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

331–340 of 488 posts

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

#331

Post by Thorrez »

divx_dev wrote: post #311
dpbriggs wrote: post #281

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

joebiden.info is allowed currently, but thedonald.win is blocked currently.

If you want me to screen record the blocking of thedonald.win I can, but I'd rather not screen record my FB messenger page because there's private information there, and editing that out of the screen recording would take some extra work.

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

#332

Post by lmilcin »

otterley wrote: post #282
sjy wrote: post #267

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I would suggest blocking and selectively editing messages is different.

Conversation on messenger is multiple messages, blocking would be preventing entire conversation. Removing some messages selectively changes meaning of other messages

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

#333

Post by Thorrez »

rejectedandsad wrote: post #290
barbacoa wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I don't really see how what you're saying is relevant. It's possible for someone to be validly elected and also for negative stuff about that person to be blocked on some websites.

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

#334

Post by iamacyborg »

bagels wrote: post #183
seaourfreed wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is censorship. Calling it shadow banning doesn't make it okay. Bigger and bigger groups of citizens are revolting over censorship: Bill Maher and tons of Americans. This builds a revolt against Facebook

Right or not, I think charitably, the person you are responding to is pointing out that this is not a new thing in social media sites. It's a decades old technique at this point.

I recall vBulletin 3 software having a mode to specifically make the website slow and frustrating for certain users.

https://www.managingcommunities.com/2009/09/14/troll-hack-gl...

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

#335

Post by iamacyborg »

rnd0 wrote: post #126
Hokusai wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It was not because uncensored content. It was bastly superior because there was a lack of comercialization. Before SEO, before targeted ads, an internet made by educacional institutions and people with hobbies. Nowadays allow everybody to post anything and you will only see SPAM for the rest of you life, it will become impossible to see anything of value.

I'm not sure if I agree or disagree with you -you definitely have a point,though. From my point of view it's less commercial vs non-commercial (though I think most of the problems either stem from, or are aggravated by commercial factors) as much as it is diversity versus consolidation. Ten, fifteen years ago there was a greater number of varied forums and social gathering places with a greater number variety of view…

> everything seems to have coalescened (socially speaking) into twitter and facebook.

And Reddit and Discord.

It is a monumentally difficult task to create a forum these days, from a social PoV.

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

#336

Post by Thorrez »

eyelidlessness wrote: post #303
mistermann wrote: post #259

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe I'm misreading your message, but you seem to be writing as if your counterpart in the discussion believes these things, despite saying nothing of the kind. Am I misreading you?

No I’m saying “censorship” as a rallying cry around moderation of a platform is effectively demanding permission for those. If you say a private company can’t moderate private messages it hosts, you’re saying it must allow private exchange of child porn. And harassing people with pictures of patterns of holes they find unnerving. And basically any harmful behavior you can imagine. If Facebook wants to provide private…

>No I’m saying “censorship” as a rallying cry around moderation of a platform is effectively demanding permission for those.

I don't think so. The 2 specific situations you list are different. For child porn, it's illegal. So if Facebook blocks it, it's the government choosing what to censor, not Facebook.

And I think it's possible to prevent "harassing people with pictures of patterns of holes they find unnerving" without Facebook censoring content. Facebook has a block functionality, and the receiver could block the sender. As for the sender making multiple accounts, if Facebook blocks that, that's not censorship of content, that's enforcing a 1 account policy.

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

#337

Post by Thorrez »

overtonwhy wrote: post #298
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.

What post? Are you talkinga bout TechBro8615's comment? What is it propaganda for?

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

#338

Post by cblconfederate »

eyelidlessness wrote: post #169

I find it confusing that a community that frequently acknowledges that free services treat their users as the product simultaneously has expectations that the free service should amplify their speech. This, like many similar posts here, isn’t censorship. If you want to spread your idea (any idea at all) without hindrance, don’t do it on an advertisement platform.

> expectations that the free service

Well it can't be really free or the service would not survive is it? It's like a club having free entrance / you pay otherwise.

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

#339

Post by ogma »

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?

God fucking damn it, did you never learn anything about the entirety of human history?
Post reply on HN