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

441–450 of 488 posts

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

#441

Post by tekknik »

otterley wrote: post #204
systemvoltage wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's one thing to censor !!! 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…

Our legal system (fortunately) hasn’t accepted the theory that the penalty for being popular is that you get to be nationalized. How would you feel if you threw a lot of parties in your house, and then one day the government came to you and said you now have to allow everyone to party at your house?

Because I didn’t throw a party every night for multiple years in a row that invited everybody in the country then once it started getting super popular I only allowed in those that talked like me.

Free speech was so important is the first amendment. It’s valued even hire than protection.

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

#442

Post by otterley »

tekknik wrote: post #441
otterley wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Our legal system (fortunately) hasn’t accepted the theory that the penalty for being popular is that you get to be nationalized. How would you feel if you threw a lot of parties in your house, and then one day the government came to you and said you now have to allow everyone to party at your house?

Because I didn’t throw a party every night for multiple years in a row that invited everybody in the country then once it started getting super popular I only allowed in those that talked like me. Free speech was so important is the first amendment. It’s valued even hire than protection.

The Constitution constrains what the Government can do. It doesn’t constrain what private actors like Facebook can do. It never has.

Also your analogy is flawed. Facebook doesn’t do what you suggest today (“only allow in those who talk like me”). They allow almost all speech, with opposing viewpoints, different policy perspectives, different cultures, etc. Arguments happen there all the time.

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

#443

Post by otterley »

inglor_cz wrote: post #433
otterley wrote: post #393

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This isn’t the same thing, and I think you know that.

I know that this isn't the same thing, but once you have a big hammer (censorship), let us bet that it will be used fairly indiscriminately. This isn't a new discussion, and I think you know that. Bureaucracy tasked with suppression of speech and beholden to career politicians hasn't historically shown itself to be subtle and erring on the side of freedom.

Let us not, because pretty much all communication platforms have been moderated in one way or another for all time, even on the Internet (Usenet excepted, which I’d argue hastened its decline; and even then, a lot of news servers wouldn’t carry the crazy groups). There’s plenty of history here already and it seems pretty clear that it hasn’t had catastrophic effects.

As I said elsewhere, if an actual problem arises, fine, let’s do something about it. But that’s not the case today. There’s just no indication that Facebook is going to block mainstream political speech anytime soon. If you find a real example of that, raise it, and I’m sure it’ll get a lot more attention than from just the free-speech absolutists.

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

#444

Post by tekknik »

otterley wrote: post #442
tekknik wrote: post #441

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because I didn’t throw a party every night for multiple years in a row that invited everybody in the country then once it started getting super popular I only allowed in those that talked like me. Free speech was so important is the first amendment. It’s valued even hire than protection.

The Constitution constrains what the Government can do. It doesn’t constrain what private actors like Facebook can do. It never has. Also your analogy is flawed. Facebook doesn’t do what you suggest today (“only allow in those who talk like me”). They allow almost all speech, with opposing viewpoints, different policy perspectives, different cultures, etc. Arguments happen there all the time.

> The Constitution constrains what the Government can do.

Yes, thanks for the reminder. That’s why this isn’t the gov doing and instead is the left via their means of control. That’s why there’s pending FOIA requests for this very thing.

> Also your analogy is flawed. Facebook doesn’t do what you suggest today (“only allow in those who talk like me”).

Only if you take it quite literally. Otherwise are you saying they don’t censor anybody that doesn’t reiterate the same thing the left is saying?

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

#445

Post by shadowgovt »

tekknik wrote: post #438
shadowgovt wrote: post #399

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's an odd dictatorship that someone voluntarily submits to. Being out of Facebook's decisions on what you may say is as simple as closing your account.

People’s desire to fit in will make them give up all sorts of rights. Pay attention to history and this is pretty apparent.

It's a bit of a catch-22 though, isn't it?

If people can make sound independent judgment, we don't need a law constraining what private companies must allow on their services because private users will find the censorship reprehensible and will voluntarily leave. We need the First Amendment to constrain what government can do because people cannot voluntarily leave a government; the same is not true for their Facebook account.

And if people cannot make sound independent judgment, and their desire to fit in will make them give up all sorts of rights... How can we trust them with the freedom to say and hear unfiltered information? The first demagogue who comes along and convinces them they must do what he says or they don't fit in will have the whole user base in their power, right? In such a context, it is perhaps necessary to allow the media its freedom of the press to transmit what is true and refrain from transmitting what is false.

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

#446

Post by otterley »

tekknik wrote: post #444
otterley wrote: post #442

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Constitution constrains what the Government can do. It doesn’t constrain what private actors like Facebook can do. It never has. Also your analogy is flawed. Facebook doesn’t do what you suggest today (“only allow in those who talk like me”). They allow almost all speech, with opposing viewpoints, different policy perspectives, different cultures, etc. Arguments happen there all the time.

> The Constitution constrains what the Government can do. Yes, thanks for the reminder. That’s why this isn’t the gov doing and instead is the left via their means of control. That’s why there’s pending FOIA requests for this very thing. > Also your analogy is flawed. Facebook doesn’t do what you suggest today (“only allow in those who talk like me”). Only if you take it quite literally. Otherwise are you saying they…

> are you saying they don’t censor anybody that doesn’t reiterate the same thing the left is saying?

Yes, and there are plenty of examples of it, too. Republican governors and politicians, and right-leaning people of all levels of fame, with very few exceptions, continue to have a presence on Facebook and communicate there with their followers. Pick any Republican governor or Senator: they will be there.

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

#447

Post by rejectedandsad »

barbacoa wrote: post #401
Thorrez wrote: post #333

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Probably because it's all bullshit spun up as a foreign intelligence operation.

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

#448

Post by nullc »

huibf wrote: post #432
nullc wrote: post #431

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm interested in hearing reports, please email me if you can show me specific examples.

I'll see if I can remember to mail you in a few days when this account I'm using gets banned.

To be clear: I'm not claiming they don't ban users. They do. I've been told they don't shadowban users: they don't make it look like you're not banned while in reality your messages are all invisible to everyone but you... or so they've recently claimed.

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

#449

Post by detaro »

nullc wrote: post #448
huibf wrote: post #432

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'll see if I can remember to mail you in a few days when this account I'm using gets banned.

To be clear: I'm not claiming they don't ban users. They do. I've been told they don't shadowban users: they don't make it look like you're not banned while in reality your messages are all invisible to everyone but you... or so they've recently claimed.

AFAIK: "ban" and "shadow-ban" look the same: you can post comments, but they automatically [dead], the difference is just that if it's a "ban" you get told you are banned by a mod. And while it's probably a lot rarer nowadays, I believe e.g. the spam filter still automatically applies this without a message, it seems there is a system killing accounts that go too deep into negative karma, ...

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

#450

Post by kbenson »

tekknik wrote: post #439
kbenson wrote: post #425

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

You notice how all of your examples are about HN and not FB? Where’s the option on FB to turn on banned posts? Where’s the default option turned on on HN?

That would be because A) this thread diverged from that when the assertion that all shadowbanning ain any forum is harmful to the community, and B) as noted elsewhere in this discussion, FB isn't shadowbanning, they're denying sends and a UI bug later is removing the information that the send failed.

> Where’s the default option turned on on HN?

I'm not sure what you're asking. If you're asking if showdead is on by default on HN, no, it's not, and I don't think it should be.

The whole point is to make it so people that are not contributing usefully to, or worse are actively harmful to, the discussion and community are less likely to cause a disturbance. Any one of those people can easily tell if they are shadowbanned if they decide to check just by opening up an anonymous browsing instance and looking at the same discussion. They then have the option of either trying to contact the moderators to make a case, continuing on and trying to align better with the community in future comments and hope someone vouches for them (if they're aware of that), or making a new account and starting over.

But, ultimately, even if they don't even know they're shadowbanned, as long as they try to align their behavior with the community, I think there's a good chance they're be vouched for enough to not be shadowbanned after a while. When that doesn't happen, from what I've seen it's because they haven't really made an effort to change. For example, a dead user fit2rule posted yesterday about how they've been dead for a few months. I looked at their comment history, and the vast majority of them are single line responses. Those aren't necessarily bad, but they probably don't cross a threshold to make people decide they contribute enough to vouch for them. At the same time, the occasional comment they have with more than a sentence that seems to try to actually engage often doesn't show as dead, as someone must have vouched for it because they though it was worth being expressed. If they had kept with that type of engagement, I think they would not be dead at this time.

Post reply on HN