3 ms·

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.

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.