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

351–360 of 488 posts

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

#351

Post by prawn »

pseudo0 wrote: post #253
ericbarrett wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've moderated a forum before. Some people on the Internet are just crazy . If you ban them, they will come after you—maybe even in person. Shadowbanning on forums (setting aside the FB case) is sometimes abused, but it serves a vital purpose: preserving the time and safety of volunteer moderators.

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.

I’ve run a forum for 15+ years and found shadowbanning vital in dealing with nutbags. As OP said, some people will pursue you personally and get obsessive. They have one forum they are obsessed with. You have thousands of users that are potentially like this.

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

#352

Post by chalst »

huibf wrote: post #348
saagarjha wrote: post #347

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

> I'd slowloris the hell out of this site

I think most people who have the technical skill to do this effectively don't telegraph their intentions on what is, to all intents and purposes, social media.

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

#353

Post by gpas »

wrycoder wrote: post #258
gpas wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Ivermectin is now well-known as a prophylactic against COVID-19 and its variants if administered in appropriate dosages. Please share some reliable source corroborating your statement.

https://covid19criticalcare.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/S...

Thanks. Not very reliable as their methods have been heavily criticized by the entire scientific community, but better than nothing. We'll see how it turns out.

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

#354

Post by rnd0 »

thaumasiotes wrote: post #157
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…

> 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. There is a case where I'm pretty sure commercialization is the problem. Phone app stores are modeled on Linux repositories. Linux repositories are good. App stores are awful. The problem is the level of interest…

>There is a case where I'm pretty sure commercialization is the problem.

It's a problem, and yes -a major one. But I think that it's just one of many factors contributing (negatively) to the situation.

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

#355

Post by eitland »

Thorrez wrote: post #331
divx_dev wrote: post #311

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Also you cannot always convince all people.

If you had an actual recording one could always ask the question if it was created using an elaborate mock up or something.

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

#356

Post by huibf »

chalst wrote: post #352
huibf wrote: post #348

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

> I'd slowloris the hell out of this site I think most people who have the technical skill to do this effectively don't telegraph their intentions on what is, to all intents and purposes, social media.

I said they don't do it anymore. I'm not telegraphing any intentions. It would be like saying I'll shoplift in a store that no longer exists.

But saying people don't broadcast their criminal intentions on social media... I'm sure that's more common than you think :P

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

#357

Post by selfhoster11 »

eyelidlessness wrote: post #300
cjaybo wrote: post #243

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It's a private chat, how does "editorial control" possibly play any role here?

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

#358

Post by Closi »

ryandrake wrote: post #233
lmilcin wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is private conversation because it is not meant to be made public by its users. Not because Facebook isn't "common carrier". Piece of paper isn't common carrier. If I write a note to my wife and give it myself it is private because I wanted and expected it private. If I taped it to a billboard it means I no longer expect it private and it is public.

It's not a private conversation. It's content sent to, and hosted on Facebook's servers. Why should Facebook (or HN, or any site) be compelled to host content that it doesn't want? If you ran a web site, should you be disallowed from moderating what user content is available?

> It's not a private conversation.

It is according to Facebook. Here is a quote from their own website:

> We’re dedicated to making sure Messenger is a safe, private, and secure place for you to connect with the people who matter.

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

#359

Post by hutzlibu »

michaelmrose wrote: post #263
rapnie wrote: post #252

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's deceit, but in a similar category of deceit to telling a user the resource is 404 not found instead of 403 or 401 because you don't even trust them enough Is it the same? Showing a 404 is a security measure that applies equally to anyone lacking sufficient privileges. Ideally an app should prevent you from getting these, or show a message like "Not found, or no access". > It's deceit with the purpose of stymii…

Normally you don't get any of that process because you don't have any right to use someone else's service. They can ban you for having red hair or blue eyes if they please and they would be foolish but not in the wrong.

"They can ban you for having red hair or blue eyes if they please and they would be foolish but not in the wrong."

I am not sure if that is true anymore, with the implementation of anti-discrimination laws.

I mean practically it is still the internet, but if your service is public and beyond a certain size, someone might indeed sue you for doing that.

Post reply on HN