Live data from Hacker News

FB messenger silently censoring links, claims they were sent

twitter.com

421–430 of 488 posts

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

#421

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.

Facebook is not a free service. Users pay with their time, attention and mindshare. Mindshare is a limited and valuable resource.

Addressed in the snipped text

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

#422

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.

One-to-one messaging is not "amplification". Without Facebook's network effects, they would probably be using a different messenger, so you can't even claim that Facebook is enabling a communication that would otherwise not take place. And the fact that it's not unexpected doesn't make it not censorship, or not worth pointing out.

> One-to-one messaging is not "amplification".

Tell that to the dozens of SMS I receive on a regular basis trying to scam me I guess?

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

#423
post #375
post #244

Speaking of FB censoring. They now censor my ability to "Like" or react it is fairly random. I will click like on something then Facebook opens a popup that says that I cannot like or react to posts because they will my liking has been harmful to others. Facebook has become unusable. I haven't posted in over a year but they have found new ways to censor.

> I will click like on something then Facebook opens a popup that says that I cannot like or react to posts because they will my liking has been harmful to others Do you have this on screenshot by any chance or can you make one? It seems way too ridiculous and out of place - but then, I stopped using fb few years ago so things could "change"

Here it is. They seem to call the "Like" function "Reactions"

https://photos.app.goo.gl/QseWerYMd2jVbfpa6

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

#424
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…

> 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…

Most people aren’t aware that shadowbanning occurs, how it is used, and to what extent. By very definition they don’t see shadowbanned comments or content.

I’m not sure how you can think people approve of something they aren’t even aware is happening.

It’s not just deceptive to the shadowbanned user, it’s deceptive to the whole community, too. How can an average user trust that the content they’re viewing isn’t entirely astroturfed? Or alternatively, 100% organic?

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

#425

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

Most people aren’t aware that shadowbanning occurs, how it is used, and to what extent. By very definition they don’t see shadowbanned comments or content. I’m not sure how you can think people approve of something they aren’t even aware is happening. It’s not just deceptive to the shadowbanned user, it’s deceptive to the whole community, too. How can an average user trust that the content they’re viewing isn’t entir…

> I’m not sure how you can think people approve of something they aren’t even aware is happening.

Because people often trust people based on reputation, results, or other proxy measures rather than reviewing every action they take.

> It’s not just deceptive to the shadowbanned user, it’s deceptive to the whole community, too.

It is. At the same time I think most people don't care, and are fine not having every moderation action announced to them.

Additionally, as I've stated multiple times here, and so have others, HN allows anyone to opt into seeing these comments from shadowbanned users, so HN doesn't even follow the same ideal of the problem case you and others are putting forth. You'll get a lot farther pushing this idea of shadowbanning being bad and a problem if you actually respond to the reality of the situation you're arguing about here, and the counter-arguments being put forth, rather than just blindly repeating the same thing.

> How can an average user trust that the content they’re viewing isn’t entirely astroturfed? Or alternatively, 100% organic?

How is that anything to do with shadowbanning or moderation? That's a problem entirely separate and that shadowbanning and moderation of the type we're discussing has nothing to do with.

But, if you really want an asnwer to this ridiculous question, it's that you can go into your profile here, find the "showdead" option, turn it on, and then you'll see all the comments you're complaining are hidden and deceptive and hidden from all the users. And if you don't trust this is all the dead comments, you can't really trust the moderators at all (and there's no more or less trust than any other site which says they do or don't do something).

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

#426

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most people aren’t aware that shadowbanning occurs, how it is used, and to what extent. By very definition they don’t see shadowbanned comments or content. I’m not sure how you can think people approve of something they aren’t even aware is happening. It’s not just deceptive to the shadowbanned user, it’s deceptive to the whole community, too. How can an average user trust that the content they’re viewing isn’t entir…

> I’m not sure how you can think people approve of something they aren’t even aware is happening. Because people often trust people based on reputation, results, or other proxy measures rather than reviewing every action they take. > It’s not just deceptive to the shadowbanned user, it’s deceptive to the whole community, too. It is. At the same time I think most people don't care, and are fine not having every modera…

For the record, I’m not talking about HN, I’m referring to Facebook and Reddit particularly. HN handles this issue better than many platforms. Apologies if that wasn’t clear.

So users are okay with being deceived and ultimately don’t care? Let me know if I’ve misunderstood your argument.

That may be true. And knowing human nature you may be right. I disagree that it’s a morally acceptable way to moderate a community or forum, though.

People lose trust when they find they’ve been shadowbanned, or discover that the practice is used. They rightfully understand that the discourse is being manipulated in an underhanded, opaque way.

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

#427

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 so…

Have you tried contacting anyone about this? Maybe post about it in a subreddit, or talk to a journalist that previously covered the other editing? Or contact reddit pr or an admin?

This seems like a pretty big deal, especially given his previous promise to stop editing comments.

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

#429

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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=2…

Shrugs, I didn't downvote you.

Since people don't know whether your speculation is wrong or right (unless there's an FB developer around), they can only judge whether your speculation is plausible or not. And I guess they mostly thought it wasn't plausible.

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

#430
post #363

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 trut…

No, just the kind of stuff that our customers didn't want, or that were illegal.

Pirated movies, scams that purported to offer pirated movies, people trying to steal passwords, people trying to hack our users.

I think your accusations are aimed at the wrong person.

Post reply on HN