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

271–280 of 488 posts

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

#271

Post by kbenson »

emikulic wrote: post #223
kbenson wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I think it depends. I've vouched for a comment and then seen subsequent comments not be dead. I suspect there's a bit more to the machanisn, but I think it can lead to being bit dead anymore, even if it just triggers a mod rereview of user comments to decide if they get a second chance.

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

#272

Post by Dylan16807 »

graeme wrote: post #48
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.

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.

Secretly blocking specific messages is very different from a shadowban, though.

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

#273

Post by nicce »

gchokov wrote: post #264

Serious question guys, please help me understand. Why are we still using Facebook services at all? How many more bad practices should all of us, and even me tolerate…

Not all people have the strength to leave social media with risk of leaving as outcast or losing friends. Even if those friends might not be worth it, if you lose them because of the platform.

Dopamine addicition is also real.

People should realize how dangerous it can be, when the main goals of these companies are to get their users to spend as much as time possible on their platforms to watch ads. But many have other things to do, than think stuff like this.

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

#274

Post by betwixthewires »

eyelidlessness wrote: post #239
roflc0ptic wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What exactly is your argument that this isn’t censorship? They’re providing a private chat platform and preventing certain messages from being sent. As far as I can tell this is the exact definition of censorship.

I don't need to make an argument that it isn't censorship. I'm not making the affirmative claim. If you're curious about how I arrived at a conclusion so easily: we're here discussing it openly on the public Internet.

> I don't need to make an argument that it isn't censorship

Yes you do. This is plain as day censorship. You're not allowed to say certain things to your friends. If you're going to claim that that isn't censorship you are absolutely making the affirmative claim.

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

#275

Post by betwixthewires »

tqi wrote: post #159
JasonFruit wrote: post #71

Earlier 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?

I want you to imagine for a second a conversation between two people, one that goes something like this:

Person A: "I really don't think weed should be illegal."

Person B: "Oh yeah, so what about raping rural villagers to death? I guess you think that should be legal too huh?"

This is how ridiculous you sound.

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

#277

Post by betwixthewires »

apatheticonion wrote: post #147

Would be great if someone reverse engineered the Messenger protocol and wrapped it with a better messenger.

The protocol used to be XMPP, back a decade ago when I used Facebook I used messenger in a standard XMPP client. You could use it with pidgin/libpurple. Then they walled it off.

It's better to just use something else.

Post reply on HN