Live data from Hacker News

FB messenger silently censoring links, claims they were sent

twitter.com

201–210 of 488 posts

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

#201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You’re mixing up two legal concepts: expectation of privacy and common carriers.

Despite phone companies being common carriers (and thus being required to carry communications without censoring them), the Supreme Court has made it clear that people should have no reasonable expectation of privacy when they relay communications through a pay phone. The reasoning was that you give up your right to privacy when you involve a third party to your conversation. See Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967).

So the two can coexist.

Only common carriers are forced to carry speech unimpeded, regardless of its content. Expectation of privacy is irrelevant to common carrier status. The former is about whether it can be intercepted. The latter is about whether it can be impeded.

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

#204
post #18

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

> 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…

Our legal system (fortunately) hasn’t accepted the theory that the penalty for being popular is that you get to be nationalized. How would you feel if you threw a lot of parties in your house, and then one day the government came to you and said you now have to allow everyone to party at your house?

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

#207
post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right or not, I think charitably, the person you are responding to is pointing out that this is not a new thing in social media sites. It's a decades old technique at this point.

Shadow banning isn’t really something used in private messages, no?

Apparently by Facebook.

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

#208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

There is no mass revolt going on against Facebook. Get real.

Are you kidding?

My entire friend's list left Facebook just to figure out that tragically, Insta was owned by the same dickheads.

The prisoners are perfectly happy here.

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

#209

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…

Our legal system (fortunately) hasn’t accepted the theory that the penalty for being popular is that you get to be nationalized. How would you feel if you threw a lot of parties in your house, and then one day the government came to you and said you now have to allow everyone to party at your house?

Why does it matter? You can't argue by an analogy, because first you need need to argue why running a social network with 1B+ users is the same thing as throwing a house party.

With great power comes great responsibility. You don't get to be "popular" for free.

And if you don't like it — you don't have to pay that game.

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

#210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Our legal system (fortunately) hasn’t accepted the theory that the penalty for being popular is that you get to be nationalized. How would you feel if you threw a lot of parties in your house, and then one day the government came to you and said you now have to allow everyone to party at your house?

Why does it matter? You can't argue by an analogy, because first you need need to argue why running a social network with 1B+ users is the same thing as throwing a house party. With great power comes great responsibility. You don't get to be "popular" for free. And if you don't like it — you don't have to pay that game.

> You can't argue by an analogy

Sure I can. I’m doing it right now. Of course, analogies are imperfect, but they make good teaching and argumentative tools.

> You don't get to be "popular" for free.

Fortunately for society, the law disagrees with you. (Also, your way has been tried in the past, and was not especially popular - to the point of revolution in certain Eastern European countries in the 1960s-1980s.)

Post reply on HN