[HN Gopher] Facebook ban on discussing Linux?
___________________________________________________________________
Facebook ban on discussing Linux?
Author : rogerthis
Score : 317 points
Date : 2025-01-27 10:32 UTC (12 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (distrowatch.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (distrowatch.com)
| iefbr14 wrote:
| I didn't notice. Maybe because I have a long list of facebook
| domains in my hosts.deny.
| Igrom wrote:
| Surely that's the result of a rogue moderator's overreach.
| jdxcode wrote:
| I agree, overzealousness sounds like the most likely reason for
| this.
|
| > Starting on January 19, 2025 Facebook's internal policy
| makers decided that Linux is malware and labelled groups
| associated with Linux as being "cybersecurity threats".
|
| The author gives no evidence to back up on this claim.
| paulnpace wrote:
| > The author gives no evidence to back up on this claim.
|
| How can one provide evidence that something is not being
| displayed on a website? Isn't this, like, a formal fallacy,
| or something?
|
| > We've been hearing all week from readers who say they can
| no longer post about Linux on Facebook or share links to
| DistroWatch. Some people have reported their accounts have
| been locked or limited for posting about Linux.
| fau wrote:
| You've implied it's impossible to give such evidence and
| then you've immediately proved yourself wrong by giving it.
|
| But anyway, they're not asking for evidence that something
| isn't being displayed. They're asking for evidence that
| 'Starting on January 19, 2025 Facebook's internal policy
| makers decided that Linux is malware and labelled groups
| associated with Linux as being "cybersecurity threats"'.
| lcnPylGDnU4H9OF wrote:
| > I agree, overzealousness sounds like the most likely reason
| for this.
|
| Who was overzealous if not one or more internal policy
| makers?
| bagels wrote:
| Machine learning algorithms? Someone hacked Facebook to
| block Linux? So, there are other options besides
| overzealous policy makers.
| rnd0 wrote:
| I attempted to post the distrowatch link to my feed and it was
| blocked as 'spam'.
|
| That seems pretty automated to me.
| blast wrote:
| Or some overly optimistic attempt at AI moderation.
| not2b wrote:
| Their "moderators" are bots, not humans, so it seems that the
| bots have "decided" that Linux-related links are malware or
| something.
| oneeyedpigeon wrote:
| > Starting on January 19, 2025 Facebook's internal policy makers
| decided that Linux is malware and labelled groups associated with
| Linux as being "cybersecurity threats".
|
| That's quite the statement to make without any source to back it
| up; I wonder what the evidence for this is.
| paulnpace wrote:
| [flagged]
| oneeyedpigeon wrote:
| I can't speak for anyone else, it just seems that statement
| is a very specific accusation with nothing backing it up. I'm
| curious, that's all. It is very much possible that there's
| some evidence of policy makers discussing this, or even a
| public statement; nothing to do with "proving a negative".
| jsnell wrote:
| How is this asking to prove a negative?
| soneil wrote:
| Surely this is entirely the opposite of proving a negative?
| It's a direct, testable, provable claim.
| polotics wrote:
| I do confirm that i explicitly tested this with my super unused
| facebook account, just stating that i was testing restrictions
| on talking about Linux, the text was: """I don't often (or
| ever) post anything on Facebook, but when I do, it's to check
| if they really, as announced on hckrnews, are restricting
| discussing Linux. So here's a few links to trigger that:
| https://www.qubes-os.org/downloads/ ...
| https://www.debian.org/releases/stable/""" and indeed within
| seconds I got the following warning: """ _We removed your post_
| The post may use misleading links or content to trick people to
| visit, or stay on, a website. """. This is one massive wow
| considering how much Facebook runs on Linux.
| zdp7 wrote:
| I just tried the same two URLs. I also got a message saying
| the post was removed.
| krisoft wrote:
| A user who never posts anything suddenly posting a message
| containing urls might in itself be a signal that something is
| weird. It would be an interestint test to post something not
| linux related and see how that fares.
| Vrondi wrote:
| Any user ever posting URLs should never ever be removed.
| The Web should be allowed to exist. This is utterly
| despicable behavior.
| quesera wrote:
| Insanity. Absolutely. Maybe.
|
| Clearly there's a need for some kind of bad-url blocker.
| You don't want compromised accounts (or clueless people)
| sharing nefarious links to trusted friends.
|
| And clearly blocking distrowatch etc is bizarre
| overreach. And probably not intended behaviour -- it just
| makes no sense.
|
| The web exists just fine. Using Facebook as a front end
| to the web is a terrible idea though.
| lofenfew wrote:
| They are the source. A journo could write an article and
| mention distrowatch as where they got their information from.
| If you don't trust them - great, you can do your own research.
|
| > I wonder what the evidence for it is
|
| Maybe "Any posts mentioning DistroWatch and multiple groups
| associated with Linux and Linux discussions have either been
| shut down or had many of their posts removed" and "We've been
| hearing all week from readers who say they can no longer post
| about Linux on Facebook or share links to DistroWatch. Some
| people have reported their accounts have been locked or limited
| for posting about Linux"
|
| What do you think evidence consists of if not that?
| MrDresden wrote:
| I thoroughly dislike Facebook as much as the next person, but
| none of what you quoted constitutes evidence for a ban on
| discussing Linux on the platform.
|
| Reading the post, it sounds like this may rather be because
| of incorrect categorization of DistroWatch and links to it
| than an outright ban on Linux discussion. So yet another
| issue with Facebook's content moderation methods.
| valicord wrote:
| The evidence shows that Facebook is blocking Linux related
| posts, while the initial "policy makers decided" claim is
| significantly stronger and is not supported by anything. Much
| more obvious explanation is that some buggy ML classifier has
| added the distrowatch website to the spam list which triggers
| automated enforcement without any policy maker involvement.
| anigbrowl wrote:
| The purpose of a system is what it does. If this behavior
| is happening because nobody with authority cares to do
| anything about it, that's also a decision. I never
| understand why people rush to make excuses for these huge
| companies awash in resources with no real accountability or
| customer support.
| jorams wrote:
| If "some buggy ML classifier" is allowed to make decisions
| that trigger broad enforcement, that classifier is, for all
| intents and purposes, a policy maker. The claim made by the
| article is somewhat broad relative to the evidence
| presented, but whether policy decisions are automated or
| not doesn't really matter.
| blasphemers wrote:
| The evidence only shows that fb is blocking distrowatch
| links
| vkou wrote:
| And it's doing so because of, or as a consequence of
| their policies.
|
| If it's a consequence of a 'buggy ML classifier', well,
| it's FB's _policy_ to use one for censorship.
|
| You can't launder accountability with an 'It's AI' black
| box.
| nwienert wrote:
| Three claims are there:
|
| - Facebook is censoring this content
|
| - They decided Linux is malware
|
| - They label groups associated with Linux as "cybersecurity
| threats"
|
| The first one they seem to give evidence for the second two
| seem to be assumptions.
| onli wrote:
| There is a screenshot in the article of the appeal,
| confirming 1 and 2. Three follows logically.
| thekevan wrote:
| That's circular logic and none of it is evidence.
|
| "A bad thing is happening and the evidence of it happening is
| that I said it's happening."
|
| By the way, I love DistroWatch and do think FB is messing
| with their posts. But there's no evidence to show if it's a
| new policy, a glitch in the moderation or an internal screw
| up.
| dec0dedab0de wrote:
| I assumed that part was conjecture. However, if you define
| "internal policy makers" broadly from the users perspective,
| then it's provably true from the result.
|
| I get that it is worded like it was people in a boardroom
| making a decision after having a debate. However an overworked
| admin, or an AI Moderator could just as easily be lumped
| together as "internal policy makers" from the users
| perspective.
| buyucu wrote:
| the evidence is that facebook is blocking this content.
| lexicality wrote:
| I'm genuinely surprised that people were using facebook of all
| things to discuss Linux distros.
|
| The idea of having to wade through AI generated pictures of
| Shrimp Jesus and my mad uncle posting about his latest attempts
| to turn lead into gold (yes, really) to find out about new
| distros to try seems very alien to me.
| UntitledNo4 wrote:
| I want to know more about your uncle. I'm not on Facebook, but
| that would make me consider joining...
| lexicality wrote:
| It's entertaining in the abstract but fairly depressing when
| he's telling you in person that he's spending his children's
| inheritance on turning lead slightly yellow. Still, on the
| bright side, he seems to have stopped talking about the
| "globalists" so much.
| Detrytus wrote:
| Globalists are history now, Trump will take care of them :)
| knowitnone wrote:
| I'm sure lead technically can be turned into gold or anything
| for that matter with enough energy
| brink wrote:
| Your electricity bill might be greater than the value of the
| produced gold though.
| ben_w wrote:
| You can indeed turn lead into gold; it will indeed be more
| expensive than it is worth; also the gold will be
| radioactive.
| cobbal wrote:
| Gold is sold by weight, so those extra neutrons are pure
| profit.
| mr_toad wrote:
| Unfortunately all the heavy isotopes of gold are unstable
| and will decay in a few months.
| monocasa wrote:
| Several groups actually have both intentionally and
| unintentionally.
|
| In most cases they're pretty radioactive isotopes of gold.
| But IMO that just makes it feel even more like alchemy. The
| gold is cursed.
| jbm wrote:
| Your uncle sounds like a lot more fun than the latest
| javascript build system.
|
| Imagine being confident enough to believe and document that.
| Crazy? Maybe, but a crazy one can appreciate.
| BeetleB wrote:
| I know you're only half serious, but ...
|
| The problem isn't when one uncle is doing this. The problem
| is when the bulk of the content you see on FB is as crazy as
| this.
|
| I mean, if you like purchasing the National Enquirer and
| flipping through it, then by all means, this is for you.
| perihelions wrote:
| https://web.archive.org/web/20250127020059/https://distrowat...
| benrutter wrote:
| If I'm reading right, the same facebook who announced a week or
| so ago that they where scaling back all moderation and validation
| around online safety, are now putting a blanket ban on users
| discussing such a fundamental aspect of modern technology that
| facebook itself runs on it?
|
| If this is a genuine policy, I'm at a complete loss to understand
| Facebook's stance on anything.
| nonrandomstring wrote:
| > I'm at a complete loss to understand Facebook's stance on
| anything.
|
| There is no stance. All that fluffy PR, all the perception
| management and "optics", all diplomacy and compromise... That
| just flew out the window when the new order came in.
|
| Zuck has knelt before the Emperor. The mask is off. This is the
| real face of Facebook. Rage. Hatred. Misogyny, Racism. And
| naked propaganda against software freedom. You'll probably see
| a bit of Steve Balmer style force chair-throwing from the young
| Zuck as his dark-side powers grow stronger.
| dingnuts wrote:
| >Zuck has knelt before the Emperor. The mask is off. This is
| the real face of Facebook.
|
| Where have you been? Zuck has knelt before every Emperor
| along the way. The mask is off? The mask HAS BEEN off -- the
| only difference is who the master is.
|
| Let me guess, you're a Democrat?
|
| Me, I'm politically homeless, and I've been screaming about
| FB censoring whatever the current admin in power tells them
| to, for FIFTEEN YEARS.
|
| Take your partisan blinders off. This isn't going to get
| fixed by electing a Democrat.
| spencerflem wrote:
| yea this is true - & also not a democrat & also upset with
| some of the stuff they've censored in the past too
|
| W/ that said, censoring anti trans stuff and racist stuff
| makes the platform more pleasant for me, whereas what
| they're doing now does not
| Conscat wrote:
| As a trans occasional-user of Facebook, I never saw _any_
| censoring of transphobic hate speech. During any
| administration, I was fed very many posts from nominally
| pro-queer visibility pages that existed primarily to bait
| interaction from vehemently transphobic or homophobic
| users. I saw everything you could imagine stated with
| zero repercussions from site staff or even the consensus
| of other users.
| spencerflem wrote:
| They made it completely legal now, my understanding was
| that it used to be at least nominally against the rules.
|
| Totally agreed that it has always sucked though.
| spencerflem wrote:
| the "free speech" was a promise to promote right wing speech.
| do not mistake it for ideology.
|
| banning left wing activism, either acknowledging the genocide
| in Gaza or apparently now promoting free (less surveilled)
| software is against what the authoritarians want so it is
| banned.
|
| this is all consistent if you see it through that lens
| CivBase wrote:
| But it's not consistent because Linux is not aligned with
| either side of US politics. This doesn't address OP's
| confusion.
| yellowapple wrote:
| Linux is free software, and software freedom is communist.
| It's also the brainchild of a Finn, and every red-blooded
| American knows that Europeans are all commies.
|
| _Real_ patriots use good ol ' American operating systems,
| like Oracle Solaris(tm).
| spencerflem wrote:
| dang's probably right that its a glitch- but I honestly
| believe Linux is Free as in Freedom, which is opposed by
| both parties but primarily the radical authoritarians in
| charge right now
| udev4096 wrote:
| No one, more than linux users, cares about privacy and freedom.
| What is even the point of using crapbook? Everyone in linux
| community is either hanging out on IRC or matrix or have self
| hosted forums
| em-bee wrote:
| to talk to people who are not yet using linux?
| sophacles wrote:
| What? Google is a linux user - I doubt they care about privacy
| or freedom. Same with facebook - that company uses linux a lot
| while actively opposing privacy.
|
| Lots of people use linux because it's a good OS, irrespective
| of privacy concerns (see the occasional flareup about some
| software or another automatically shipping off bug reports -
| some people don't care, others are incredibly concerned).
| paulnpace wrote:
| Why is this submission flagged?
| beardyw wrote:
| People flag stuff.
| RandomBacon wrote:
| HN moderation outsourced to FB? /joke
| beardyw wrote:
| I am getting no response on that link.
| vmilner wrote:
| Distrowatch seems to be under heavy load (probably because of
| this news story)
| oliwarner wrote:
| This should not be flagged.
|
| Post itself is a little light on evidence, but there are people
| here already who've tried to post Linuxey things, and have seen
| it in action.
| johnea wrote:
| I notice a lot of topics being flagged recently.
|
| I would ask flaggers to simply skip those posts and let people
| who are interested in discussing those topics have their
| discussion.
|
| Shutting down other peoples conversations is a disturbing trend
| and it is giving HN more of a one sided echo chamber feel.
| Mountain_Skies wrote:
| Tech censorship, especially during the pandemic, made some
| giddy with power that they thought would extend to everything
| forever.
| lproven wrote:
| @dang: I do not know why this is flagged, but I think it's a
| significant development and it shouldn't be.
|
| Even LWN is covering it.
|
| https://lwn.net/Articles/1006328/
| LorenDB wrote:
| Anybody here have connections at Meta? Seems like this should
| be fixed.
| lproven wrote:
| I have written to their PR department. TBH I am not expecting
| a useful answer.
| ahoka wrote:
| Good luck connecting to a human at Meta. Even the CEO is a
| cyborg.
| dang wrote:
| I've turned the flags off now. It's not a very good thread,
| though--mostly jokes and generic reactions, which is what
| happens when an article contains little information, but the
| information it does contain is provocative.
|
| These little scandals nearly always turn out to be glitchy
| emphemera in the Black Box of $BigCo, rather than a policy or
| plan. I imagine that's the case here too. Why would Facebook
| ban discussion of the operating system it runs on, after 20+
| years?
|
| (Btw: @dang doesn't work - if you want reliable message
| delivery you need to email hn@ycombinator.com)
| lproven wrote:
| Thank you very much!
|
| TBH I didn't think the @ thing would work - I was just hoping
| you'd notice. I have been meaning to email you, though.
| VanTheBrand wrote:
| Ultimately, @dang seems to have worked just fine, so well
| that it worked even without working.
| everdrive wrote:
| Somewhat ironic given that actual linux packages are mirrored
| there.
|
| http://www.fedora.mirror.facebook.net/
| bluedino wrote:
| Reminds me of when they do 'firewall updates' at work, and many
| of the common open-source repositories/hosting etc are blocked.
|
| I understand than some malicious software may use things like
| _curl_ , but it's also annoying to have to re-create the same
| ticket and submit to internal IT, and then if someone working
| on the ticket hasn't done this before, they close it, we have
| to have a meeting about why we need access to that site...
| devnullbrain wrote:
| The inverse isn't tolerated. If you're a software developer,
| you get tested for IT knowledge with phishing emails. Yet in
| IT it's perfectly normal to have an ignorance of the core
| needs of the developers - and computing itself - that results
| in reduced productivity or shadow IT systems.
|
| It's not an exaggeration to say I've experienced it at every
| employer I've had.
| psunavy03 wrote:
| Was reading a news article the other day that described wget
| as a "hacking tool" and about rolled my eyes into the back of
| my head.
| nailer wrote:
| Last I checked (2008) Facebook Linux was indeed a Fedora
| derivative.
| somanyphotons wrote:
| I think in 2014 era it was centos
| homebrewer wrote:
| Their OS is based on CentOS Stream, I think they're one of
| the very few major organizations that stuck with CentOS post-
| Stream and did not switch to something else entirely.
| xor-eax-eax wrote:
| Untrue, it's purist startup people and some ISVs who
| believe that Alma or Rocky are the somehow "better".
|
| Meta runs 10M+ CentOS 9 Stream boxes migrating to 10
| eventually.
|
| Cent has shorter security update availability latency and
| they're shipped more consistently. The benefit with Rocky
| and Alma is double the lifecycle time and arguably better
| governance, unfortunately though they're both tiny
| operations that suffer from a narrow bus factor, are always
| playing catch-up, drifting away from RHEL compatibility,
| and are the definition of fragmentation.
|
| If you need RHEL-ish for servers, use CentOS Stream. It's
| not great for desktop. Use Fedora or something more LTS for
| that.
| bawolff wrote:
| Facebook seems to be going really heavy handed with moderation.
| They also blocked some wikimedia sites like
| https://meta.wikimedia.org and https://species.wikimedia.org
| numbsafari wrote:
| This is just them leaning into free of speech.
| dmix wrote:
| Meta barely changed their moderation policy. The community
| standard docs which list every violation are still extremely
| long and cover a large swath of speech
| https://transparency.meta.com/policies/community-standards/,
| to which they only added 2 bullet point exceptions (and
| eventually the future addition of community notes)
| sunshowers wrote:
| The exceptions are not minor. Some groups can be called
| mentally ill, but other similarly situated groups cannot.
|
| It's a capitulation to the idea that speech standards
| should be determined by public opinion and not by reason,
| evidence and a scientific mindset.
| dmix wrote:
| > speech standards should be determined by public opinion
| and not by reason, evidence and a scientific mindset.
|
| Yes this is largely a debate between a top-down
| technocratic worldview vs democratic/meritocratic one.
| The point is FB is still very much on the former highly
| centralized expert-defined guideline/automated system
| side while only making small moves in the other direction
| with community notes. Maybe they'll keep going in that
| direction but what they say vs do is an important
| distinction.
| sunshowers wrote:
| To be clear, the people who believe speech standards
| should be determined by public opinion are as incorrect
| as, say, flat earthers.
|
| I don't have a huge problem with community notes per se.
| I do have a huge problem with blatantly unequal standards
| just because large parts of the public have morally
| rotten views.
| PathOfEclipse wrote:
| > the people who believe speech standards should be
| determined by public opinion are as incorrect as, say,
| flat earthers.
|
| Ironically, your statement is deeply incorrect. People
| who favor democratic processes like community notes for
| enforcing speech standards do so because they think
| concentration of power in the hands of a few leads to
| corruption far more than diffusing it among the populace.
| And we have all the evidence already to know the first
| half of that claim is true. Fact checking organizations
| proved themselves wildly left-biased and perfectly
| willing to deceive, lie, and misdirect with "fact checks"
| to accomplish their political goals.
| sunshowers wrote:
| Centralized and diffused power are each vulnerable in
| their own ways -- diffused power to cults in particular.
| You'd generally expect people with more training to make
| better decisions than people with less training.
|
| Regardless, morality in general is quite objective. In
| particular, it is objectively the case that letting some
| groups of people be called mentally ill while other
| similarly situated groups not is bad.
|
| > Fact checking organizations proved themselves wildly
| left-biased
|
| Meh. The only thing that matters is whether they're
| reflecting objective reality. There's no a priori reason
| to believe that each political tendency is equally
| attached to reality.
| PathOfEclipse wrote:
| Do you really think a "scientific mindset", "evidence",
| or "reason" was what determined Facebook's speech
| standards? What evidence do you have to support that?
| Because the world has a mountain of evidence to the
| contrary, that much or most of it was politically-
| motivated:
|
| https://www.dailywire.com/news/zuckerberg-biden-harris-
| repea...
|
| https://www.dailywire.com/news/exclusive-pro-life-
| accounts-d...
|
| https://www.dailywire.com/news/biden-admin-pressured-fb-
| to-s...
|
| https://www.dailywire.com/news/white-house-asked-meta-to-
| rem...
|
| https://www.dailywire.com/news/meta-doubles-down-after-
| zucke...
|
| https://www.dailywire.com/news/meet-the-former-
| politifact-fa...
|
| https://www.dailywire.com/news/report-key-player-in-
| facebook...
| w0m wrote:
| Define Blocked? I just posted a https://meta.wikimedia.org/
| link without issue.
| bawolff wrote:
| Based on this comment https://www.facebook.com/story.php?stor
| y_fbid=90140663553077... (can i even directly link to fb.
| Idk)
|
| Some people were complaining about meta, but species seems
| the main one. And only the main site, the mobile site is
| fine.
| Symbiote wrote:
| I tried to make a post with the
| https://species.wikimedia.org/ link, and I get "Your content
| couldn't be shared, because this link goes against our
| Community Standards".
| Dalewyn wrote:
| Being generous, it could be there's NSFW imagery in there?
| I can't be arsed to dig into a mountain of scientifically
| named links, but you can find troves of pr0n among other
| things in Wikimedia if you know where to look.
| linuxandrew wrote:
| I mean you can find porn on Google and you don't have to
| look that hard
| zblevins wrote:
| Thank you for actually spelling porn. This whole thing
| around altering spelling to avoid blocking which I
| presume comes out of other apps has gotten to be quite
| annoying.
| Dalewyn wrote:
| "Pr0n" is classic internet slang that predates onerous
| censorship let alone "apps".
| dragonwriter wrote:
| Right, the form to deal with onerous censorship is
| "corn".
| cess11 wrote:
| Perhaps they've become closer buddies with MICROS~1. I wouldn't
| be surprised if they did this in exchange for "AI" compute, i.e.
| that losing the Linux audience is worth less than being seen
| favourably by elder oligarchs.
| James_K wrote:
| > Starting on January 19, 2025 Facebook's internal policy makers
| decided that Linux is malware
|
| I'm glad someone finally said it.
| bombcar wrote:
| It's been known for over 20 years:
| https://homestarrunner.com/sbemails/118-virus
| GuB-42 wrote:
| Ok, what's the true story?
|
| It is obviously allowed to discuss Linux. There is plenty of
| discussion about Linux on Facebook, including some about the
| recent "ban".
|
| My guess is that some automated scanner found something wrong
| about the linked page. Maybe there is some link to a
| "hacking"-oriented distro, maybe some torrents, some dubious
| comment, etc... Probably a false positive, it happens.
| indymike wrote:
| Kali is one example. That said Kali is not a bad thing.
| quesera wrote:
| We are obligated to have an external auditor run PCI DSS
| penetration testing and network segmentation testing every
| year.
|
| Their second request (after a network diagram) is always to
| create an EC2 instance running Kali.
|
| Which, honestly, confuses me a bit -- all of the packages are
| available in AL or Ubuntu, so why do they care? I don't know,
| and I guess I don't care enough to ask. Just give me the
| attestation document please. :)
| zblevins wrote:
| Think about all the time saved not having to do sudo or su.
| mr_toad wrote:
| Probably some jobsworth decided that free software = piracy.
|
| I knew a company that leapt to the same conclusion regarding
| GitHub.
| nottorp wrote:
| I think they're wrong about the policy. It's more likely that the
| policy is "let's run the moderation bots unattended to save
| costs" and is actually site agnostic.
|
| It's just some "AI" hallucinating.
| BryanLunduke wrote:
| No, Facebook is Not Censoring "Linux", Only "DistroWatch".
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xOdMTS6XVu4
| tombert wrote:
| I don't have the ability to watch 20 minutes of Bryan Lunduke
| and keep my lunch, so is there a tl;dr of this?
|
| It's still kind of dumb for them to block Distrowatch
| regardless. I guess it's just a bit of automation that wasn't
| tuned correctly?
|
| ETA:
|
| I just saw the username. lol.
| RIMR wrote:
| Don't feel bad for insulting Bryan to his face. It's the
| correct response.
| tombert wrote:
| I didn't say I felt bad.
| paulnpace wrote:
| I'm not watching a 20 minute video on the topic, but there is a
| user in an HN comment[1] stating links to debian.org and qubes-
| os.org were removed by facebook.
|
| [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42840143
| tored wrote:
| Thus Facebook is not censoring Linux discussions or Linux
| content, what DistroWatch claimed, it blocks linking to what
| Facebook deems as malicious links (correctly or incorrectly),
| something a lot of software does these days.
|
| This is what the yanks call "a complete nothing-burger".
| philipwhiuk wrote:
| Nice job shilling your own content. If it's worth watching post
| it as Show HN.
| boomboomsubban wrote:
| Facebook has been blocking distrowatch at least part of the time
| for three years now, see
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29529312
|
| I've been perplexed for years, I wonder if it went unnoticed all
| this time or they reverted then reimplement the ban.
| insane_dreamer wrote:
| So this is what Zuck meant when he said Meta was "getting back to
| its roots"? (And I thought he was talking about reviving
| Facemash)
| nu2ycombinator wrote:
| Interesting. Same Facebook, refuses take action on reports
| submitted on fake accounts created to spam people and harassment
| videos.
| buyucu wrote:
| this is why content moderation is a really bad idea. the false
| positives are going to dominate any moderation you do.
| forgetfreeman wrote:
| I'd assert that using private walled gardens as primary
| distribution channels is the root bad idea here.
| buyucu wrote:
| they go together. once you have a walled garden, the
| temptation to moderate/censor it is too large. censorship was
| practically impossible in the old internet before social
| media.
| duxup wrote:
| Bot or ML gone wrong and it misunderstood the mention of Linux
| when associated with bad things and just equated them?
| beretguy wrote:
| Facebook is a cyber security threat.
| kazinator wrote:
| Didn't Zuck recently announce that he's getting rid of fact
| checkers, on the pretext that the parties hired to do fact
| checking are biased and introduce censorship and unfair false
| positives that get accounts shut down?
|
| Was it just a cost reduction: fact checking takes effort and
| those checkers have to be paid? With the result being situations
| like this?
| hsuduebc2 wrote:
| Lol. So glad they let literal lies and propaganda going with
| community notes but keep something usefull. Garbage as always.
| Beretta_Vexee wrote:
| My wife was temporarily banned for a photo of a marble statue. My
| mother receives invitations to groups that share photos of
| migrants drowned in the Mediterranean. Don't use Facebook, and
| certainly don't depend on it.
| rightbyte wrote:
| >My mother receives invitations to groups that share photos of
| migrants drowned in the Mediterranean.
|
| To mock them?
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2025-01-27 23:00 UTC)