point.
Re: FB messenger silently censoring links, claims they were sent
#178It's one thing to censor, but it's another to intentionally deceive your users into believing that they sent something.
You just defined shadow banning.
It is censorship. Calling it shadow banning doesn't make it okay. Bigger and bigger groups of citizens are revolting over censorship: Bill Maher and tons of Americans. This builds a revolt against Facebook
Re: FB messenger silently censoring links, claims they were sent
#179Earlier quoted context omitted.
In this case, the linked article contains a lie. It's not an opinion. The article claims that a study had a result that it did not have (higher viral load amongst the vaccinated). The authors of the study have already published a condemnation explaining the misunderstanding.
Should Facebook block every lie? Where exactly does that line fall? How, anyway, do you distinguish with certainty between a lie and a misunderstanding?
In some cases it's hard to tell where the line should fall. This isn't one of those.
In general you can't distinguish but fortunately that doesn't matter. Facebook doesn't block lies, it blocks "known misinformation". The information in the linked article is known to be false, and it is harmful, so it's blocked.
Re: FB messenger silently censoring links, claims they were sent
#180Earlier quoted context omitted.
>because I'm lazy Yeah, you described it well. Start by understanding, Mr Moderator, there is a hell of a lot of difference between public posts and private messages.
Not if your goal is to censor a viewpoint. They are one in the same whether it's a viewpoint made in public or private - the main point of censorship is to not allow you to communicate certain thoughts. It amazes me that some posts here (not yours, but like the one you're responding to) have already seeded the censorship ground. For them it seems the question isn't whether it's ok to censor opposing viewpoints, but w…
[deleted]