Isn't messenger supposed to be encrypted??
Not by default?
Facebook Messenger blocks messages containing “di.wang”
41–50 of 52 posts
Re: Facebook Messenger blocks messages containing “di.wang”
#42Isn't messenger supposed to be encrypted??
No. Moxie equated FB messenger with Telegram. Neither offer the encryption guarantees of Signal.
Re: Facebook Messenger blocks messages containing “di.wang”
#43Re: Facebook Messenger blocks messages containing “di.wang”
#44Censorship is cool when cool new tech companies are doing it.
One thing I have noticed is that a lot of those speaking out against censorship themselves have no problem censoring polite comments in their own comment sections. Wonder why that is?
I wonder if there are any meaningful differences between an individual's comment section (even if on a public-facing service such as Twitter), where that individual chooses what to censor, versus a corporate behemoth like Facebook choosing to impose censorship on all users of its Messenger - where the mediator of communication decides what to censor, regardless of what the participants want.
Re: Facebook Messenger blocks messages containing “di.wang”
#45wi.wang.com is blocked a-di.wang works Wang roughly translates to the character 网, meaning “website” in Chinese. The warning - (#368) The Action Attempted Has Been Deemed Abusive Or Is Otherwise Disallowed Enjoy the CTF, I'm stumped
Wang is also a very common surname.
Re: Facebook Messenger blocks messages containing “di.wang”
#46Is this some kind of a plot to motivate people to install Facebook Messenger just to try to reproduce a bug? Sorry guys, still not gonna try it ;)
This is the most compelled I’ve ever felt to use Messenger.
Still not compelled enough though.
Re: Facebook Messenger blocks messages containing “di.wang”
#47Not sure why it is suprising? If the state wants something to be censored, corporations have very little room to wiggle out. It's funny how Overton window is moving. I remember in the 90s, the mere suggestion that the west could experience Soviet level of censorship was considered deluded conspiracy thinking. Now the population is very much okay with censorship as long as content they don't like is censored. But prop…
Not just censorship. A lot of people think the media, the government AND the opposition, are actively malicious towards them. Not just in America, in many western countries.
I think in the 90s a lot of people thought the goverment was misguided, or stealing, or even had some shady branches. But not actively malicious and harmful as a whole.
Re: Facebook Messenger blocks messages containing “di.wang”
#48Censorship is cool when cool new tech companies are doing it.
One thing I have noticed is that a lot of those speaking out against censorship themselves have no problem censoring polite comments in their own comment sections. Wonder why that is?
Because censorship that most people fear is the power of the state stymying information flow and not private actors acting freely of their own accord. It’s when the states monopoly on violence gets leveraged to censor, that you see things like genocides, tyrannical acts, with no rival powers to combat them. If you don’t like Facebook, go use another site or build your own, we are blessed with that freedom. Facebook has the right to curate content for its users.
Re: Facebook Messenger blocks messages containing “di.wang”
#49Not surprised. I work at a different FANG and we literally have the Scunthorpe problem.
Re: Facebook Messenger blocks messages containing “di.wang”
#50This was one of the triggering reasons why I moved away from FB Messenger as my main chat app. I knew that Facebook was pretty awful for a long time but Messenger was a very good messenger. It is fast, reliable and has a solid set of features. Of course most importantly just about everyone I knew was on it. So for the longest time I didn't have enough motivation to start moving people.
But then it started blocking links fairly frequently. Maybe one or two a week. This is in a chat with someone that I had known for months and we talked daily. It clearly wasn't spam and very unlikely that I was trying to scam. The sites seemed basically random, like they were blocking with a bloom filter without actually verifying the "maybe positives". I distinctly remember trying to send a link to a Monty Python script and it getting blocked. That was the final straw for me and I moved that chat to something end-to-end encrypted.