71–80 of 488 posts
Why anyone should care if you can't send links to websites run by kooky nutjobs with false or highly questionable COVID information to other people via FB messenger?
That messenger is subject to facebook's community guidelines is nothing new, Zuckerberg said so himself publicly in an interview a few years ago https://www.businessinsider.com/facebook-confirms-scans-mess...
Your phrasing seems to imply that - we should know that messenger being "subject to community guidelines" means silent censorship - Zuckerberg saying something publicly means it is justified I would disagree with both of those implied assumptions
"As people around the world confront this unprecedented public health emergency, we want to make sure that our Community Standards protect people from harmful content and new types of abuse related to COVID-19. We're working to remove content that has the potential to contribute to real-world harm, including through our policies prohibiting coordination of harm, sale of medical masks and related goods, hate speech, bullying and harassment and misinformation that contributes to the risk of imminent violence or physical harm. As the situation evolves, we continue to look at content on the platform, assess speech trends, and engage with experts, and will provide additional policy guidance when appropriate to keep the members of our community safe during this crisis."
Why anyone should care if you can't send links to websites run by kooky nutjobs with false or highly questionable COVID information to other people via FB messenger?
Because of the precedent that sets. For example, some would hold that socialism is as economically illiterate as anti-vaccine opinions are medically illiterate to you. Should socialist links be likewise censored?
Besides, we’re not talking about political opinions here. If they ever do that (which is unlikely), then we can become justifiably upset. That’s a hill worth dying on — this one is not.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>You reaaaaallly would not like the uncensored internet. Respectfully, speak for yourself.
People don't seem to understand the ramifications. I prefer truth to being enslaved into conformance by "the algorithm".
It's one thing to censor, but it's another to intentionally deceive your users into believing that they sent something.
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.
It's one thing to censor, but it's another to intentionally deceive your users into believing that they sent something.
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.
I remember the uncensored internet -it was vastly superior to what we have now.
Vastly.
This is a bug. The intended behaviour is to notify the user that tried to send the link. Doesn't make it okay.
It's one thing to censor, but it's another to intentionally deceive your users into believing that they sent something.
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.