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

291–300 of 488 posts

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

#291

Post by 838812052807016 »

mgraczyk wrote: post #93
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.

The censorship is intentional, but the silence is a bug in the react code. You can look at the console in chrome devtools to see. There is an error message informing the viewer that their message was censored. The message is incorrectly hidden when you send additional message. Also refresh the page and the messages disappear from the viewer.

How do you know the bug is unintentional?

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

#292

Post by Leparamour »

mgraczyk wrote: post #93
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.

The censorship is intentional, but the silence is a bug in the react code. You can look at the console in chrome devtools to see. There is an error message informing the viewer that their message was censored. The message is incorrectly hidden when you send additional message. Also refresh the page and the messages disappear from the viewer.

But it's that silence which deceives the user into thinking that the message never arriving is a technical malfunction and not intentional censoring. How many times, do you think the user would see the censoring message and be cool with it? Maybe once or twice, then they will stop using FB likely forever and tell all their friends. But does FB want that? Hell no, they want to retain the user for data collection and ad showing purposes. So how about just not showing the censoring message, make the user believe there was just a technical glitch and not insidious shadowbanning?

I think this "bug" is intentional and done for plausible deniability in case of a lawsuit: "See, there is transparence. It was just a bug in the code. Human error."

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

#293

Post by jjav »

seattle_spring wrote: post #152
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…

HN would be a useless trove of violence and hate if all [dead] comments were automatically unhid. Folks who are into 8chan might be into a community like that, but I personally much prefer the moderated approach taken today.

> HN would be a useless trove of violence and hate if all [dead] comments were automatically unhid.

I read with showdead=yes and it is nowhere near that description. In fact dead posts are not even that common on most articles. And most of the dead posts, while on average low quality, are very rarely hateful or anything like that.

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

#294

Post by suction »

JasonFruit wrote: post #71
otterley wrote: post #55

Why anyone should care if you can't send links to websites run by kooky nutjobs with false or highly questionable COVID information to other people via FB messenger?

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?

The currently popular idea of "setting precedent" is overrated, misused and an argument, and shouldn't be taken as "it will definitely happen all the time soon".

The Japanese "set precedent" by bombing Pearl Harbour. How many seaports of the US have been bombed by a foreign power since then?

The US dropped two nukes on Japan. Did it "set precedent" for nations to nuke each other willy-nilly in wars since then?

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

#295

Post by spiderice »

upbeat_general wrote: post #170

As another comment points out the screenshot clearly shows two red exclamation marks indicating it wasn’t delivered. You can take issue with the censoring (and I do) but it’s not silently censoring which is much worse.

What screenshot are you looking at? Because there are no red exclamations in the image on the linked tweet

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

#296

Post by eyelidlessness »

fragileone wrote: post #255
eyelidlessness wrote: post #241

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I’m saying none of those causes is censorship, Facebook has no obligation to send your private messages to anyone, and I was glib enough in saying so to include my own personal squick about patterns of holes in things to emphasize the point.

If Facebook doesn’t want to send my message to you, that’s their choice. It’s not my right to send messages through Facebook and expect them to be delivered to you. Even if they contain horrific circles in a pattern that makes me squirm just describing them.

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

#297

Post by eyelidlessness »

betwixthewires wrote: post #274
eyelidlessness wrote: post #239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> Yes you do.

No, I don’t. I’m not making the claim. Look, still not making a claim! Still not making an argument. It’s up to “Facebook is censoring me” to make the case that warrants a defense. And I’m not Facebook so I don’t have do defend that. I can just… have this conversation without censorship. And if I get moderated here in a way I hope I won’t be but don’t expect… I can go to my blog or Twitter or whatever.

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

#298

Post by overtonwhy »

TechBro8615 wrote: post #5

This has been happening for years. Just try sending a message containing the string `joebiden.info` and see what happens. We’re way past the rubicon. Get your information as best you can and just hope you’re somewhat aligned with the mainstream.

This post seems to literally be propaganda.

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

#299

Post by tqi »

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.

I want you to imagine for a second that someone makes the claim that blocking links for COVID misinformation is setting a precedent. An obvious follow up in order to have a constructive discussion is to establish where the line is, ie whether the debate is a) whether blocking of any kind or b) what content warrants blocking. This is specifically relevant to Facebook since Whatsapp has been used in the past to coordinate/incite violence and genocide.

So maybe stop and think for one second before commenting?

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

#300

Post by eyelidlessness »

cjaybo wrote: post #243
eyelidlessness wrote: post #239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 think censorship means what you think it means. The medium and scale at which the censorship is taking place is irrelevant.

Every publication that has ever had any editorial control over its platform has exercised it. It’s entitled as hell to think you can use other people’s resources to publish your own thoughts unconstrained.
Post reply on HN