4 ms·

I also cannot share this on FB. Amazing. The fact that FB is censoring this content deserves its own HN exposure. It is an article about international law with

I also cannot share this on FB. Amazing. The fact that FB is censoring this content deserves its own HN exposure. It is an article about international law with nothing offensive, but FB blocks it.... this is going further than I'd have thought FB would ever do. The future doesn't look so bright for social media.

rndmind 11y ago
You are surprised facebook is censoring content on a massive scale? Wake up sheeple! Move to a decentralized, open-source platform like diaspora* if that type of thing bothers you, do away with facebook like we dropped myspace
- hellofunk 11y ago
  I can understand some degree of censorship like pornography, very explicit violence, etc. But this is just an article about a very public issue. FB has no problems with other divisive issues getting shared, so I'm quite surprised to see this level of blatant censorship on this particular article.
  - rndmind 11y ago
    The corporation is owned by the same entities that own the mainstream media outlets, if something goes against their agenda, facebook with outright censor it or prevent others from seeing it.
secalex 11y ago
This was a mistake due to this specific blog post sharing some design elements as some spammy blogspot posts and it was fixed. If we really wanted to censor this story wouldn't we block all criticism of Facebook and not a pretty straightforward and well-reasoned analysis of Safe Harbor? Wouldn't we block the "I declare that I am a wizard and Facebook can't use my content blah blah" memes?
- thibaut_barrere 11y ago
  Thanks for fixing this. I personally did not assume this was necessarily censorship, but don't be surprised by the reaction of users though, I think you'll see more of these reactions for a while, after the Safe Harbor ruling.
  - mkagenius 11y ago
    True. I doubt facebook will do anything that prevents a healthy discussion (unless its unlawful) for its USP is users.
- hellofunk 11y ago
  Interesting... other blog posts by the same author on the same blog were not blocked, just this one particular post. I find it not a coincidence that the post mentioned Facebook quite a bit, and thus it was blocked. I am doubtful this was due to "design elements" without more details.
- rawdisk 11y ago
  "... due to sharing some design elements..." But someone downthread said the .co.uk version was not blocked (before you unblocked the .com). Are you implying the .co.uk version did not have the same "design elements"? As to your proposed argument, I think selectively blocking well-reasoned analysis by law professors and letting memes go unblocked makes the most sense for your company.
  - amyjess 11y ago
    > Are you implying the .co.uk version did not have the same "design elements"? Classifiers do weird things, and features you don't expect to be significant can suddenly have a much larger than intended effect. The domain name, as a feature, must've thrown it over the edge. It's like that Google+ post where a picture of a couple of black people got tagged as "gorillas" by their auto-tagging ML system. No, Google isn't racist, their classifier just hates their PR department. Ah, the joys of machine learning...
  - 11y ago

rndmind 11y ago

You are surprised facebook is censoring content on a massive scale? Wake up sheeple! Move to a decentralized, open-source platform like diaspora* if that type of thing bothers you, do away with facebook like we dropped myspace

hellofunk 11y ago
I can understand some degree of censorship like pornography, very explicit violence, etc. But this is just an article about a very public issue. FB has no problems with other divisive issues getting shared, so I'm quite surprised to see this level of blatant censorship on this particular article.
- rndmind 11y ago
  The corporation is owned by the same entities that own the mainstream media outlets, if something goes against their agenda, facebook with outright censor it or prevent others from seeing it.

secalex 11y ago

This was a mistake due to this specific blog post sharing some design elements as some spammy blogspot posts and it was fixed. If we really wanted to censor this story wouldn't we block all criticism of Facebook and not a pretty straightforward and well-reasoned analysis of Safe Harbor? Wouldn't we block the "I declare that I am a wizard and Facebook can't use my content blah blah" memes?

thibaut_barrere 11y ago
Thanks for fixing this. I personally did not assume this was necessarily censorship, but don't be surprised by the reaction of users though, I think you'll see more of these reactions for a while, after the Safe Harbor ruling.
- mkagenius 11y ago
  True. I doubt facebook will do anything that prevents a healthy discussion (unless its unlawful) for its USP is users.
hellofunk 11y ago
Interesting... other blog posts by the same author on the same blog were not blocked, just this one particular post. I find it not a coincidence that the post mentioned Facebook quite a bit, and thus it was blocked. I am doubtful this was due to "design elements" without more details.
rawdisk 11y ago
"... due to sharing some design elements..." But someone downthread said the .co.uk version was not blocked (before you unblocked the .com). Are you implying the .co.uk version did not have the same "design elements"? As to your proposed argument, I think selectively blocking well-reasoned analysis by law professors and letting memes go unblocked makes the most sense for your company.
- amyjess 11y ago
  > Are you implying the .co.uk version did not have the same "design elements"? Classifiers do weird things, and features you don't expect to be significant can suddenly have a much larger than intended effect. The domain name, as a feature, must've thrown it over the edge. It's like that Google+ post where a picture of a couple of black people got tagged as "gorillas" by their auto-tagging ML system. No, Google isn't racist, their classifier just hates their PR department. Ah, the joys of machine learning...
- 11y ago