31–40 of 488 posts
There's nothing wrong with private businesses removing content they don't deem appropriate. There is also nothing wrong with silencing users obviously lying. Thinking differently totally misunderstands social media as a medium.
Wait I thought this was known? I remember seeing this behavior with a friend when I had FB, and I haven't had FB for 3-4 year already.
It's one thing to censor, but it's another to intentionally deceive your users into believing that they sent something.
Malicious?
I've used it before as a moderator. For the above reasons, but mostly because I'm lazy and don't want to deal with angry people. Still censorship though. I think that ideally censorship ought to be communicated.
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.
In case anyone is wondering what Pulitzer-prize winning piece she is attempting to share, check out her link yourself: https://gnews.org/1476750/ , as well as a fact-check disproving all of the dangerous and false claims inside: https://www.techarp.com/science/greenlight-ivermectin-japan/ I, for one, am glad Facebook is censoring this baseless pseudo-medical advice being given which has been responsible for a massive…
The whole Ivermectin thing is dumb and stupid. But are you seriously saying silent censorship of links in Messenger is okay?
When I attempt to navigate to gnews.org the site is very slow, and I wonder if Facebook is having trouble assigning some kind of risk factor to it, then giving up, but ends up sending a "success" response anyway, whereby the front end just assumes the message was sent property and pushes it to your message cache without attempting to fetch it over the network.
edit: since this has been down voted, could you explain why you think I'm wrong?
In case anyone is wondering what Pulitzer-prize winning piece she is attempting to share, check out her link yourself: https://gnews.org/1476750/ , as well as a fact-check disproving all of the dangerous and false claims inside: https://www.techarp.com/science/greenlight-ivermectin-japan/ I, for one, am glad Facebook is censoring this baseless pseudo-medical advice being given which has been responsible for a massive…
Ivermectin is now well-known as a prophylactic against COVID-19 and its variants if administered in appropriate dosages.
That messenger is subject to facebook's community guidelines is nothing new, Zuckerberg said so himself publicly in an interview a few years ago https://www.businessinsider.com/facebook-confirms-scans-mess...
- we should know that messenger being "subject to community guidelines" means silent censorship
- Zuckerberg saying something publicly means it is justified
I would disagree with both of those implied assumptions
It's one thing to censor, but it's another to intentionally deceive your users into believing that they sent something.
Ostensibly used for spam/troll countermeasures. In practice used to dick with whoever they choose for whatever reasons please their black little hearts.
Reddit and Twitter are notorious for it. Other "social media" organisms too.
AND ANOTHER MORE IMMEDIATE EXAMPLE
Consider the way that downvotes progressively remove a post from view.
It's a way of crowdsourcing the task of censorship.
Many hands make light work.
And the blame is neatly spread around.
And the actual shape of the censorship, the form being conformed to, is only indirectly controlled by the admins. Thus more blame neatly escaped.
It's goddamn elegant is what it is!