Live data from Hacker News

FB messenger silently censoring links, claims they were sent

twitter.com

471–480 of 488 posts

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

#471

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 d…

> the assertion that all shadowbanning How can you know this? The community is what it is as a result of the discourse that happens here. If you remove one person that discourse, and therefor the community, has changed. So shadowbanning being harmful is more of an opinion of whether all voices should be heard or not. > I'm not sure what you're asking. If you're asking if showdead is on by default on HN, no, it's not,…

> How can you know this?

What? You asked my why my comments are about HN and not FB, and I said it's because up-thread a wider assertion was made about all shadowbanning, which is what we're talking about at this point.

> If you remove one person that discourse, and therefor the community, has changed. So shadowbanning being harmful is more of an opinion of whether all voices should be heard or not.

The people that own and or run the forum ultimately control the community. They may let the community exert pressure on them, but button line, they control it, and anyone that's under some other impression needs to come to term with reality. Those people want different types of communities, and will take different steps to ensure they get what they want. People that do not like those steps, or the communities that develop, have the choice of exerting pressure on the people that run it or on other community members, or they can choose to go elsewhere.

HN is not a public resource. It's a private resource that allows the general public. If you want to make a case that FB is special because it's so big and everyone is on it, that's one thing. Clearly define why and what the criteria is, and we can discuss whether that makes sense or not or breaks down in practice or how it could be games. But to expect that if I stand up a little forum with dozens of users to discuss specifics of care and restoration of the Datsun 240z and I'm contending a persistent forum spammer that's putting gratuitous messages about penis enlargement and I find that banner works for minutes but shadow banning seems to actually solve the problem in most cases, I think it's ridiculous to think that most the small community would be up in arms over how I was being deceitful to them about not showing them this spam.

I get that you might think DB and HN and Reddit are bit public resources and might have to obey a different standard. If you do, please outline what makes them different and how we determine that. If you don't, and think everyone should obey this standard, please explain why my theoretical little car forum that is entirely maintained and moderated by me should even care what the forum members thing if I'm happy with the community as is without any of the people that might left because they don't like how I run it?

> You do realize that everybody aligning means everybody is the same right?

Why'd you even bother to post this? I half moment's thought would make it obvious that I'm talking about aligning a very specific subset of items, namely behavior, as I specifically stated.

Communication is only possible with a shared understanding of some base. At the lowest level, that's generally language, but it can be extended to other norms to make communication easier and less error prone.

> (cue “some opinions don’t matter” statement)

It's not that they don't matter, it's that they don't matter in some contexts to some people, and are thus inappropriate. Does Joe Bob's weekly rant about whoever the current politician that has his ire is matter? Possibly. Does it matter and is it appropriate on a small car enthusiast forum? Nope, and he has no right to have it shown there, nor expectation that if he posts it there that others should see it, whether he thinks they do or not.

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

#472

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

So if I go on and post “misinformation”, which is defined by the left as anything antinarative (see all the “you ain’t black” claims) then what?

Why don't you just stick to characterizing things as "facts" that are actually demonstrably true? Then you don't have to even worry about this stuff.

Facts don't have a well-known liberal bias, Colbert Report joking aside.

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

#473

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Censoring is a verb. They censor (remove content they deem objectionable) communication on their platforms. That is the claim. You’re setting up some kind of straw man here saying they aren’t “a censor” because other platforms exist. By your definition, no true censor exists because someone could always communicate directly 1:1 with someone.

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

#474
post #299

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I want you to imagine for a second that someone makes the claim that blocking links for COVID misinformation is setting a precedent. An obvious follow up in order to have a constructive discussion is to establish where the line is, ie whether the debate is a) whether blocking of any kind or b) what content warrants blocking. This is specifically relevant to Facebook since Whatsapp has been used in the past to coordin…

There was already a consensus on where the line should be, it's people making arguments like the one you're making that are muddying the waters so they can "clarify" as you're doing and suppress speech. We already know where the line is. The line is here: in a private communication between people anything can be said, nothing should be censored. if someone gets caught planning or doing something illegal they go to ja…

That was never the consensus or the “line,” because major chat providers never behaved in the way you suggest. They have always had rules that were codified in their Terms of Use, and have enforced them through various means.

Your absolutist position is interesting, but don’t make it sound like private carriers have ever been held to this standard.

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

#475
post #299

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I want you to imagine for a second that someone makes the claim that blocking links for COVID misinformation is setting a precedent. An obvious follow up in order to have a constructive discussion is to establish where the line is, ie whether the debate is a) whether blocking of any kind or b) what content warrants blocking. This is specifically relevant to Facebook since Whatsapp has been used in the past to coordin…

There was already a consensus on where the line should be, it's people making arguments like the one you're making that are muddying the waters so they can "clarify" as you're doing and suppress speech. We already know where the line is. The line is here: in a private communication between people anything can be said, nothing should be censored. if someone gets caught planning or doing something illegal they go to ja…

Wait you started this thread making it seem like it was ridiculous to equate covid misinformation and other forms of objectional content (such as calls for violence), implying that you felt it obvious that allowing the former would not mean also allowing the latter. Is that not your position?

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

#476

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 com…

> 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. I respectfully suggest that HN has significantly more moderation than you believe it does.

I had not realised but I will take your word for it - thanks.

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

#477
post #191
post #82

This is another reason to only use E2EE FOSS messengers, ever.

You also should be able to host your own server instance and be able to communicate with others on the network (XMPP, Matrix, ...).

Certainly agree with this!

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

#478

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So if I go on and post “misinformation”, which is defined by the left as anything antinarative (see all the “you ain’t black” claims) then what?

Why don't you just stick to characterizing things as "facts" that are actually demonstrably true? Then you don't have to even worry about this stuff. Facts don't have a well-known liberal bias, Colbert Report joking aside.

Facts and “misinformation” have nothing to do with each other. At least not what the left has defined it as.

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

#479

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> How can we trust them with the freedom to say and hear unfiltered information? Why does this always come up? Like this exact example. Where there no others? Do you know how I read this? “I think I’m smarter than everyone, and everyone should look to me for the truth”. > 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…

I'm not sure what you mean by "the left found the loophole," can you clarify?

The gov cannot directly limit speech except in certain, very limited, cases. Instead they get corporations to do it for them. Which is currently very legal.

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

#480

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the assertion that all shadowbanning How can you know this? The community is what it is as a result of the discourse that happens here. If you remove one person that discourse, and therefor the community, has changed. So shadowbanning being harmful is more of an opinion of whether all voices should be heard or not. > I'm not sure what you're asking. If you're asking if showdead is on by default on HN, no, it's not,…

> How can you know this? What? You asked my why my comments are about HN and not FB, and I said it's because up-thread a wider assertion was made about all shadowbanning, which is what we're talking about at this point. > If you remove one person that discourse, and therefor the community, has changed. So shadowbanning being harmful is more of an opinion of whether all voices should be heard or not. The people that o…

> What? You asked my why my comments are about HN and not FB, and I said it's because up-thread a wider assertion was made about all shadowbanning, which is what we're talking about at this point.

You completely ignored the question. How can you know that shadowbanning did not negatively effect this community? You cannot know that. Where does the HN exist that never shadowbanned for you to draw your comparison from? This is opinion, not fact. But, I'll let you move the goalposts. HN is not nearly the size of FB however.

> People that do not like those steps, or the communities that develop, have the choice of exerting pressure on the people that run it or on other community members, or they can choose to go elsewhere.

Pressure was exerted, censorship continues. What recourse does one have for the largest social media company in the world? The left is outright giddy at this thought.

> HN is not a public resource.

Given that no login is required one could argue it is public, given that recent scraping judgement.

> It's a private resource that allows the general public. If you want to make a case that FB is special because it's so big and everyone is on it, that's one thing.

I do want to make that case, but not related to size. Any, ANY, forum or anywhere where discourse happens cannot censor anything but spam. Repeated messages, messages that are clearly marketing, etc. Instead you have individuals who are not qualified playing judge, jury and executioner. Judges recuse themselves when they can't be neutral. How many forum moderators do the same?

> But to expect that if I stand up a little forum with dozens of users to discuss specifics of care and restoration of the Datsun 240z and I'm contending a persistent forum spammer that's putting gratuitous messages about penis enlargement and I find that banner works for minutes but shadow banning seems to actually solve the problem in most cases, I think it's ridiculous to think that most the small community would be up in arms over how I was being deceitful to them about not showing them this spam.

Absolutely nobody but the scam artists will care about this type of censorship. But note that you're using marketing spam to justify censorship of others opinions.

> Why'd you even bother to post this? I half moment's thought would make it obvious that I'm talking about aligning a very specific subset of items, namely behavior, as I specifically stated.

You didn't change the outcome, we're all still the same.

> Communication is only possible with a shared understanding of some base. At the lowest level, that's generally language, but it can be extended to other norms to make communication easier and less error prone.

Like censorship? Yea that would certainly streamline things.

> It's not that they don't matter, it's that they don't matter in some contexts to some people, and are thus inappropriate.

And therefore we should censor them because they absolutely cannot be useful for anybody else? How about this one:

Someone's BS filter is tuned mostly OK, but they still need some work. You censor a false post and they miss an opportunity to do just this. What you're going to end up with is a bunch of people who can't think for themselves who require someone telling them exactly what to do and think. It's been known for a while that the left wants the population following exactly everything they say. And given that all things are cyclical we can easily see that it's a reversion to the style of gov the US came from. Whether or not you are knowingly complacent or not I'm not sure, but you're fighting for that style of government back.

> Does Joe Bob's weekly rant about whoever the current politician that has his ire is matter? Possibly. Does it matter and is it appropriate on a small car enthusiast forum? Nope, and he has no right to have it shown there, nor expectation that if he posts it there that others should see it, whether he thinks they do or not.

Discourse happens where discourse happens. And I doubt Joe Bob randomly spout out his opinions, usually someone would insert some slight reference in everyday communications. The left does this one a lot.

But by all means, let's use this to censor?

Post reply on HN