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

311–320 of 488 posts

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

#311

Post by divx_dev »

dpbriggs wrote: post #281
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.

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

That website needs proofreading, it does not instil confidence in your case.

If it actually happened, it would be trivial to record it happening and to share that recording. But this makes it clear you are just trying to throw more confusion onto the election.

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

#312

Post by yuliyp »

rnd0 wrote: post #190
faeriechangling wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Shadow moderation became the norm ages ago to deal with spam. You can debate about its limits but somebody with a hardline position smacks of somebody who has never dealed with the real world issues but is cocksure about how things should be done.

>You can debate about its limits but somebody with a hardline position smacks of somebody who has never dealed with the real world issues but is cocksure about how things should be done. The canard about what happens when you assume applies in this case. Very much so. I've moderated forums and I've never had a problem with simply deleting spam out-right when it came up. Same with problematic users and posts.

It's one thing to moderate something in the hundreds to thousands of users, and something entirely different in the tens of millions. When you start having multiple groups of attackers and whole underground markets aimed at taking advantage of your users, simply banning individuals / deleting individual posts no longer cuts it.

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

#313

Post by wvenable »

rnd0 wrote: post #92
systemvoltage wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's one thing to censor !!! Are we nonchalantly accepting its OK to censor and moving on to the argument about deceiving users? Edit: should add more context to this. I don't think we should be casually OK with censorship. Next thing you know, FB will silently(or not) start censoring political opponents, activists they don't like, etc. I am quite unsettled by how the west is doing the same as China. Censorship is…

>Are we nonchalantly accepting its OK to censor and moving on to the argument about deceiving users? Personally I'm disturbed at the non-chalant attitude taken towards shadow moderation in this thread. Shadow banning and shadow moderation may make one's job easier but it has a disastrous effect on the forum or community by injecting a definite level of deceit into the moderator/poster relationship. Any forum where sh…

The assumption that you are making that all the users, and specifically the users that need to be shadow banned, are just normal mentally healthy individuals. Mostly, they are not.

If you want to waste precious minutes of your life dealing with the mentally deranged for free -- that's your call. But you shouldn't be disturbed by those who don't.

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

#314

Post by wvenable »

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?

You know what I say -- so be it. If they want to censor literally everything that isn't pleasantries and personal conversation I say lets do it. The world will be better off almost immediately.

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

#315

Post by DoItToMe81 »

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…

If you run a business, you don't really have a choice. Cut that out, and you lose your ability to contact potentially millions of customers.

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

#316

Post by proto-n »

spiderice wrote: post #295
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

Next tweet in the thread shows them. First pic is cropped (not sure why)

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

#317

Post by [deleted] »

spiderice wrote: post #295
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

[deleted]

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

#318

Post by fit2rule »

kbenson wrote: post #130
rtkwe wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've got bad news for you about HackerNews then, HN has 'dead' users who can post but are only shown if you specifically opt-in and they can't be replied to at all.

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…

I've been shadowbann'ed for espousing a viewpoint a few months ago which is now common on HN.

I have no recourse but to continue posting dead until someone feels the urge to vouch for me.

This is pretty rank censorship.

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

#319

Post by OrvalWintermute »

nullc wrote: post #289
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.

Does that mean:

A - They have unShadowbanned all previously Shadowbanned users?

OR

B - They are no longer actively shadowbanning users, but previous victims of Shadowbanning are going to stay that way?

Am asking since there is a big difference between the two.

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

#320

Post by fit2rule »

swayvil wrote: post #40
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.

For another example of such totalitarian shenanigans consider the practice of "shadowbanning" : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shadow_banning 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 w…

Shadowbanning is a political tool. It ensures that the politics of the forum remain in a sphere chosen by the moderators.

It is the velvet glove around an iron fist.

Post reply on HN