Live data from Hacker News

FB messenger silently censoring links, claims they were sent

twitter.com

251–260 of 488 posts

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

#251
post #135

What do the engineers who code stuff like this think? Do they not feel bad or is it masked by the salary they get paid?

They probably haven’t thought about it to any depth, just have a look at how many HNers - a crowd I’d have previously assumed to be against everything this story implies: censorship, lack of privacy, corporatism etc - will openly support these things on these very boards.

They’re not told to build censorship tools, they were likely told to build tools to help prevent terrorism and child abuse material. The rationale for tools like this always starts from a place where we can all agree.

It’s like asking why scientists would ever invent atomic bombs, they do it to stop Hitler, its only later that those in charge decide it would be good idea to drop a couple on civilian populations.

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

#252
post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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…

> 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

Is it the same? Showing a 404 is a security measure that applies equally to anyone lacking sufficient privileges. Ideally an app should prevent you from getting these, or show a message like "Not found, or no access".

> It's deceit with the purpose of stymiing further malicious action.

Shadowbans are powerful moderation weapons. Too much so, I'd say. The moderator is both prosecutor, judge and executioner. Who is the lawyer? Who revises after a time if the shadowbanned person has redeemed themself? Maybe their bad behavior was just a temporary fit, or even a mental breakdown they have since recovered from. Or they just become wiser grown-ups over time. All very human things that happen, but now they have a harsh sentence applied to them, and they may not even know about it.

Especially at scale these things should be handled properly. And importantly there should be transparency of how the procedures work, what the status is, and what one can do about it.

I also wonder to what degree on the big social platforms there exist even more subtle measures than all-out shadowbans. Like setting metrics on a sliding scale to define the extent the AI should limit a person's influence on the network.

Maybe this already has a name, but let's call it "shadow suppression". With such measures in place a person's voice can be dimimished for a lifetime without them ever knowing. They get a Like or a Comment here and there, but they will never go viral or even reach the audience that they think they address, and no matter how good their content and behavior becomes.

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

#253
post #62

Earlier 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.

I've moderated a forum before. Some people on the Internet are just crazy . If you ban them, they will come after you—maybe even in person. Shadowbanning on forums (setting aside the FB case) is sometimes abused, but it serves a vital purpose: preserving the time and safety of volunteer moderators.

Don't they just get twice as annoyed when they realize that not only were they banned, but they were silently banned and wasted time writing posts that went straight to /dev/null? The only time shadowbanning seems like a good solution is outright commercial spam and link farming, where slowing them down is a win in itself.

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

#254
post #252

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> 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 Is it the same? Showing a 404 is a security measure that applies equally to anyone lacking sufficient privileges. Ideally an app should prevent you from getting these, or show a message like "Not found, or no access". > It's deceit with the purpose of stymii…

There are very online fora I am aware of that have any kind of arbitration or check on the execution of administrator or moderator authority.

Facebook is one (which is why they will be reinstating Trump's account in the future: https://about.fb.com/news/2021/06/facebook-response-to-overs...).

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

#255
post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's censorship, and more specifically it's corporate censorship. When it comes to ranking a feed, you have more of an argument, but blocking direct and supposedly "private" messages on the basis of their content is censorship.

Okay. I'll concede, Facebook is controlling what content is sent on Facebook's own network and services. How. Dare. They? I should be able to send whatever I see fit on their DMs right? Child porn? Coordinated mass violence? Pictures of patterns of holes that upset people with trypophobia? Credit scams? How dare they silence this Nigerian prince?

You're moving goalposts. First you claimed that this wasn't censorship, now you're saying okay it is but it's fine for them to do so here. Censorship is unacceptable in private messages, there's already reporting functionality.

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

#256
post #252

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 Is it the same? Showing a 404 is a security measure that applies equally to anyone lacking sufficient privileges. Ideally an app should prevent you from getting these, or show a message like "Not found, or no access". > It's deceit with the purpose of stymii…

There are very online fora I am aware of that have any kind of arbitration or check on the execution of administrator or moderator authority. Facebook is one (which is why they will be reinstating Trump's account in the future: https://about.fb.com/news/2021/06/facebook-response-to-overs... ).

Yes, but that example refers to a very high profile account. I wonder if the average person will get the same amount of attention (or at least a reasonable amount) in similar cases. Also this refers to a very noticable account suspension, not a shadowban that may stay under the radar.

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

#258
post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

https://covid19criticalcare.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/S...

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

#259
post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's censorship, and more specifically it's corporate censorship. When it comes to ranking a feed, you have more of an argument, but blocking direct and supposedly "private" messages on the basis of their content is censorship.

Okay. I'll concede, Facebook is controlling what content is sent on Facebook's own network and services. How. Dare. They? I should be able to send whatever I see fit on their DMs right? Child porn? Coordinated mass violence? Pictures of patterns of holes that upset people with trypophobia? Credit scams? How dare they silence this Nigerian prince?

Maybe I'm misreading your message, but you seem to be writing as if your counterpart in the discussion believes these things, despite saying nothing of the kind.

Am I misreading you?

Post reply on HN