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

341–350 of 488 posts

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

#341

Post by saagarjha »

iamacyborg wrote: post #334
bagels wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

I believe Hacker News does this too (disclaimer: I have never experienced this firsthand, and the people I hear it from are obviously not impartial sources).

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

#342

Post by eitland »

DonHopkins wrote: post #327
chillacy wrote: post #247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I ran into this block last year trying to send a link with a comment like "wow this is wild, if this is what people really believe our democracy is in trouble ", that felt like a hinderance to even discussing the problem.

That's the very definition of concern trolling. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll#Concern_troll

> A concern troll is a false-flag pseudonym created by a user whose actual point of view is opposed to the one that the troll claims to hold. The concern troll posts in web forums devoted to its declared point of view and attempts to sway the group's actions or opinions while claiming to share their goals, but with professed "concerns". The goal is to sow fear, uncertainty, and doubt within the group often by appealing to outrage culture.[63] This is a particular case of sockpuppeting and safe-baiting.

So no?

The person you reply to is a 7 year old account in good standing.

Also let me give you another example: licensed medical doctors being unable to have a technical discussion between themselves about Ivermectin in one channel and having to move elsewhere.

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

#343

Post by onethought »

saagarjha wrote: post #341
iamacyborg wrote: post #334

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

I believe Hacker News does this too (disclaimer: I have never experienced this firsthand, and the people I hear it from are obviously not impartial sources).

I’ve experienced this. If you are downvoted in quick succession you will get a “you are posting too quickly” error if you try to reply to anything… even if you didn’t post anything except the original post. Seems to last about a day.

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

#344

Post by ptx »

wvenable wrote: post #314
JasonFruit wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Why did you bother to post this message then? Shouldn't it be censored?

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

#345

Post by inglor_cz »

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?

"Kooky nutjobs" do exist, but part of the problem with censorship is that undesireable people can be put into this can all too easily to be silenced, even though their agenda is not really that kooky.

Pro-gay or pro-weed activists, heck even pro-civil rights activists used to be kooky nutjobs of their time.

We haven't arrived at the end of our moral or legislative evolution. We need to hear some voices that are considered kooky.

For a recent example, see Lenore Skenazy and her free-range parenting. This definitely seems kooky to a paranoid, helicopter parent part of the population. What if this part of the population holds the Delete button?

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

#346

Post by mnd999 »

systemvoltage wrote: post #50
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.

> 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…

Is there any better idea for how to stop people deliberately harming each other with bad information? Particularly in light of confirmation bias and the level of effort required to disprove vs the amount of effort required to make stuff up.

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

#347

Post by saagarjha »

onethought wrote: post #343
saagarjha wrote: post #341

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I believe Hacker News does this too (disclaimer: I have never experienced this firsthand, and the people I hear it from are obviously not impartial sources).

I’ve experienced this. If you are downvoted in quick succession you will get a “you are posting too quickly” error if you try to reply to anything… even if you didn’t post anything except the original post. Seems to last about a day.

I think that's just the standard rate-limiting; there is supposedly also a thing where Hacker News will throttle the connection as well.

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

#348

Post by huibf »

saagarjha wrote: post #347
onethought wrote: post #343

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’ve experienced this. If you are downvoted in quick succession you will get a “you are posting too quickly” error if you try to reply to anything… even if you didn’t post anything except the original post. Seems to last about a day.

I think that's just the standard rate-limiting; there is supposedly also a thing where Hacker News will throttle the connection as well.

They did that to me years ago, like ten years or so. Took me weeks to figure out the site wasn't slow when logged out! They don't do it anymore (and thankfully, because if they did it to me now I'd slowloris the hell out of this site).

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

#349

Post by hutzlibu »

wvenable wrote: post #310
pseudo0 wrote: post #253

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't they just get twice as annoyed when they realize that not only were they banned, but they were silently banned and wasted time writing posts that went straight to /dev/null? The only time shadowbanning seems like a good solution is outright commercial spam and link farming, where slowing them down is a win in itself.

They get annoyed but not in the same way; the craziest want an audience and if you don't give it to them they generally move on.

"They get annoyed but not in the same way"

I would be carefuly about that.

"and if you don't give it to them they generally move on."

The craziest has lots of stuff going on. Lots of anger and hate. So if they decide, that you are their mortal enemy for shadow banning them, they might not move on.

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

#350

Post by rnd0 »

iamacyborg wrote: post #335
rnd0 wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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

and legal, and probably technical PoV as well; yes.

The large platforms have sucked all of the oxygen out of the room, and have gained what I feel is an unhealthy control of what can and cannot be said.

I have no idea what can be done to fix the situation; but none the less, there it is.

Post reply on HN