7 ms·

> Facebook does not intend to suppress the posts itself. Instead, it would offer the software to enable a third party — in this case, most likely a partner Chin

> Facebook does not intend to suppress the posts itself. Instead, it would offer the software to enable a third party — in this case, most likely a partner Chinese company — to monitor popular stories and topics that bubble up as users share them across the social network, the people said. Facebook’s partner would then have full control to decide whether those posts should show up in users’ feeds. This looks like a shadowban at scale. So you share something - potentially putting yourself at risk to do so - but with the hope that others will see it. The "local partner" decides that it doesn't show up in anyone's feeds but still knows you posted it, so now you're a target. Damn, that's evil.

dilemma 10y ago
Sounds like the same system Facebook is implementing in response to the fake "fake news" stories.
- wosos 10y ago
  Too convenient and the term can be way subjective. "fake news" for who? For the Chinese government? For the company that denies that their new phone explodes? This is getting very ugly
  - tn13 10y ago
    Here is the definition of Fake news for you: 1. Any news that shows guns in good light. 2. Any news that might question global warming 3. Any news that might question Islam ... You get the idea. Prior to Trump's victory everything he said was racist, sexist, bigoted. All this supporters were labeled racists and fascists. The fake news debate is nothing but putting first amendment at risk.
    - diyorgasms 10y ago
      This is clearly bad faith flamebait. Downvoted and flagged.
      - wyager 10y ago
        Beyond his somewhat hyperbolic list of "fake news" criteria, he's not wrong (although he's being a bit indelicate). Not sure why you would immediately assume his comment was in bad faith.
      - tn13 10y ago
        This sort of comment actually vindicates my stand. Whatever I said was sarcastic, perfectly civil and closer to facts yet (what I believe to be) a reasonable person like you downvoted, flagged and attributed motives.
  - beachstartup 10y ago
    it's "fake" for whoever pays or can influence the most.
- robryan 10y ago
  Not really a shadow ban for fake news. They know as soon as they look at Analytics.
hcarvalhoalves 10y ago
The description of how this tool is going to work is directly at conflict with Zuckerberg's quote: > “It’s better for Facebook to be a part of enabling conversation, even if it’s not yet the full conversation,” Mr. Zuckerberg said, according to employees. It's not a conversation anymore if you are left blindfolded, speaking to a room you don't know is empty or not. Either incredibly dishonest or incredibly naive.
- jsprogrammer 10y ago
  If you get a comment, the "room" wasn't/isn't empty. Unless...
- nameisu 10y ago
  anything for getting more users and their personal data to sell
- Ntrails 10y ago
  > It's not a conversation anymore if you are left blindfolded, speaking to a room you don't know is empty or not. That applies your entire facebook activity, you've no idea who if anyone actually sees anything you post?
  - mbrameld 10y ago
    What? I can be reasonably certain that when somebody reacts to or comments on something I have posted to FB that they have seen it.
    - Ntrails 10y ago
      Sure, but until that happens you've got no idea if Facebook ever showed it to anyone (whether it was shadowbanned by evil foreigners, or they just didn't deign to stick it on anyones news feed).
benevol 10y ago
That's so corrupt. And it stems from the sick fact that our society still glorifies money/power as our most central cultural value.
jrcii 10y ago
Oh, like Hacker News if you're a conservative.
NumberCruncher 10y ago
Can we be sure that we aren't already shadowbanned even in the western world? An AI driven news feed and timeline is practically an intelligent shadowban. "Your post about your cat is not as revenue-relevant as a fake story about Clinton/Trump. Bam, you are banned!"
- veidr 10y ago
  Regardless of how much traction our posts get, or don't, the thing we can be still be reasonably sure about in the US and most of the western world is that we won't be kidnapped, caged, tortured, or killed for whatever sociopolitical commentary we post on Facebook. Facebook's collaboration with a regime where none of that is true is a disgusting low point, even for that company.
  - NumberCruncher 10y ago
    >> we can be still be reasonably sure ... I would point to the word "still". If something can be used against you, it will sooner or later be used against you. I hope we won't live long enough to see this coming true.
  - paradite 10y ago
    That is some very extreme words you are using. I would caution you not to use those words lightly unless you are absolutely sure they are backed up with facts.
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
    - veidr 10y ago
      It's a simple and widely-known fact that China jails its dissidents. This has been reported in literally every major newspaper in the world. The Chinese regime doesn't dispute it.
      - paradite 10y ago
gnipgnip 10y ago
Is there any information on how things are handled by Weibo and such ?
piotrjurkiewicz 10y ago
> Oh, like Hacker News if you're a conservative. @jrcii: There is something to it. When I saw your comment it was 4 min old and already [dead]. Just like most of your other comments, no matter what topic they touch.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
DanielBMarkham 10y ago
Hellbanning has always been evil. When you interact with a public computer, there is a trust that is established. When you click a vote button, you expect a vote to be counted. When you press the elevator close-door button, you expect the door to close. When you make a public comment, you expect you are making a public comment. To, well fuck with people in this manner is evil -- I do not care what your reasons are, how many people are on your site, the incidence of mental illness in the general population, and so on. There are other remedies aside from using technology to lie to and manipulate people. If it hasn't become clear by now, it should be: the major internet players are interested in only one thing: to keep being the major internet players. That doesn't make them bad or evil -- sometimes good people do evil things. It makes the rest of us realize we have a rather immediate obligation: fix this or be conquered by it.
- philipodonnell 10y ago
  I can't tell if this is sarcasm, so at the risk of looking foolish, I'll just say, pressing the door close button on an elevator almost always does nothing. In most elevators it's not even connected to anything behind the panel. It's there to make you feel like you can effect the situation without letting you do so, which I think is the exact opposite of your point.
  - ambicapter 10y ago
    I've heard this before, but I don't buy it. Either that or the elevator at my workplace is VERY prescient.
  - the_af 10y ago
    Where do you live? In my country, the close button almost always closes the elevator doors faster. Measurably faster, not a subjective milliseconds faster, but full seconds faster (so noticeable, in fact, that it drives me nuts when other people don't push it and also involuntarily block me from doing so). When the button doesn't work, it's acknowledged to be broken.
  - MK999 10y ago
    The 'beg buttons' that pedestrians push to get a favorable traffic signal is frequently not hooked up.
nbevans 10y ago
That assumes the third-party is provided with the "metadata" (i.e. who posted it and to whom/where) rather than just the content of the post.
jsingleton 10y ago
Shadow-banning / hell-banning happens on HN too, but you're right that it's not a very nice way of moderating. Obviously, it's worse if it also gets you in trouble with the state. Manipulating people's view of the world is pretty dishonest in any case though. I'm sure China would love to hide posts that mention 'Fatty Kim the Third' [0]. If you control the discourse then you can control what people think. We've seen this in both the UK and US recently. Russia have an agency dedicated to false information with sockpuppet accounts on social media [1] and the US has done related activities [2]. I'm sure other countries and interest groups have similar institutions. If you have an official integrated tool to do this work then it becomes so much easier. Worrying times. [0]: http://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-northkorea-internet-idUSKBN13B19C http://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-northkorea-internet-... [1]: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/apr/02/putin-kremlin-inside-russian-troll-house https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/apr/02/putin-kremlin-... [2]: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2011/mar/17/us-spy-operation-social-networks https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2011/mar/17/us-spy-op...
- tripzilch 10y ago
  > Shadow-banning / hell-banning happens on HN too, but you're right that it's not a very nice way of moderating. It's literally the worst way of moderating (short of serving the banned user destructive/malicious code). HN is wrong when they do it, too. Fortunately we got some new mods a while back, they're very good, and nowhere near as trigger-happy with the hell-bans as before. And still, it's wrong, vindictive and dishonest, and if you're clever just as easily circumvented as regular bans, which would be the right option (otherwise I'd like to hear the argument why non-clever people should be punished more harshly).
  - grzm 10y ago
    Should an online community or its hosts have a say in shaping their community? If not, why not? If so, how should that be done? Why is shadow/hell banning in particular bad? I haven't seen a lot of discussions with reasons: just that it's bad. If you know of some, feel free to provide a link rather than duplicate it here.
Navarr 10y ago
Maybe it won't send author metadata? So you just have a post, and the chinese partner decides whether or not it shows up inside China?
dennisgorelik 10y ago
> Damn, that's evil. Yes it is evil, but it is Chinese government that is responsible for that, not Facebook. Realistically only some of the most popular messages would be affected. It would not suppress political discussions at small scale (among several friends). It would not suppress popular messages that are not political. I support Mark on that: it's better to have limited Facebook in China than not to have Facebook in China at all.
- kafkaesq 10y ago
  Yes it is evil, but it is Chinese government that is responsible for that, not Facebook. Said every collaborator, active or passive, in every large-scale injustice or abuse since the beginning of time.
- olalonde 10y ago
  Sad to see this mostly objective and balanced comment down voted while all the hyperbole is going to the top.
- r00fus 10y ago
  ah, "messages that are not political". What's to say basic journalism isn't political? What about highlighting a massacre (inadvertently)? What about random abuses of power where the perpetrator happens to be related to powerful elite? Hint: you don't know. I'm not sure I'd use it for my distant relatives who live in China.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- leppr 10y ago
  > I support Mark on that: it's better to have limited Facebook in China than not to have Facebook in China at all. Better for whom? For humanity in general, don't you fear giving people the illusion of a free platform for speaking is worst than not faking anything at all and thus encourage truly free platforms to emerge out of people's frustration? And for Facebook's own interests, don't you fear Facebook applying even more censoring in some parts of the world is going to affect its image world-wide?

dilemma 10y ago

Sounds like the same system Facebook is implementing in response to the fake "fake news" stories.

wosos 10y ago
Too convenient and the term can be way subjective. "fake news" for who? For the Chinese government? For the company that denies that their new phone explodes? This is getting very ugly
- tn13 10y ago
  Here is the definition of Fake news for you: 1. Any news that shows guns in good light. 2. Any news that might question global warming 3. Any news that might question Islam ... You get the idea. Prior to Trump's victory everything he said was racist, sexist, bigoted. All this supporters were labeled racists and fascists. The fake news debate is nothing but putting first amendment at risk.
  - diyorgasms 10y ago
    This is clearly bad faith flamebait. Downvoted and flagged.
    - wyager 10y ago
      Beyond his somewhat hyperbolic list of "fake news" criteria, he's not wrong (although he's being a bit indelicate). Not sure why you would immediately assume his comment was in bad faith.
    - tn13 10y ago
      This sort of comment actually vindicates my stand. Whatever I said was sarcastic, perfectly civil and closer to facts yet (what I believe to be) a reasonable person like you downvoted, flagged and attributed motives.
- beachstartup 10y ago
  it's "fake" for whoever pays or can influence the most.
robryan 10y ago
Not really a shadow ban for fake news. They know as soon as they look at Analytics.

hcarvalhoalves 10y ago

The description of how this tool is going to work is directly at conflict with Zuckerberg's quote: > “It’s better for Facebook to be a part of enabling conversation, even if it’s not yet the full conversation,” Mr. Zuckerberg said, according to employees. It's not a conversation anymore if you are left blindfolded, speaking to a room you don't know is empty or not. Either incredibly dishonest or incredibly naive.

jsprogrammer 10y ago
If you get a comment, the "room" wasn't/isn't empty. Unless...
nameisu 10y ago
anything for getting more users and their personal data to sell
Ntrails 10y ago
> It's not a conversation anymore if you are left blindfolded, speaking to a room you don't know is empty or not. That applies your entire facebook activity, you've no idea who if anyone actually sees anything you post?
- mbrameld 10y ago
  What? I can be reasonably certain that when somebody reacts to or comments on something I have posted to FB that they have seen it.
  - Ntrails 10y ago
    Sure, but until that happens you've got no idea if Facebook ever showed it to anyone (whether it was shadowbanned by evil foreigners, or they just didn't deign to stick it on anyones news feed).

benevol 10y ago

That's so corrupt. And it stems from the sick fact that our society still glorifies money/power as our most central cultural value.

jrcii 10y ago

Oh, like Hacker News if you're a conservative.

NumberCruncher 10y ago

Can we be sure that we aren't already shadowbanned even in the western world? An AI driven news feed and timeline is practically an intelligent shadowban. "Your post about your cat is not as revenue-relevant as a fake story about Clinton/Trump. Bam, you are banned!"

veidr 10y ago
Regardless of how much traction our posts get, or don't, the thing we can be still be reasonably sure about in the US and most of the western world is that we won't be kidnapped, caged, tortured, or killed for whatever sociopolitical commentary we post on Facebook. Facebook's collaboration with a regime where none of that is true is a disgusting low point, even for that company.
- NumberCruncher 10y ago
  >> we can be still be reasonably sure ... I would point to the word "still". If something can be used against you, it will sooner or later be used against you. I hope we won't live long enough to see this coming true.
- paradite 10y ago
  That is some very extreme words you are using. I would caution you not to use those words lightly unless you are absolutely sure they are backed up with facts.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - veidr 10y ago
    It's a simple and widely-known fact that China jails its dissidents. This has been reported in literally every major newspaper in the world. The Chinese regime doesn't dispute it.
    - paradite 10y ago

gnipgnip 10y ago

Is there any information on how things are handled by Weibo and such ?

piotrjurkiewicz 10y ago

> Oh, like Hacker News if you're a conservative. @jrcii: There is something to it. When I saw your comment it was 4 min old and already [dead]. Just like most of your other comments, no matter what topic they touch.

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

DanielBMarkham 10y ago

Hellbanning has always been evil. When you interact with a public computer, there is a trust that is established. When you click a vote button, you expect a vote to be counted. When you press the elevator close-door button, you expect the door to close. When you make a public comment, you expect you are making a public comment. To, well fuck with people in this manner is evil -- I do not care what your reasons are, how many people are on your site, the incidence of mental illness in the general population, and so on. There are other remedies aside from using technology to lie to and manipulate people. If it hasn't become clear by now, it should be: the major internet players are interested in only one thing: to keep being the major internet players. That doesn't make them bad or evil -- sometimes good people do evil things. It makes the rest of us realize we have a rather immediate obligation: fix this or be conquered by it.

philipodonnell 10y ago
I can't tell if this is sarcasm, so at the risk of looking foolish, I'll just say, pressing the door close button on an elevator almost always does nothing. In most elevators it's not even connected to anything behind the panel. It's there to make you feel like you can effect the situation without letting you do so, which I think is the exact opposite of your point.
- ambicapter 10y ago
  I've heard this before, but I don't buy it. Either that or the elevator at my workplace is VERY prescient.
- the_af 10y ago
  Where do you live? In my country, the close button almost always closes the elevator doors faster. Measurably faster, not a subjective milliseconds faster, but full seconds faster (so noticeable, in fact, that it drives me nuts when other people don't push it and also involuntarily block me from doing so). When the button doesn't work, it's acknowledged to be broken.
- MK999 10y ago
  The 'beg buttons' that pedestrians push to get a favorable traffic signal is frequently not hooked up.

nbevans 10y ago

That assumes the third-party is provided with the "metadata" (i.e. who posted it and to whom/where) rather than just the content of the post.

jsingleton 10y ago

Shadow-banning / hell-banning happens on HN too, but you're right that it's not a very nice way of moderating. Obviously, it's worse if it also gets you in trouble with the state. Manipulating people's view of the world is pretty dishonest in any case though. I'm sure China would love to hide posts that mention 'Fatty Kim the Third' [0]. If you control the discourse then you can control what people think. We've seen this in both the UK and US recently. Russia have an agency dedicated to false information with sockpuppet accounts on social media [1] and the US has done related activities [2]. I'm sure other countries and interest groups have similar institutions. If you have an official integrated tool to do this work then it becomes so much easier. Worrying times. [0]: http://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-northkorea-internet-idUSKBN13B19C http://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-northkorea-internet-... [1]: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/apr/02/putin-kremlin-inside-russian-troll-house https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/apr/02/putin-kremlin-... [2]: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2011/mar/17/us-spy-operation-social-networks https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2011/mar/17/us-spy-op...

tripzilch 10y ago
> Shadow-banning / hell-banning happens on HN too, but you're right that it's not a very nice way of moderating. It's literally the worst way of moderating (short of serving the banned user destructive/malicious code). HN is wrong when they do it, too. Fortunately we got some new mods a while back, they're very good, and nowhere near as trigger-happy with the hell-bans as before. And still, it's wrong, vindictive and dishonest, and if you're clever just as easily circumvented as regular bans, which would be the right option (otherwise I'd like to hear the argument why non-clever people should be punished more harshly).
- grzm 10y ago
  Should an online community or its hosts have a say in shaping their community? If not, why not? If so, how should that be done? Why is shadow/hell banning in particular bad? I haven't seen a lot of discussions with reasons: just that it's bad. If you know of some, feel free to provide a link rather than duplicate it here.

Navarr 10y ago

Maybe it won't send author metadata? So you just have a post, and the chinese partner decides whether or not it shows up inside China?

dennisgorelik 10y ago

> Damn, that's evil. Yes it is evil, but it is Chinese government that is responsible for that, not Facebook. Realistically only some of the most popular messages would be affected. It would not suppress political discussions at small scale (among several friends). It would not suppress popular messages that are not political. I support Mark on that: it's better to have limited Facebook in China than not to have Facebook in China at all.

kafkaesq 10y ago
Yes it is evil, but it is Chinese government that is responsible for that, not Facebook. Said every collaborator, active or passive, in every large-scale injustice or abuse since the beginning of time.
olalonde 10y ago
Sad to see this mostly objective and balanced comment down voted while all the hyperbole is going to the top.
r00fus 10y ago
ah, "messages that are not political". What's to say basic journalism isn't political? What about highlighting a massacre (inadvertently)? What about random abuses of power where the perpetrator happens to be related to powerful elite? Hint: you don't know. I'm not sure I'd use it for my distant relatives who live in China.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
leppr 10y ago
> I support Mark on that: it's better to have limited Facebook in China than not to have Facebook in China at all. Better for whom? For humanity in general, don't you fear giving people the illusion of a free platform for speaking is worst than not faking anything at all and thus encourage truly free platforms to emerge out of people's frustration? And for Facebook's own interests, don't you fear Facebook applying even more censoring in some parts of the world is going to affect its image world-wide?