6 ms·

Dreamwidth contains lots of spammy blogs.

by bzb3 6y ago

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
andybak 6y ago
So does the internet in general. It's still poor form to block entire platforms without warning.
- jopsen 6y ago
  Not really... I wouldn't be surprised if Facebook just blocks an entire domain when abuse report incidents hits some threshold. I'm not saying it's ideal, but I understand how it got this. DW should be on: https://publicsuffix.org/ https://publicsuffix.org/ And maybe FB moderation should consider the public suffix list. Another solution is to moderate content on your domain. Or require users have separate domains.
  - kps 6y ago
    > DW should be on: https://publicsuffix.org/ https://publicsuffix.org/ If only there were some universally supported distributed cached database of domain properties.
- seesawtron 6y ago
  Recently Indian government blocked Tik-Tok. Does anyone know if they gave a warning to the users or the app developers? One can argue that governments should have the right to censorship when its a matter of urgency or emergency or national security (though this is debatable), does the same power lie with Facebook (or any other platform) to exercise a censorship on its users? It goes back to the big debate whether they are accountable for what gets shared on their platform.
  - danaris 6y ago
    There's a clear reason to block TikTok as a platform, whether you personally agree with it or not: Concerns about its relationship to the Chinese government. Dreamwidth has no such potential pitfalls as a whole platform.
  - bachmeier 6y ago
    > does the same power lie with Facebook (or any other platform) to exercise a censorship on its users This is a weird question. Of course a private business can choose what content they want on their platform. ESPN, for instance, censors tech news. If an ESPN journalist put together a story about Facebook blocking Dreamwidth, they'd censor it. Having said that, I know there are some on HN that react emotionally anytime someone engages in "censorship". Oh well. No company is obligated to post content just because someone else wants them to.
annadane 6y ago
You think this is a justification to do this? On Hacker News? Really? I do not understand the mindset of some people
- bzb3 6y ago
  I didn't say it was a good reason, I'm saying that's probably the cause they got banned.
  - annadane 6y ago
    That's fair and I'm sorry. Still, we should demand better from these platforms, it's not enough
- Barrin92 6y ago
  If it causes them more trouble than it's worth it's understandable. Someone else pointed out that there was a lot of questionable sexual content on the site and you can't really expect Facebook to micromanage every subdomain.
  - wnoise 6y ago
    I don't see why Facebook needs to censor "questionable" sexual content. Individual users and groups have adequate tools to control what they themselves see. The only point of Facebook's censorship is to control what the willing can see.
    - acdha 6y ago
      There are two levels of questionable: what you mentioned works for things like less common proclivities but not for things like revenge porn or other cases where it’s not just a question of what a user is willing to see.
    - Barrin92 6y ago
      because asking the average user to fine tune their experience to avoid questionable sexual content is going to piss a ton of users off who expect this to be the default experience on the site. So Facebook does a calculation and the result is that removing that stuff is easier than having a million people complain about being exposed to it and that's that. The same reason any other forum or platform moderates their content and usually removes sexual content, you want the default experience to be good for the average user on the site.

Dreamwidth contains lots of spammy blogs.

by bzb3 6y ago

Dreamwidth contains lots of spammy blogs.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

andybak 6y ago

So does the internet in general. It's still poor form to block entire platforms without warning.

jopsen 6y ago
Not really... I wouldn't be surprised if Facebook just blocks an entire domain when abuse report incidents hits some threshold. I'm not saying it's ideal, but I understand how it got this. DW should be on: https://publicsuffix.org/ https://publicsuffix.org/ And maybe FB moderation should consider the public suffix list. Another solution is to moderate content on your domain. Or require users have separate domains.
- kps 6y ago
  > DW should be on: https://publicsuffix.org/ https://publicsuffix.org/ If only there were some universally supported distributed cached database of domain properties.
seesawtron 6y ago
Recently Indian government blocked Tik-Tok. Does anyone know if they gave a warning to the users or the app developers? One can argue that governments should have the right to censorship when its a matter of urgency or emergency or national security (though this is debatable), does the same power lie with Facebook (or any other platform) to exercise a censorship on its users? It goes back to the big debate whether they are accountable for what gets shared on their platform.
- danaris 6y ago
  There's a clear reason to block TikTok as a platform, whether you personally agree with it or not: Concerns about its relationship to the Chinese government. Dreamwidth has no such potential pitfalls as a whole platform.
- bachmeier 6y ago
  > does the same power lie with Facebook (or any other platform) to exercise a censorship on its users This is a weird question. Of course a private business can choose what content they want on their platform. ESPN, for instance, censors tech news. If an ESPN journalist put together a story about Facebook blocking Dreamwidth, they'd censor it. Having said that, I know there are some on HN that react emotionally anytime someone engages in "censorship". Oh well. No company is obligated to post content just because someone else wants them to.

annadane 6y ago

You think this is a justification to do this? On Hacker News? Really? I do not understand the mindset of some people

bzb3 6y ago
I didn't say it was a good reason, I'm saying that's probably the cause they got banned.
- annadane 6y ago
  That's fair and I'm sorry. Still, we should demand better from these platforms, it's not enough
Barrin92 6y ago
If it causes them more trouble than it's worth it's understandable. Someone else pointed out that there was a lot of questionable sexual content on the site and you can't really expect Facebook to micromanage every subdomain.
- wnoise 6y ago
  I don't see why Facebook needs to censor "questionable" sexual content. Individual users and groups have adequate tools to control what they themselves see. The only point of Facebook's censorship is to control what the willing can see.
  - acdha 6y ago
    There are two levels of questionable: what you mentioned works for things like less common proclivities but not for things like revenge porn or other cases where it’s not just a question of what a user is willing to see.
  - Barrin92 6y ago
    because asking the average user to fine tune their experience to avoid questionable sexual content is going to piss a ton of users off who expect this to be the default experience on the site. So Facebook does a calculation and the result is that removing that stuff is easier than having a million people complain about being exposed to it and that's that. The same reason any other forum or platform moderates their content and usually removes sexual content, you want the default experience to be good for the average user on the site.