10 ms·
It’s worth noting that Facebook Messenger also intercepts and filters messages. For example, it’s impossible to send a message containing the link “joebiden.inf
by TechBro8615 7y ago
It’s worth noting that Facebook Messenger also intercepts and filters messages. For example, it’s impossible to send a message containing the link “joebiden.info”. On the mobile app, it will simply say “failed to send.” On desktop, it will tell you the link violates its “community standards” and cannot be shared.
- justusw 7y agoI just tried it on Facebook Messenger, and it would only work when switching to a encrypted chat (which kind of makes sense). Kind of outrageous to criticize WeChat and leave out Facebook, when it clearly wants to join the party. I realize Facebook doesn't implement the same degree of censorship as WeChat, but to be fair, I live in Japan, and even for me the joebiden.info is censored.
- MattGaiser 7y agoFacebook at least tells you, but yes, this is concerning.
- wolco 7y agoI just visited that site. The concerning thing is the site isn't spam and offers a political view with photos/videos of real moments that may reflect poorly on joe . To censor that is crossing the line into censoring valid political speech.
- casefields 7y agoExactly. Imagine Big Tech censoring a website dedicated to hosting the Trump "grab them by the pussy" tape? It would be outrageous.
- square_usual 7y agoEven the policy positions listed there are literally factual and backed with sources from CNN, NYT and government websites. There is no remotely plausible reason for that site to be blacklisted by facebook.
- MattGaiser 7y agoMaybe Russians made it?
- brandall10 7y agoIt's made by a person who works for Trump's campaign team, yet the language toward the bottom gives the impression the author has no affiliation with any political group. That is likely the reason behind the block.
- frockington1 7y agoAnd every time the censor sites like this, it just increases the size of Trumps war drum. You'd think after 2016, they'd stop the suppression route but it seems the efforts are just increasing. Makes it really hard to support anyone
- avbanks 7y agoJust curious, does the information on that site ever change?
- m-p-3 7y agoAnd even then, I remember trying to send a torrent magnet link to someone in an encrypted chat and it wouldn't go through. They're also doing some local / client-based filtering as well.
- kccqzy 7y agoThe differences are: (1) with Facebook it's a private company doing the censoring and there's no issue with that, no First Amendment issues at all, unlike WeChat where the censoring is heavily linked to the government; (2) Facebook at least tells you when a message can't be sent but WeChat fails silently.
- dleslie 7y agoIt must be rather nice to feel so assured that this alleged separation of state and industry exists; as though the line between state and society, particularly industry, is all that clear.
- JSavageOne 7y ago> it's a private company doing the censoring and there's no issue with that That's certainly not a universally agreed upon perspective. Just because you're a private company doesn't mean you can do anything you want (eg. discrimination), hence the existence of regulations.
- endgame 7y agoAlso many of us argue about the principle of free speech, not the literal text of the First Amendment.
- imajoo 7y agoI think one major issue with FB's stance is they say they are not a publisher but rather a platform.. of course, they do tend to use whatever is convenient to them sometimes. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/jul/02/facebook-mark-zuckerberg-platform-publisher-lawsuit https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/jul/02/facebook-...
- discordance 7y agoTencent is a Chinese company so there's no First Amendment issue there either
- 7y ago
- kube-system 7y agoVery very few messaging platforms operate without any kind of censorship. Censorship, by itself, is not particularly worrisome, especially when done by first or second parties to the conversation. The problems arise when the censorship is compelled by third parties who are using it for their own benefit, rather than the benefit of others.
- jstanley 7y agoI'd argue that the problems arise whenever the censorship is compelled by third parties, even if they're doing it for the benefit of others. > Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.
- cmdshiftf4 7y ago>For example, it’s impossible to send a message containing the link “joebiden.info” This is the first I've heard about this. Had a look at the site and the content loaded doesn't seem to be malicious (technically), just content on some questionable areas about Biden. What's going on here?
- brandall10 7y agoIt's run by a person on Trump's campaign team: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/29/us/politics/fake-joe-biden-website.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/29/us/politics/fake-joe-bide... At the bottom it claims: "It is not paid for by any candidate, committee, organization, or PAC." While that may be technically true (it would be hard to verify), it's certainly misleading. I'm assuming because of that claim it runs afoul of FB's community standards.
- asveikau 7y agoIn this way it's a little sneaky, because some criticisms on that website would likely be more of a dealbreaker for a democratic voter than they would for a Trump supporter, on average. Example: Republicans are probably more likely to support the death penalty.
- 101404 7y agoHow is it misleading? It's completely true. And, is Fb now a judge in the US who should decide these things? I don't think it's good to trying to justify what Fb is doing.
- marblessubtext 7y agoIs Mauldin paid for his campaign work? If he is, what difference does it make if the political campaign site he's running (and that's what it is) has its development/hosting paid for by anyone? Regardless of the answer to that question and the validity of the information on the site, the site looks like expert craft in sketchy campaigning. It isn't being very honest about what it is and it is not a good faith attempt at informing voters, all under the direction of effectively the Trump campaign. I think FB should be allowed to block crap like this. edit: and to be clear this opinion applies for the reverse political ideologies as well. I wouldn't want to see e.g. Apple/Android blocking stuff in text messages, but I don't have a problem with FB/Twitter/Reddit doing it because that's where problematic discourse festers, by design.
- Craighead 7y agoIt is so painfully obvious that you are a fake account sea lioning to spread propaganda. Get lost.
- JCharante 7y agoWow I just tried this out. I can't believe they're so brazenly blocking content.
- lamnk 7y agoYou must be new to FB blockings. Our company has a website ranked in the top ten most visited websites in our country, and FB just block the domain entirely from FB systems without any explanation. They only unban us recently.
- Markoff 7y agoeven if you opt for encrypted communication? dunno, not using it, just asking
- srg0 7y agoThat's interesting. What else is blocked/censored on Facebook Messenger or in WhatsApp? Don't use FM myself.
- hiq 7y agoNo text is censored on WhatsApp, it's technically impossible due to E2EE. Obviously you can't send GB of data in one message, and there must some other small client-side restrictions, but nothing you can reasonably call censorship.
- gulerc 7y agoYou can create download link by sendgb.com and share up to 5 GB via WhatsApp.
- hiq 7y agoOr any other file sharing website for that matter, but at least use something more secure from a more trustworthy company, such as https://send.firefox.com/ https://send.firefox.com/ (never heard of sendgb.com).
- gulerc 7y agoYes firefox is good option. Sendgb is from Estonia. Sendgb allows file transfer up to 5 GB. File are storages up to 90 days for free. Nobody knows which one is more safety. Sometimes big services have more security problems...like Dropbox, wetransfer etc...
- hiq 7y agoFirefox Send is E2EE (albeit via JS code served at every connection), contrary to sendgb (AFAICT), which makes it a strictly better option.
- 101404 7y agoOf course it's technically possible. They would just need to do the blocking on the client, before sending the message (or after receiving it).
- midasz 7y agoMeh I can kind of understand why the site is deemed questionable. It's paid for by a Republican political consulting firm. It may not be orchestrated by the Trump campaign but they definitely condone it. According to Snopes some parts of it can also be deemed as misinformation (like the picture framed as Biden groping Stephanie Carter). So to me it's in the grey area bordering on black, but I'm also not a fan of this type of campaigning (playing on the man).The fact that they try to present it as an actual Biden website is also questionable.
- kart23 7y agoSo? Are we really at the point where we can defend censorship of a website that doesn't have any illegal content, no links to illegal content, and the purpose of which is not to do anything illegal, but whose only purpose make ones political opinions known. On Facebook messenger, one of the biggest messaging apps in the world. This is honestly disgusting, and I think they are going to face backlash for it.
- yeetman21 7y agothey're a private company and can do whatever they want
- andreilys 7y agoSure, and we as citizens can hold these private companies accountable by voicing our concerns to our government representatives who can enact legislation to prevent companies from doing whatever they want.
- yeetman21 7y agoand they as a billion dollar company can voice their concerns to lobbyist who will then convince the government to do nothing
- typenil 7y agoIt's always odd to me when someone is talking about a public backlash and this is the response. Did they say anything about legality? Facebook is free to do what it wants and the public is free to criticize it. Legality isn't a magic shield against criticism.
- kart23 7y agoI'm not sure how you discovered this, but I think you just started the biggest steisand effect of the year.
- jpxw 7y agoThis is mental, how did you find this?
- enitihas 7y agoSomeone should do a Tell HN on it.
- andreilys 7y agoThis is the first time I've heard of this. Are there other links that Messenger blocks? Honestly I'm really curious what went into this decision, I can't really understand why they thought this was a good idea.
- aendruk 7y agoNo experience with Messenger but I recall Facebook blocking posts that link to F.B. Purity.
- richard_mcp 7y agoFacebook Messenger also used to check if you were sending an image uploaded by one of your friends. If Alice uploaded a photo, but didn't share it with Bob, you wouldn't be able to send that photo to Bob. It would also check if a shared photo was embedded in another, like a screenshot.