7 ms·

It might be fishy but there is also a lot new interest in WSB and everything related. So much interest that /r/WSB voluntarily shut themselves down for a while

It might be fishy but there is also a lot new interest in WSB and everything related. So much interest that /r/WSB voluntarily shut themselves down for a while because they couldn't handle the moderation situation. So why it's happening now can more multifaceted than the more conspiratorial reasons. Even increased media attention is enough for someone to act -- The Hackernews community uses that all the time to get apps unbanned from the app store, for example.

dalbasal 6y ago
Sure. I don't mean that it's unequivocally part of a conspiracy. But like I said, It can't go unaddressed. This isn't a Hacker news story about a banned app. It's international news, and the news isn't about WSB's (admittedly) bad language.
- wvenable 6y ago
  It's international news -- so the spotlight is on. Probably most of the Internet is unsavory and nobody cares because nobody knows.
- bravura 6y ago
  Social networks were forced to moderate with the capitol riots. Now they have to moderate left wing mob organization on their platforms to avoid the perception they will only censor the right wing.
  - fakedang 6y ago
    WSB is less left-wing, more Libertarian. I routinely see them shit on both the left and right.
  - tux1968 6y ago
    If that was the thinking, they would be shutting down the groups that are organized and protesting in the pacific northwest.
  - imtringued 6y ago
    This is clearly a slippery slope. Regulate once, regulate twice, and so on...
jb775 6y ago
Serious question: Since Facebook is a private company, does the "if you don't like it, you can build your own platform" argument apply here? Or does that only apply selectively when it benefits partisan politics? The RobinHood $GME situation is the natural next step in societal evolution once extreme censorship is given a pass. If you support the "go build it yourself" argument, you no longer have the right to complain about anything that's theoretically reproducible.
- wvenable 6y ago
  Absolutely! I'm not sure why you replied to my comment with this but I totally believe that Facebook doesn't have any legal or moral requirement to host anything they don't want to. They could literally just punt me tomorrow because they don't like my name and that's their right. Especially because there is no commercial or contractual relationship between us. I am not a customer of Facebook. If you pay for hosting then you have a contract and then you and the company you're buying from are beholden to those terms.
  - piokoch 6y ago
    I believe when you sign up to Facebook you need to accept some terms and condition clause - this is the contract which is signed between you and Facebook (Facebook is referring that document when users are banned, so apparently they consider this as contract). Facebook earns money thanks to its users, providing them some service so definitely there should be a contract here. Now, when you look on those T&C, they are very vague, especially possible reasons for account suspension are very, very vague. They refer user to some "community standards" and it is not clear, if those "standards" are part of the contract or not. In my opinion, the first thing that should be changed is to force Facebook and other services to provide a clear, formal contract that would state what are duties of both contract parts, what rights they have, etc. Stuff that each normal contract has. No mumbling about "community", etc. Contract should be something that is enforceable and has clear appeal path and so on. If I don't agree with Facebook I should be able to court and refer to something that is specific and well defined, not some Mark Zuckerberg views on what is good or bad.
eggy 6y ago
"/r/WSB voluntrily shut themselves down" is the point. It was self-managment. When a tech oligarchy - FB, Twitter, etc. acts together to censor that is my concern. Like there wasn't lot of silly banter or still is on many forums, except this one pissed off hedge fund managers and traditional investors. Mark must have lost money ;)
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]

dalbasal 6y ago

Sure. I don't mean that it's unequivocally part of a conspiracy. But like I said, It can't go unaddressed. This isn't a Hacker news story about a banned app. It's international news, and the news isn't about WSB's (admittedly) bad language.

wvenable 6y ago
It's international news -- so the spotlight is on. Probably most of the Internet is unsavory and nobody cares because nobody knows.
bravura 6y ago
Social networks were forced to moderate with the capitol riots. Now they have to moderate left wing mob organization on their platforms to avoid the perception they will only censor the right wing.
- fakedang 6y ago
  WSB is less left-wing, more Libertarian. I routinely see them shit on both the left and right.
- tux1968 6y ago
  If that was the thinking, they would be shutting down the groups that are organized and protesting in the pacific northwest.
- imtringued 6y ago
  This is clearly a slippery slope. Regulate once, regulate twice, and so on...

jb775 6y ago

Serious question: Since Facebook is a private company, does the "if you don't like it, you can build your own platform" argument apply here? Or does that only apply selectively when it benefits partisan politics? The RobinHood $GME situation is the natural next step in societal evolution once extreme censorship is given a pass. If you support the "go build it yourself" argument, you no longer have the right to complain about anything that's theoretically reproducible.

wvenable 6y ago
Absolutely! I'm not sure why you replied to my comment with this but I totally believe that Facebook doesn't have any legal or moral requirement to host anything they don't want to. They could literally just punt me tomorrow because they don't like my name and that's their right. Especially because there is no commercial or contractual relationship between us. I am not a customer of Facebook. If you pay for hosting then you have a contract and then you and the company you're buying from are beholden to those terms.
- piokoch 6y ago
  I believe when you sign up to Facebook you need to accept some terms and condition clause - this is the contract which is signed between you and Facebook (Facebook is referring that document when users are banned, so apparently they consider this as contract). Facebook earns money thanks to its users, providing them some service so definitely there should be a contract here. Now, when you look on those T&C, they are very vague, especially possible reasons for account suspension are very, very vague. They refer user to some "community standards" and it is not clear, if those "standards" are part of the contract or not. In my opinion, the first thing that should be changed is to force Facebook and other services to provide a clear, formal contract that would state what are duties of both contract parts, what rights they have, etc. Stuff that each normal contract has. No mumbling about "community", etc. Contract should be something that is enforceable and has clear appeal path and so on. If I don't agree with Facebook I should be able to court and refer to something that is specific and well defined, not some Mark Zuckerberg views on what is good or bad.

eggy 6y ago

"/r/WSB voluntrily shut themselves down" is the point. It was self-managment. When a tech oligarchy - FB, Twitter, etc. acts together to censor that is my concern. Like there wasn't lot of silly banter or still is on many forums, except this one pissed off hedge fund managers and traditional investors. Mark must have lost money ;)

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]