Live data from Hacker News

FB messenger silently censoring links, claims they were sent

twitter.com

401–410 of 488 posts

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

#401

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

In the greater scheme biden's corruption isn't really noteworthy. Everyone in DC has their loser kid on corporate boards, or are running a phony charity, or taking in speaking fees from those they are regulating, or taking campaign contributions in exchange for political favors.

The alarming part of the laptop story was the rapid response big tech took to censor it.

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

#402
post #344

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

It's not a link to a 3rd party website containing rant about censorship so I'd argue that's what I'm looking for.

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

#403

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It's not worse than just directly modding them -- that gives them more direct rage fuel.

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

#404
post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Shadow banning and shadow moderation may make one's job easier but it has a disastrous effect on the forum or community by injecting a definite level of deceit into the moderator/poster relationship. You say that as if it's fact, but I'm not sure it is. HN has a method of shadow banning that is reversible if you are noticed as posting stuff that contributes and follows the guidelines, and even when you are shadow b…

>You say that as if it's fact, but I'm not sure it is. How is it not? Shadowbans by definition are deceptive; their whole intent is to deceive the poster into thinking that their message was sent and is readable. If you post and your message appears to appear on the thread but only you can read it then...you are being deceived. The message board software is lying to you. Since it is the moderators who decide that the…

> How is it not? Shadowbans by definition are deceptive

The question is not whether it's deceptive, but whether "it has a disastrous effect on the forum or community". It is deceptive. Does it have a disastrous effect on the community? It doesn't appear so to me, so I think that needs supporting evidence.

> May I ask -was it your intent to come off as being condescending and borderline insulting? If not, you ought to be aware that is how that sentence came off.

How a sentence is interpreted has a lot to do with the context the person reading it is in. I didn't intend to be dismissive, but I think the point still stands, because I was actually trying to make a point. Why not just use one of the sites that doesn't do shadowbanning or censorship instead? This isn't some sly insinuation you should leave. It's an actual question about what is different here from there in the rules and moderation, and how and why that might contribute to how the community acts at each place respectively.

> It's also a hand-wave -meaning a distraction from my primary point which is about shadowbanning and the fact it injects a note of deceit into the moderator/user relationship.

No, it's a real question that you decided wasn't relevant so then went out of your way to avoid.

> but that does not change the fact ...and it is a fact... that I believe (and have no reason not to believe) that shadowbans have a negative effect on the larger community that they're practiced on.

It hasn't been shown to be a fact. You haven't even really shown how it could be negative to the community, much less provided evidence. "It erodes faith" is both unsubstantiated, and it's also not shown even if it was how that actually results in a problem (I'm not sure there don't exist forums with hated moderators that still function fairly well).

Shadowbanning is censorship and it is deceitful, but it's also aimed squarely at those the moderators think are not part of the community, or at least not productive parts. The whole point of it is to keep those people from realizing their account is banned right away and starting a new account to continue the behavior.

I would argue that for the most part, this has a positive effect. There are plenty of dead posts which you can see too if you want which provide little or no useful contribution to the discussion or the community.

> shadowbans undermine posters' faith in moderators and serve to undermine the credibility of moderation as a whole.

I haven't observed that. I think most people here trust the moderators to use that sparingly, and there's also a system which appears to let the community see and reverse shadowbans in the case it's incorrectly applied or the banned person in question provides more meaningful content later.

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

#405

Any user of any Facebook property needs to understand well in advance that the company engages in active psychological manipulation and experimentation on its users and then decide if this clashes with their personal autonomy. Remember them talking about how they engaged in experiments on their users by trying to influence their mood via intentionally showing their various groups different types of content algorithmi…

I agree with you. I feel caught in a trap though: I really like the Oculus VR platform. I use it everyday to play quick games if ping pong or racket ball when I need to move around after sitting in my desk chair. Sometimes I spend more time on the Star Wars games, etc. But, as you say, I try to use their VR platform with some awareness of their business model.

I'm no better. I use it to keep in contact with friends, most of whom have moved to other countries but I try to maintain a backup.

I also own an Oculus and have given credit for the Quest in the past as the closest thing to mainstreaming VR to date, it's unfortunate that it operates under Facebook but it's probably the only hardware business they'll have that'll hold any interest to me. I have a separate account for mine because I don't trust or like them (and I really dislike "social" features in games). That being said, I expect it to get caught up and destroyed eventually so I hope at that point the hacker community will have an answer to keep it working outside of the Facebook ecosystem. (There may already be one, I have not checked.)

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

#406
post #66

This is a bug. The intended behaviour is to notify the user that tried to send the link. Doesn't make it okay.

I don't buy it. It is always "a bug" or some other excuse. Then we find out later it wasn't a bug after all. If you lie frequently enough you loose right for benefit of the doubt.

Well considering that this behavior only appears in specific situations, I'm inclined to believe the bug claim.

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

#407

Threads about censorship consistently remind me that HN is no different than any other social media platform, subject to users pushing various agendas and misinformation in support of those agendas. There's nothing wrong with private businesses removing content they don't deem appropriate. There is also nothing wrong with silencing users obviously lying. Thinking differently totally misunderstands social media as a m…

Classic way to misunderstand the problem. When “the private business” is a group so large and dominant in their field that they can stop threats by absorbing them, lawsuits, or other tactics, they aren’t just “a private company” anymore. Your comment reeks of someone who doesn’t think it will ever be themselves that will be censored.

> Classic way to misunderstand the problem.

I could same the same about yours.

> Your comment reeks of someone who doesn’t think it will ever be themselves that will be censored.

Not super concerned with social media posts being taken down, no, as that's always been happening. Websites moderate their content. What's the surprise?

Also amusing name.

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

#408
post #363
post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>You say that as if it's fact, but I'm not sure it is. How is it not? Shadowbans by definition are deceptive; their whole intent is to deceive the poster into thinking that their message was sent and is readable. If you post and your message appears to appear on the thread but only you can read it then...you are being deceived. The message board software is lying to you. Since it is the moderators who decide that the…

Some users are simply not valuable participants. The kind that get shadowbanned can include those spamming Viagra, scams, and other nonsense. I think that not getting rid of that content/malicious participants (not community members) undermines faith in moderation.

Other nonsense? As in viewpoints that are disagreeable to the moderators in charge?

There’s a clear difference between male enhancement spam and a guy with a poorly thought out comment that most people find disagreeable. A middle schooler can spot the difference.

Back in my day we welcomed those poorly reasoned or flat out wrong comments: you would attack them with logic and use them as opportunities to find the truth of a matter. And the community reading it would revise their priors and the needle would move closer to the truth.

Today those comments get censored, leading to much of the awful discourse you see on FB and Reddit these days. You can’t discuss sacred cows without getting banned from a community or shadowbanned altogether.

The ridiculous rhetoric on the left these days is a direct result if this phenomenon.

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

#409

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I did not downvote you at all, I replied because I wanted to discuss it with you. Others have replied, and I think its really interesting you think an unruly playground needs to be moderated. Others have pointed out you just "go to your corner" or dont engage so to speak. But you seem to think it needs to be moderated. I am not saying you are wrong I 'm curious as to why.

The problem is that I can “go to my corner” but I can’t stop people with no intention of playing by any set of rules from coming with me. We’ve gone to our own corner here on Hacker News. And yet there’s moderation to keep discussion on-topic and respectful. In my estimation you likely choose to participate in this corner of the Internet because of the moderation of both link submissions and comments. Without it, HN…

I disagree, I come here because the articles I see and comments are read are reached by consensus. Bad comments are normally at the bottom of the page and easy to ignore.

There is shadow banning on HN and I disagree with it, but I should be able to make the above generalisation of why HN seems to work with less moderation than expected.

On sites like 4chan, there is some moderation, but again, the few interesting comments that exist get automatically highlighted by the engagement that occurs within the page. Moderation does not allow this to exist, census does. Moderation just helps but I argue the site would work without it, and thats how the internet used to work. Even newgroups that used the wrong mechanic to handle consensus based uploading, and suffered from spam , had content that was good and easy to find, without any moderation that I could see.

Post reply on HN