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

221–230 of 488 posts

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

#221

Post by [deleted] »

stouset wrote: post #143
dcow wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think I missed it too. I didn't even downvote.

Conversation at dinner with a group of your friends and their friends is going to function a lot more smoothly than one at a table of atheists, christian fundamentalists, Jews, Sunni and Shia Muslims, Americans, Russians, Chinese, Tibetans, Israelis, Pakistanis, Indians, liberals, conservatives, socialists, capitalists, libertarians, fascists, anarchists, environmentalists, trans people, cis people, homophobes, racis…

[deleted]

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

#222

Post by [deleted] »

rnd0 wrote: post #168
stouset wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Conversation at dinner with a group of your friends and their friends is going to function a lot more smoothly than one at a table of atheists, christian fundamentalists, Jews, Sunni and Shia Muslims, Americans, Russians, Chinese, Tibetans, Israelis, Pakistanis, Indians, liberals, conservatives, socialists, capitalists, libertarians, fascists, anarchists, environmentalists, trans people, cis people, homophobes, racis…

I disagree with your take -I don't see it being a question of moderation. You had many of those groups online (if not all of them) in the 90's and 00's. Unlike today, if you didn't like the forum you were on you could go to another one where you fit in. There was a greater diversity of social gathering places. Now -there's facebook, twitter, reddit and HN. Moderation has ALWAYS been a factor and that's not what made…

[deleted]

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

#223

Post by emikulic »

kbenson wrote: post #130
rtkwe wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Vouch takes the comment out of dead status. I then see other dead comments by the same user so I don't think it takes the user out of dead status.

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

#224

Post by [deleted] »

rtkwe wrote: post #119
lmilcin wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

[deleted]

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

#226

Post by [deleted] »

strictfp wrote: post #76
lmilcin wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I think the anonymous internet was way better. People tend to group anyway, so it's not like everyone is forced into the same room.

[deleted]

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

#227

Post by mhh__ »

otterley wrote: post #215
atatatat wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It takes a certain amount of hubris to think that because you and your friends left Facebook that this constitutes a “revolt.” To move that needle requires hundreds of thousands or millions of people to act in concert. Scale matters.

Maybe it is hubris but you know the saying “If shoeshine boys are giving stock tips, then it's time to get out of the market."

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

#228

Post by shadowgovt »

rnd0 wrote: post #181
kbenson wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. You say that as if it's fact, but I'm not sure it is. HN has a method of shadow banning that is reversible if you are noticed as posting stuff that contributes and follows the guidelines, and even when you are shadow b…

>You say that as if it's fact, but I'm not sure it is. How is it not? Shadowbans by definition are deceptive; their whole intent is to deceive the poster into thinking that their message was sent and is readable. If you post and your message appears to appear on the thread but only you can read it then...you are being deceived. The message board software is lying to you. Since it is the moderators who decide that the…

I think more precisely, the nature of the deceit is this: Shadowbans lie to a specific individual about their participation in the community.

This is because the user is not considered part of the community. A shadowban is something you deploy against a user that is presumed to be a malicious actor in the system. It's deceit, but in a similar category of deceit to telling a user the resource is 404 not found instead of 403 or 401 because you don't even trust them enough to let them know that they found a resource that exists. It's deceit with the purpose of stymiing further malicious action.

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

#229

Post by unityByFreedom »

scottydelta wrote: post #172
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.

You just defined shadow banning.

But nobody is banned here. It's banning certain links. When we hear ban we think accounts, not content.

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

#230

Post by otterley »

mhh__ wrote: post #227
otterley wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It takes a certain amount of hubris to think that because you and your friends left Facebook that this constitutes a “revolt.” To move that needle requires hundreds of thousands or millions of people to act in concert. Scale matters.

Maybe it is hubris but you know the saying “If shoeshine boys are giving stock tips, then it's time to get out of the market."

Hell, I am out of Facebook, but it’s not because they’re preventing me from sending links to Crazytown, USA to my friends. Five years later and still no revolt.
Post reply on HN