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

411–420 of 488 posts

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

#411

Post by porlune »

bellyfullofbac wrote: post #59
porlune wrote: post #36

I'm going to go on out on a limb and guess that this isn't really a case of censorship, because it's not like Facebook to not tell you directly that they've removed your content. Or they go the other route and post a disclaiming "fact check" under it.. but so far as silently removing posts, and marking them as "sent", seems more likely to be a bug. When I attempt to navigate to gnews.org the site is very slow, and I…

Probably downvoted because IMO that's a very weak limb you're going on, and the behaviour you're describing probably seems unbelievable to many users. But well, maybe it is shitty coder(s) mishandling timeouts.

That's not really explaining why (or how) I'm wrong, just that you don't believe me.. which is fine, but not constructive.

It seems generally less believable that Facebook would censor people without telling them.

Other commenters [0] appear to believe the same as I do, and note that FB typically informs the user that their action/behavior is against the site's terms of use.

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28342263

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

#412

Post by graeme »

rnd0 wrote: post #78
graeme wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

>You reaaaaallly would not like the uncensored internet. I remember the uncensored internet -it was vastly superior to what we have now. Vastly.

Uncensored internet isn’t the same as uncensored internet now. Everyone is online and everything is trivially automatable.

Mountains of spam, porn, violence, etc

If you’d ever moderated anything halfway popular you’d know. Shadowbans are an essential tool.

They can be way overused. But there is a reason everyone used them. Constant arms race between sites and spammers.

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

#413

Post by graeme »

lmilcin wrote: post #54
graeme wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Hold your horses. It is not "the internet". It is private chat. You need to understand difference between communication that is meant to be public from one that is meant to be private. Law makes clear distinction.

Reddit shadowbans in private chat too. Gmail does shadowban equivalent. HN doesn’t have private chat, but I imagine they’d use the tool if they could.

If you’ve never moderated anything halfway popular you have no idea what “uncensored” means in 2021.

It isn’t early 90s usenet. It’s endless spam, porn, etc

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

#414

Post by martinbooth »

mgraczyk wrote: post #93
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.

The censorship is intentional, but the silence is a bug in the react code. You can look at the console in chrome devtools to see. There is an error message informing the viewer that their message was censored. The message is incorrectly hidden when you send additional message. Also refresh the page and the messages disappear from the viewer.

This is the correct explanation (thank you) There’s no intention to hide the fact that certain links are blocked. The bug is that the status of failed message sends (not limited to blocked links) only shows an exclamation mark against the last message on web.

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

#415

Post by upbeat_general »

sdeframond wrote: post #381
upbeat_general wrote: post #321

Earlier quoted context omitted.

the tweet appears to be intentionally deceptive. They cropped the first picture just to remove the exclamation mark.

Is this about the exclamation mark though ? Or about the censorship ?

“Silently censoring” is the key here. The censoring has been well-known for years.

Most of the conversation I’ve seen in the comments has been about shadow banning which just isn’t related to what’s actually happening here.

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

#416

Post by darkhorn »

Thorrez wrote: post #330
darkhorn wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One of my comments in Reddit was changed by admins. It was something related with d... Not directly related with my comment but this is a proof https://techcrunch.com/2016/11/23/reddit-huffman-trump/

You were one of the people who had a comment edited in that 1 hour period mentioned in that news article? Or are you saying there was a different comment editing incident? If so, that would be big news. He promised not to do it again, so if he did, he's breaking a promise, and I think that would be pretty newsworthy. > "As the CEO, I shouldn’t play such games, and it’s all fixed now. Our community team is pretty piss…

> You were one of the people who had a comment edited in that 1 hour period mentioned in that news article?

No.

Or are you saying there was a different comment editing incident?

Yes. I have commented that they should try https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cocaine_(PaaS) but I guess they didn't click the link and then they have altered the meaning of my comment. At that point of time I was aware that Huffman have edited some comments in Reddit in the past, from the news. Thus I was not surprised.

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

#417

Post by wrycoder »

gpas wrote: post #353
wrycoder wrote: post #258

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Well, not the entire scientific community.

63 trials (31 RCT), 613 scientists, 26,398 patients:

https://c19ivermectin.com/

https://academic.oup.com/ofid/advance-article/doi/10.1093/of...

https://covid19criticalcare.com/ivermectin-in-covid-19/

What is needed is effective preventative and therapeutic treatments. Should a highly contagious strain like Delta mutate into something with a higher lethality that evades the current vaccines, there won't be time to develop a new mRNA vaccine before a large number of people are lost.

However, all preventative treatments seem to be strongly resisted, even censored and proscribed by the powers that be, unless they are under patent. Including the Nobel prize winning ivermectin.

https://c19early.com/

I am, btw, 80 and fully vaccinated with Pfizer. I also take quercetin, zinc, vitamin D, and melatonin daily.

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

#418

Post by prawn »

john_yaya wrote: post #389
prawn wrote: post #351

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Is it difficult to run a forum without the users learning your real identity? That seems like the way to go, but I have no experience with that sort of thing.

It would be possible, though if you participated a lot, you'd leave a lot of writing to be analysed. That would at least deter the casuals.

In my case, I post using my first name and most regulars would know who I am. It's a sports forum and people have recognised me at games, etc. I've had people look up my phone number and call me aggressively about things. I've had countless legal letters and threats. Someone doxxed my parents in the early days. You quickly learn how many unhinged members of society we have.

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

#419

Post by eyelidlessness »

ViViDboarder wrote: post #307
eyelidlessness wrote: post #297

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Yes you do. No, I don’t. I’m not making the claim. Look, still not making a claim! Still not making an argument. It’s up to “Facebook is censoring me” to make the case that warrants a defense. And I’m not Facebook so I don’t have do defend that. I can just… have this conversation without censorship. And if I get moderated here in a way I hope I won’t be but don’t expect… I can go to my blog or Twitter or whatever.

They did. They showed how Facebook censors[1] content in DMs. That has already been supported. Now, you are claiming it’s not censorship and have provided no basis for that. [1] https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/censor

Facebook isn’t a censor. Proof: we’re having this conversation. I don’t expect to convince you, but I find it ridiculous that I’m being asked to prove a negative because an affirmative position was extended and you’re not willing to critically examine it.

If FB is a censor, they’re extremely bad at it, and not authorized to be good at it.

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

#420

Post by eyelidlessness »

cblconfederate wrote: post #338
eyelidlessness wrote: post #169

I find it confusing that a community that frequently acknowledges that free services treat their users as the product simultaneously has expectations that the free service should amplify their speech. This, like many similar posts here, isn’t censorship. If you want to spread your idea (any idea at all) without hindrance, don’t do it on an advertisement platform.

> expectations that the free service Well it can't be really free or the service would not survive is it? It's like a club having free entrance / you pay otherwise.

Addressed in the snipped text
Post reply on HN