41–50 of 488 posts
If they don't like a message you are sending they are likely to silently drop it and let you think it was delivered. Just no care at all for the user experience at a base level.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Just tried it and it sends without an issue
Well that was just an example. Of course they would not actually censor `joebiden.info`. Not on your life! They would censor other stuff, pertaining to other political leanings, and other scientific-medical subjects... You know, the badthink.
It's one thing to censor, but it's another to intentionally deceive your users into believing that they sent something.
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?
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.
Not sure if they still are
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well that was just an example. Of course they would not actually censor `joebiden.info`. Not on your life! They would censor other stuff, pertaining to other political leanings, and other scientific-medical subjects... You know, the badthink.
What? 90% of the garbage circulated on facebook is republican qanon conspiracy theories at worst, and tabloid reactionary garbage at best.
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.
It's one thing to censor, but it's another to intentionally deceive your users into believing that they sent something.
You can argue the tool is being used too widely by Facebook, but it is silly to pontificate against the practice as a whole.
You reaaaaallly would not like the uncensored internet.
It's one thing to censor, but it's another to intentionally deceive your users into believing that they sent something.
Hacker News does it. Reddit does it sitewide. Individual moderators do it sitewide. Shadowbanning is an essential tool for moderation, for dealing with trolls, spammers, abusive people. You can argue the tool is being used too widely by Facebook, but it is silly to pontificate against the practice as a whole. You reaaaaallly would not like the uncensored internet.
Respectfully, speak for yourself.
It's one thing to censor, but it's another to intentionally deceive your users into believing that they sent something.
!!!
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 just casually taken as granted now. I don't think counter arguments hold for "private platforms". At some point, it becomes public square when a billion+ people use your platform.