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

281–290 of 488 posts

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

#281

Post by dpbriggs »

divx_dev wrote: post #148
spiderice wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

100% did not work during the election. I was able to convince my siblings to leave Messenger (where we had our “sibling” chat) because if it. Censoring public FB posts is one thing, but I don’t need zuck telling me what I can say in a private conversation. That’s too far.

If it was so common why not provide documented evidence? It would seem like a pretty important thing to document, assuming it actually happened.

It happened. This website has a blurb about it https://censortrack.org/case/joebideninfo.

I tried it a few months ago and it was blocked. Here's a screenshot I made of it: https://i.imgur.com/KZa60db.jpg

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

#282

Post by otterley »

sjy wrote: post #267
otterley wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 invo…

Katz v. United States held the opposite: “The Government’s activities in electronically listening to and recording the petitioner’s words violated the privacy upon which he justifiably relied while using the telephone booth and thus constituted a ‘search and seizure’ within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment.” More recent decisions suggest that the third party doctrine, according to which there is no legitimate expe…

Crap, my bad. You’re right. Clearly I misremembered the case and should have reviewed it first. I withdraw my point about that.

As you said, Katz did say that we do have a reasonable expectation of privacy with respect to person-to-person communications. However, that has no bearing on whether the carrier can or cannot block the communication. That still hinges on whether the carrier is a common carrier.

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

#283

Post by otterley »

betwixthewires wrote: post #275
tqi wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You’re making up something that person didn’t say (or even imply, really). That’s not ok.

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

#284

Post by jreese »

MrWiffles wrote: post #266

Isn’t messenger supposedly using “end-to-end encryption”? I honestly don’t know if I’m mixing this up with what’s app since I refuse to use either one. FB is a blight upon the world. Only a fool believes anything they say.

E2E is not enabled by default, because that generally provides a worse experience (eg, no desktop/web access) for users who don't care about it. You can enable E2E encryption on any conversation by tapping on the conversation title, and enabling "secret mode".

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

#285

Post by rapnie »

michaelmrose wrote: post #263
rapnie wrote: 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…

Normally you don't get any of that process because you don't have any right to use someone else's service. They can ban you for having red hair or blue eyes if they please and they would be foolish but not in the wrong.

Sure, but scale that lack of rights to platforms will millions or billions of users, and you get effective dictatorship. Platforms just wielding too much power that extends well beyond their walled garden, impacting society as a whole. The question is often raised if e.g. FB should be considered a utility service, and have their policies tightly regulated.

Edit: I submitted a separate Ask HN on "shadow suppression": https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28344492

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

#286

Post by nullc »

Facebook has been silently hiding messages containing targeted links for at least a decade.

I had multiple reports of censoring people discussing my depaywalling of a large cache of public domain historical scholarly papers [1], and went and checked for myself. Messages which included the link to the documents were reported as delivered but not actually delivered.

I believe they may have started it at the time of one of the high profile wikileaks document dumps.

This experiences is part of why I and my partner have since refused to use their services.

[1] https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2011/07/swartz-supporter...

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

#289

Post by nullc »

scottydelta wrote: post #173

This 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*

HN reports that they no longer shadowban. Reddit absolutely does shadowban still, and rather capriciously and randomly.

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

#290

Post by rejectedandsad »

barbacoa wrote: post #162
divx_dev wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If it was so common why not provide documented evidence? It would seem like a pretty important thing to document, assuming it actually happened.

After big tech stepped in to ban news articles on Biden selling political influence to foreign nationals most people stopped even considering these kind of things conspiracy. But to OP's point on joebiden.info: https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/hr30p3/reddit_f...

He's President and won with 81M votes. Your crying won't change that, just so you know.
Post reply on HN