11 ms·

Facebook prevents sharing New York Post story on BLM co-founder's real estate

298 points by pcf 5y ago

pcf 5y ago
On Facebook, you now can't post the link to this New York Post article: https://nypost.com/2021/04/10/inside-blm-co-founder-patrisse-khan-cullors-real-estate-buying-binge/ https://nypost.com/2021/04/10/inside-blm-co-founder-patrisse... FB will also prevent you from posting the Newsweek article which describes how the platform is blocking the New York Post article. Same link as in the title: https://www.newsweek.com/facebook-prevents-sharing-new-york-post-story-black-lives-matter-founder-patrisse-cullors-real-1584050 https://www.newsweek.com/facebook-prevents-sharing-new-york-...
- AnimalMuppet 5y ago
  Yes, but will they prevent you from posting a link to the HN discussion of the Newsweek article about them blocking the NY Post article? Is it possible that Facebook is a big enough share of the internet that they can block the Streisand Effect? My money is on "no".
  - MikeUt 5y ago
    The Streisand effect only happens if you find out about the censorship. There's a million ways to reduce the reach of a story covertly.
    - nitrogen 5y ago
      As one example of how to slow a story: back when Wikileaks was first really trending, Facebook would sometimes just take a really long time to submit a post, or simply error out, if you tried to post a URL from Wikileaks.
  - commandlinefan 5y ago
    > posting a link to the HN discussion Well... contentious stories get removed from here, too. This is a topic that gets contentious.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - Causality1 5y ago
      Oh yeah. Every time someone posts an article covering that GPT HN fiasco it gets flagged and removed almost immediately.
      - strombofulous 5y ago
        The what?
        andrew_v4 5y ago
        I had to look it up too, I had forgotten about it as it was not very interesting: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24164470 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24164470 Note that the link is to an article on HN, not flagged, and the comments pretty clearly debunk the article's claims. TLDR, author wrote some clickbait headlines and used gpt3 to fill in the articles, with an unspecified amount of editing, then some of them got onto the front page of HN and he wrote an article about that.
      - edoceo 5y ago
        what's that one about?
      - 1cvmask 5y ago
        Many stories get flagged on HN as well and I assume for different reasons. Here is one flagged from an hour ago: https://greenwald.substack.com/p/journalists-learning-they-spread https://greenwald.substack.com/p/journalists-learning-they-s... I assumed it was worthy of discussion given the whole censorship debate and concepts of censorship like AI moderation or misinformation or disinformation.
  - jasonfarnon 5y ago
    Maybe the Streisand effect is imaginary. Ie you don't know how many stories are successfully suppressed. Just bc barbara streisand bungled concealing something, doesn't mean something as sophisticated as fb, decades later, is as inept. Of course I'd like to think the Streisand effect is real, but I don't think we have any data.
    - ISL 5y ago
      The Streisand effect does not apply if Streisand controls a town square.
  - joshuakelly 5y ago
    > Is it possible that Facebook is a big enough share of the internet that they can block the Streisand Effect? My money is on "no". The co-ordinated efforts of a small number of corporate actors probably is. We live in a gov-valley-sov-corp media ecology with fairly sophisticated mechanisms of message control. Maybe the old netheads were wrong about streisand effect - maybe that was a temporary material condition.
- reaperducer 5y ago
  On Facebook, you now can't post the link to this New York Post article... FB will also prevent you from posting the Newsweek article which describes how the platform is blocking the New York Post article." And amazingly, there are Facebook employees on HN all the time who can't understand why people hate Facebook. I recently spent time with a couple of relatives who only get news from Facebook. I suspect there are millions of other people who do the same. (Because it's free and if it's on the internet, it must be true!) This illustrates that they only know about the things that Facebook wants them to know.
  - mbg721 5y ago
    But that isn't the reason for most of the Facebook hate, is it? I thought it was more "I just want my cousin's baby pictures, and you're spamming my feed with outrage porn." The people who actually want to use Facebook for news at all know the dumpster-fire they're going to get.
- kebman 5y ago
  This is completely outrageous. It's clearly illegal in my country per Norwegian Constitution §100, and I suspect it's illegal in quite a few other European countries too, wherever they have a working defence for freedom of speech, and not least presumably private conversations. (Because it's not so private anymore once third parties interfere in what you're allowed to share among grown ups.)
nvr219 5y ago
Of all the ways Facebook restricts speech on its platform this one is pretty low on the list in my opinion. Seems like that particular article has some content that violates their doxxing policy (whatever that is). Other articles about the same topic can be shared including from Fox.
- cousin_it 5y ago
  I don't remember FB applying that policy when the NYT doxed Scott.
  - BigW1lly 5y ago
    NYT gets a pass, as does the Washington Post.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - lenkite 5y ago
    Liberal News Media can post anything they like. NYPost is on Facebook's scan-list after the Hunter Biden reveals and any critical news will be introspected and blocked.
- pcf 5y ago
  What in the Newsweek article I linked to would violate any doxxing policy? It only refers to the NY Post article, not even linking to it.
winstonchecksin 5y ago
We had BLM protests in my city. I’m all for the message behind it, but they smashed up mine and my husbands car windows. Should have taken advantage of the lax work from home policy and should have stayed home I guess? I’m no fan of the actual “organization” or the people behind it though, and it’s sad FB is actively censuring information.
- nvr219 5y ago
  Hi Winston, I want to know something: when cops murder somebody do you make a comment about it on hn or social media or anywhere, or do you only make comments when car windows get smashed?
  - weeweww32 5y ago
    13% do 57%
    - barbacoa 5y ago
      What do those numbers mean?
      - weeweww32 5y ago
        FBI crime statistics (13% of the population 57% of the violent crime) https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2017/crime-in-the-u.s.-2017/tables/table-43 https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2017/crime-in-the-u.s.-...
        bingbong70 5y ago
        And according to exoneration data, innocent African American suspects are: - 7 times more likely to be falsely convicted of murder than innocent white suspects. - 3.5 times more likely ... for sexual assaults. 7x & 3.5x are lowballs since I expect only a relatively small % can actually afford to prove their innocence. Conclusion: Good luck getting accurate crime stats from some of the most historically racist institutions in the USA. Exoneration Stats https://www.law.umich.edu/special/exoneration/Documents/Race_and_Wrongful_Convictions.pdf https://www.law.umich.edu/special/exoneration/Documents/Race...
Barrin92 5y ago
>A Facebook spokesperson told Newsweek, "This content was removed for violating our privacy and personal information policy." The policy forbids articles that share details that could identify a person's financial and residential information, thus violating their privacy rights. That seems like a pretty flimsy excuse given that I see stories about individuals of public interest buying expensive property on Facebook all the time. Just one example, Thiel buying property in Miami.
- macksd 5y ago
  It's also a flimsy excuse given that Facebook recently handled a leak of personal data poorly and does collect financial and residential information.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
- rayiner 5y ago
  The identity of house buyers is a matter of public record. Not only is it searchable in multiple state databases (tax, real estate plats) but sale information including buyer and seller is typically published in the newspaper: https://www.chicagotribune.com/real-estate/sc-cons-0903-housing-counsel-20150902-column.html https://www.chicagotribune.com/real-estate/sc-cons-0903-hous... > The information about your home purchase and the terms and conditions of your mortgage loan are recorded among the land records in the jurisdiction where the property is located. These documents are public. In most states, you do not even have to go down to the local recorder of deeds office. You can search online from your living room and get all of the information that is published in your newspaper.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - nitrogen 5y ago
    Do wealthy or famous people use some kind of property management entity to hide their personal info in those records?
schnevets 5y ago
My guess is a slew of "closely monitored" Facebook groups eagerly shared the article the moment it was posted and some machine intelligence auto-moderator immediately added it to a blacklist without any human oversight. The article itself is pretty even-keeled (although has that typical New York Post editorialized spin). The article mentions other, unaffiliated BLM groups have already demanded transparency to where Cullors' income came from, and the amount spent isn't completely absurd for a best-selling writer, culture advisor, and public figure. Blocking the article and spreading buzz about the abbreviated version of the article is definitely bad news. Someone needs to tell the product owners at Facebook that if they want to auto-moderate media across the United States, they should read the wikipedia article about the Streisand effect.
- jokethrowaway 5y ago
  Considering they did this only for the BLM founder and for Hunter Biden laptop, I would say it's probably human action.
  - stretchymantis 5y ago
    It's a reasonable decision to make if ya think about it. First, Facebook has been under massive scrutiny recently for not exerting more control over combating fake news, fake accounts, posts that depict or could incite violence, etc... Second, because she's leader of the BLM movement, I think everyone would agree that she is at a greater than average risk for being targeted with violence. If your position at a company requires you to identify such conditions and attempt to reduce this risk if possible, you'd likely feel a sense of responsibility to block the article. Finally, given their recent string of negative media attention, finding themselves in the spotlight with accusations that they contributed to her harm were she to be attacked, is something they're likely keen on avoiding.
- thinkingemote 5y ago
  This Newsweek article is also banned. I don't think this one is automatic but I guess it could be. How can one tell?
- 5y ago
nefitty 5y ago
I’m confused. Are Marxists not supposed to be rich or own property? What would an ideal Marxist do with their wealth, donate it?
- thepasswordis 5y ago
  Historically yes, Marxists have been extremely wealthy and generally would end up owning substantial amounts of property.
- throwawaysea 5y ago
  They certainly could donate it, either to private nonprofits, or to the state (https://fiscal.treasury.gov/public/gifts-to-government.html https://fiscal.treasury.gov/public/gifts-to-government.html) - as their ideology would dictate. But the real reason there is outrage about this story is because BLM organizations received hundreds of millions of Dollars in donations in 2020, and it seems highly improbable that a long-time activist has somehow saved up enough to afford multiple millions in real estate purchases. Several BLM chapters rejected the foundation's offers last year and instead issued a public call for increased transparency, claiming they had received almost no funding over the years from the parent organization (https://www.latimes.com/world-nation/story/2021-02-23/ap-exclusive-black-lives-matter-opens-up-about-its-finances https://www.latimes.com/world-nation/story/2021-02-23/ap-exc...). All this suggests there is corruption or grifting happening.
- Fogest 5y ago
  Isn't part of the problem here that a lot of the BLM donation money has gone to fund stuff like buying their big property? There have also been other scandals regarding misuse of the donation money and it has made many regional BLM groups call to question where the money is going. There is very little accountability and transparency yet we have large companies like Amazon feeding them money via donations.
  - peripitea 5y ago
    Why are people implying this money must have come from BLM donations? She wrote a book that was on the NYT bestseller list, and presumably has other income streams beyond her work for BLM. I have no idea whether BLM is allocating their money properly or not, but it seems quite plausible that she has earned all the money in question through legitimate means.
throwawaysea 5y ago
Here is the New York Post's reply to to this (https://nypost.com/2021/04/16/social-media-again-silences-the-post-for-reporting-the-news/ https://nypost.com/2021/04/16/social-media-again-silences-th...): > Our article features some pictures of the properties she bought, but includes no addresses, in fact doesn’t even say the city in some cases. Our reporter compiled the information from public records. It's incredible that they don't allow this information but were completely fine with people discussing Trump's private tax returns, which were illegally obtained. The reality is that big tech companies and social media are not helping ideas live or die by their merit, but rather hiding good ideas from reaching recipients who can decide what they want to do with that information themselves. I think the most offensive part of this censorship, however, is that Facebook is also censoring this link from private messenger conversations. Abigail Shrier put it well (https://twitter.com/AbigailShrier/status/1382774842986954753 https://twitter.com/AbigailShrier/status/1382774842986954753): > So Facebook is now effectively opening your mail and reading the contents for ideologically objectionable material. > Anyone worried?
- pvg 5y ago
  Trump was the president of the United States, under 24/7 protection then and for the rest of his life. Most people, even fairly notable ones, don't have that luxury. Tabloids publish potentially harmful information with reasonable frequency and FB refusing to republish a tabloid piece is not a meaningful impediment to the dissemination of ideas.
  - throwawaysea 5y ago
    You're using speculation and a one-sided determination about publicly available information being harmful to justify censorship. It is completely unreasonable for an organization as large, influential, and powerful as Facebook (or Twitter) to censor ideas from one half of the country due to the biases of their employees and leaders. And yes, it is a meaningful impediment to dissemination of ideas since virtually all our society's conversations today take place on platforms owned by big tech companies. Our fundamental rights to free speech have been eroded by outsourcing the public town square to these companies that act in discriminatory ways. It's time to break them up, treat them as utilities, and regulate them heavily to uphold principles of free speech
temp0826 5y ago
I guess I am further out of the loop than I thought (and imagine I'll get reemed for this comment), but I thought BLM was a movement (with dubious Russian propagandic origins designed to fuel divisiveness, but turned mostly noble), not an organization. How did this org even come to be? I'd love to read an actual timeline or history of this all.
- Animats 5y ago
  There seem to be multiple Black Lives Matter organizations, going in various directions. Wikipedia tries to sort this out.[1] Occupy Wall Street tried to do that, but they were so disorganized to accomplish much directly. They did, though, firmly establish "the 1%" meme. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Lives_Matter https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Lives_Matter
- BigW1lly 5y ago
  Slightly unrelated but for people that don't know, the "Black Futures Lab" which is an organization directly tied to BLM, is being funded by the "Chinese Progressive Association." I don't know what this entails but it's nice to see that the Chinese are interested in progressivism here in America.
  - dragonwriter 5y ago
    > Slightly unrelated but for people that don't know, the "Black Futures Lab" which is an organization directly tied to BLM, is being funded by the "Chinese Progressive Association." I don't know what this entails but it's nice to see that the Chinese are interested in progressivism here in America. “the Chinese” at issue are people of Chinese ethnicity in (and, largely, citizens of) the US, so, aside from appeal to straight-up anti-Asian racism, why is this so interesting? “Founded in 1972, the Chinese Progressive Association educates, organizes and empowers the low income and working class immigrant Chinese community in San Francisco to build collective power with other oppressed communities to demand better living and working conditions and justice for all people.” https://cpasf.org/about/mission-history/ https://cpasf.org/about/mission-history/
scelerat 5y ago
I first learned this story because it was front-page news on Breitbart and quickly becoming a flashpoint for commentary and erm, "thoughtful analysis" Maybe it got flagged because of factor such as who was sharing it and how it was being commented on? I have no idea how or what any of their moderation tools work, but if one of the flags is "popular with extremist disinformation sites," perhaps that was the trigger?
imgabe 5y ago
I’m sure the 535 million people who recently had their personal information leaked by Facebook - the ones Facebook didn’t even bother to notify - will be glad to hear about Facebook’s strong stance against the sharing of personally identifying information.
- himujjal 5y ago
  lol. that was good!
- stretchymantis 5y ago
  Apples to oranges. You're referencing an incident that involves someone stealing the information from Facebook as opposed to Facebook intentionally releasing the information. One has no bearing on the other.
curiousgeorgio 5y ago
Never been much of a fan of Facebook, but at this point it's basically turned into the McDonald's ball pit: A pile of colorful, air-filled items (mostly ads) that lures certain people into coming back because they have nothing better to do than dive into some filth. Adults aren't allowed (no conversations, content, or political views that management doesn't agree with - "it's safe because look, everything around you is squishy and we don't allow things with sharp edges"), and if you spend time there, you're probably going to leave smelling like excrement.
BigW1lly 5y ago
Yes folks. Facebook is politically "neutral", or so they say. Hmm.. I'm not sure everybody. I'm really not so sure about that.
egberts1 5y ago
An automatic 30-day Facebook ban, this will get you. - Even if you posted it “privately” through Facebook messenger, yep, that’s too a first: 30-day ban. - Veteran FB bans.
- buzzert 5y ago
  > Even if you posted it “privately” through Facebook messenger, yep, that’s too a first: 30-day ban This is so crazy I have to ask, you’re serious here? You’ll actually get BANNED for sharing privately over FB messenger?
  - egberts1 5y ago
    Yes, as of recently.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
disgrunt 5y ago
Ironically, this submission is now flagged.
- pcf 5y ago
  So it's not on the front page anymore?
pcf 5y ago
Why is this post "flagged" by Hacker News? The post links to a neutral news story by Newsweek, which is a very reputable source. So what could be problematic about that article? I fear that Hacker News might have a bias which makes them censor posts, exactly like Facebook does in this specific case. I don't want this to be true, but I can't think of any other reasons.
- Wxc2jjJmST9XWWL 5y ago
  Users, especially those able to flag (meaning somewhat "senior" users, not sure about the exact karma threshold), are often annoyed, because the nature of the discussions some topics provoke are foreseeable and mostly questionable. "Great, this will lead to half the comments discussing BLM in a questionable and highly politicized manner on hacker(!) news ; this will surely be productive ... /s" Political and sociological stuff is sometimes here on HN (and technology often overlaps, so they might be relevant of course), but especially those topics that have little chance of inviting meaningful discussion are questionable and might get flagged. I consider "flagging" part of how this site works, and a meaningful feature. Right to free speech is not the "right to be listened to or read by others." HN also isn't Facebook, or Instagram (size, societal influence, scope in topics which are discussed) and you can still read it, upvote it, and comment on it even though it's been flagged. So I don't think it's as bad as you make it out to be. Posts about the banning practices of Social Media (be it Facebook, Youtube, Twitter or other platforms) are regularly featured on HN.
  - himujjal 5y ago
    HN regularly posts non-tech related stuffs. Specially during the last US elections. And don't even ban/flag it if it supports on spectrum.
kebman 5y ago
This is completely outrageous! I tried sharing the link in question in a private message on Facebook Messenger, but the recipient was unable to see it, and instead got a censorship warning. In my country such censorship is illegal, per Norwegian Constitution §100, fourth sentence: “Pre-censorship and other preventive measures cannot be used unless it is needed to protect children and young people from the harmful effects of live images (we're both grown ups). Censorship of letters (messages on Facebook?) cannot be implemented, unless performed by a caretaking institution (jails, mental hospitals, etc).” Who would think that an American company would resort to such invasive, blatant and not least illegal censorship!
- adamrezich 5y ago
  American corporations—once they reach a certain size—do not act with respect to anything resembling supposedly American values. they often seem to exist entirely outside of government overwatch.
pflx 5y ago
Why is this story 'flagged'?
rendall 5y ago
And this story is [flagged]. >:(
lenkite 5y ago
It's becoming more and more clear to most folks around the world that Facebook is effectively an Enforcement Arm of the US Democratic Party. All news that is critical of USDP, its policies or its supporting movements will be banned. All actors that present such news will be blocked. You WILL be Re-Educated for Your Safety.

298 points by pcf 5y ago

pcf 5y ago

On Facebook, you now can't post the link to this New York Post article: https://nypost.com/2021/04/10/inside-blm-co-founder-patrisse-khan-cullors-real-estate-buying-binge/ https://nypost.com/2021/04/10/inside-blm-co-founder-patrisse... FB will also prevent you from posting the Newsweek article which describes how the platform is blocking the New York Post article. Same link as in the title: https://www.newsweek.com/facebook-prevents-sharing-new-york-post-story-black-lives-matter-founder-patrisse-cullors-real-1584050 https://www.newsweek.com/facebook-prevents-sharing-new-york-...

AnimalMuppet 5y ago
Yes, but will they prevent you from posting a link to the HN discussion of the Newsweek article about them blocking the NY Post article? Is it possible that Facebook is a big enough share of the internet that they can block the Streisand Effect? My money is on "no".
- MikeUt 5y ago
  The Streisand effect only happens if you find out about the censorship. There's a million ways to reduce the reach of a story covertly.
  - nitrogen 5y ago
    As one example of how to slow a story: back when Wikileaks was first really trending, Facebook would sometimes just take a really long time to submit a post, or simply error out, if you tried to post a URL from Wikileaks.
- commandlinefan 5y ago
  > posting a link to the HN discussion Well... contentious stories get removed from here, too. This is a topic that gets contentious.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - Causality1 5y ago
    Oh yeah. Every time someone posts an article covering that GPT HN fiasco it gets flagged and removed almost immediately.
    - strombofulous 5y ago
      The what?
      - andrew_v4 5y ago
        I had to look it up too, I had forgotten about it as it was not very interesting: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24164470 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24164470 Note that the link is to an article on HN, not flagged, and the comments pretty clearly debunk the article's claims. TLDR, author wrote some clickbait headlines and used gpt3 to fill in the articles, with an unspecified amount of editing, then some of them got onto the front page of HN and he wrote an article about that.
    - edoceo 5y ago
      what's that one about?
    - 1cvmask 5y ago
      Many stories get flagged on HN as well and I assume for different reasons. Here is one flagged from an hour ago: https://greenwald.substack.com/p/journalists-learning-they-spread https://greenwald.substack.com/p/journalists-learning-they-s... I assumed it was worthy of discussion given the whole censorship debate and concepts of censorship like AI moderation or misinformation or disinformation.
- jasonfarnon 5y ago
  Maybe the Streisand effect is imaginary. Ie you don't know how many stories are successfully suppressed. Just bc barbara streisand bungled concealing something, doesn't mean something as sophisticated as fb, decades later, is as inept. Of course I'd like to think the Streisand effect is real, but I don't think we have any data.
  - ISL 5y ago
    The Streisand effect does not apply if Streisand controls a town square.
- joshuakelly 5y ago
  > Is it possible that Facebook is a big enough share of the internet that they can block the Streisand Effect? My money is on "no". The co-ordinated efforts of a small number of corporate actors probably is. We live in a gov-valley-sov-corp media ecology with fairly sophisticated mechanisms of message control. Maybe the old netheads were wrong about streisand effect - maybe that was a temporary material condition.
reaperducer 5y ago
On Facebook, you now can't post the link to this New York Post article... FB will also prevent you from posting the Newsweek article which describes how the platform is blocking the New York Post article." And amazingly, there are Facebook employees on HN all the time who can't understand why people hate Facebook. I recently spent time with a couple of relatives who only get news from Facebook. I suspect there are millions of other people who do the same. (Because it's free and if it's on the internet, it must be true!) This illustrates that they only know about the things that Facebook wants them to know.
- mbg721 5y ago
  But that isn't the reason for most of the Facebook hate, is it? I thought it was more "I just want my cousin's baby pictures, and you're spamming my feed with outrage porn." The people who actually want to use Facebook for news at all know the dumpster-fire they're going to get.
kebman 5y ago
This is completely outrageous. It's clearly illegal in my country per Norwegian Constitution §100, and I suspect it's illegal in quite a few other European countries too, wherever they have a working defence for freedom of speech, and not least presumably private conversations. (Because it's not so private anymore once third parties interfere in what you're allowed to share among grown ups.)

nvr219 5y ago

Of all the ways Facebook restricts speech on its platform this one is pretty low on the list in my opinion. Seems like that particular article has some content that violates their doxxing policy (whatever that is). Other articles about the same topic can be shared including from Fox.

cousin_it 5y ago
I don't remember FB applying that policy when the NYT doxed Scott.
- BigW1lly 5y ago
  NYT gets a pass, as does the Washington Post.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- lenkite 5y ago
  Liberal News Media can post anything they like. NYPost is on Facebook's scan-list after the Hunter Biden reveals and any critical news will be introspected and blocked.
pcf 5y ago
What in the Newsweek article I linked to would violate any doxxing policy? It only refers to the NY Post article, not even linking to it.

winstonchecksin 5y ago

We had BLM protests in my city. I’m all for the message behind it, but they smashed up mine and my husbands car windows. Should have taken advantage of the lax work from home policy and should have stayed home I guess? I’m no fan of the actual “organization” or the people behind it though, and it’s sad FB is actively censuring information.

nvr219 5y ago
Hi Winston, I want to know something: when cops murder somebody do you make a comment about it on hn or social media or anywhere, or do you only make comments when car windows get smashed?
- weeweww32 5y ago
  13% do 57%
  - barbacoa 5y ago
    What do those numbers mean?
    - weeweww32 5y ago
      FBI crime statistics (13% of the population 57% of the violent crime) https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2017/crime-in-the-u.s.-2017/tables/table-43 https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2017/crime-in-the-u.s.-...
      - bingbong70 5y ago
        And according to exoneration data, innocent African American suspects are: - 7 times more likely to be falsely convicted of murder than innocent white suspects. - 3.5 times more likely ... for sexual assaults. 7x & 3.5x are lowballs since I expect only a relatively small % can actually afford to prove their innocence. Conclusion: Good luck getting accurate crime stats from some of the most historically racist institutions in the USA. Exoneration Stats https://www.law.umich.edu/special/exoneration/Documents/Race_and_Wrongful_Convictions.pdf https://www.law.umich.edu/special/exoneration/Documents/Race...

Barrin92 5y ago

>A Facebook spokesperson told Newsweek, "This content was removed for violating our privacy and personal information policy." The policy forbids articles that share details that could identify a person's financial and residential information, thus violating their privacy rights. That seems like a pretty flimsy excuse given that I see stories about individuals of public interest buying expensive property on Facebook all the time. Just one example, Thiel buying property in Miami.

macksd 5y ago
It's also a flimsy excuse given that Facebook recently handled a leak of personal data poorly and does collect financial and residential information.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
rayiner 5y ago
The identity of house buyers is a matter of public record. Not only is it searchable in multiple state databases (tax, real estate plats) but sale information including buyer and seller is typically published in the newspaper: https://www.chicagotribune.com/real-estate/sc-cons-0903-housing-counsel-20150902-column.html https://www.chicagotribune.com/real-estate/sc-cons-0903-hous... > The information about your home purchase and the terms and conditions of your mortgage loan are recorded among the land records in the jurisdiction where the property is located. These documents are public. In most states, you do not even have to go down to the local recorder of deeds office. You can search online from your living room and get all of the information that is published in your newspaper.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- nitrogen 5y ago
  Do wealthy or famous people use some kind of property management entity to hide their personal info in those records?

schnevets 5y ago

My guess is a slew of "closely monitored" Facebook groups eagerly shared the article the moment it was posted and some machine intelligence auto-moderator immediately added it to a blacklist without any human oversight. The article itself is pretty even-keeled (although has that typical New York Post editorialized spin). The article mentions other, unaffiliated BLM groups have already demanded transparency to where Cullors' income came from, and the amount spent isn't completely absurd for a best-selling writer, culture advisor, and public figure. Blocking the article and spreading buzz about the abbreviated version of the article is definitely bad news. Someone needs to tell the product owners at Facebook that if they want to auto-moderate media across the United States, they should read the wikipedia article about the Streisand effect.

jokethrowaway 5y ago
Considering they did this only for the BLM founder and for Hunter Biden laptop, I would say it's probably human action.
- stretchymantis 5y ago
  It's a reasonable decision to make if ya think about it. First, Facebook has been under massive scrutiny recently for not exerting more control over combating fake news, fake accounts, posts that depict or could incite violence, etc... Second, because she's leader of the BLM movement, I think everyone would agree that she is at a greater than average risk for being targeted with violence. If your position at a company requires you to identify such conditions and attempt to reduce this risk if possible, you'd likely feel a sense of responsibility to block the article. Finally, given their recent string of negative media attention, finding themselves in the spotlight with accusations that they contributed to her harm were she to be attacked, is something they're likely keen on avoiding.
thinkingemote 5y ago
This Newsweek article is also banned. I don't think this one is automatic but I guess it could be. How can one tell?
5y ago

nefitty 5y ago

I’m confused. Are Marxists not supposed to be rich or own property? What would an ideal Marxist do with their wealth, donate it?

thepasswordis 5y ago
Historically yes, Marxists have been extremely wealthy and generally would end up owning substantial amounts of property.
throwawaysea 5y ago
They certainly could donate it, either to private nonprofits, or to the state (https://fiscal.treasury.gov/public/gifts-to-government.html https://fiscal.treasury.gov/public/gifts-to-government.html) - as their ideology would dictate. But the real reason there is outrage about this story is because BLM organizations received hundreds of millions of Dollars in donations in 2020, and it seems highly improbable that a long-time activist has somehow saved up enough to afford multiple millions in real estate purchases. Several BLM chapters rejected the foundation's offers last year and instead issued a public call for increased transparency, claiming they had received almost no funding over the years from the parent organization (https://www.latimes.com/world-nation/story/2021-02-23/ap-exclusive-black-lives-matter-opens-up-about-its-finances https://www.latimes.com/world-nation/story/2021-02-23/ap-exc...). All this suggests there is corruption or grifting happening.
Fogest 5y ago
Isn't part of the problem here that a lot of the BLM donation money has gone to fund stuff like buying their big property? There have also been other scandals regarding misuse of the donation money and it has made many regional BLM groups call to question where the money is going. There is very little accountability and transparency yet we have large companies like Amazon feeding them money via donations.
- peripitea 5y ago
  Why are people implying this money must have come from BLM donations? She wrote a book that was on the NYT bestseller list, and presumably has other income streams beyond her work for BLM. I have no idea whether BLM is allocating their money properly or not, but it seems quite plausible that she has earned all the money in question through legitimate means.

throwawaysea 5y ago

Here is the New York Post's reply to to this (https://nypost.com/2021/04/16/social-media-again-silences-the-post-for-reporting-the-news/ https://nypost.com/2021/04/16/social-media-again-silences-th...): > Our article features some pictures of the properties she bought, but includes no addresses, in fact doesn’t even say the city in some cases. Our reporter compiled the information from public records. It's incredible that they don't allow this information but were completely fine with people discussing Trump's private tax returns, which were illegally obtained. The reality is that big tech companies and social media are not helping ideas live or die by their merit, but rather hiding good ideas from reaching recipients who can decide what they want to do with that information themselves. I think the most offensive part of this censorship, however, is that Facebook is also censoring this link from private messenger conversations. Abigail Shrier put it well (https://twitter.com/AbigailShrier/status/1382774842986954753 https://twitter.com/AbigailShrier/status/1382774842986954753): > So Facebook is now effectively opening your mail and reading the contents for ideologically objectionable material. > Anyone worried?

pvg 5y ago
Trump was the president of the United States, under 24/7 protection then and for the rest of his life. Most people, even fairly notable ones, don't have that luxury. Tabloids publish potentially harmful information with reasonable frequency and FB refusing to republish a tabloid piece is not a meaningful impediment to the dissemination of ideas.
- throwawaysea 5y ago
  You're using speculation and a one-sided determination about publicly available information being harmful to justify censorship. It is completely unreasonable for an organization as large, influential, and powerful as Facebook (or Twitter) to censor ideas from one half of the country due to the biases of their employees and leaders. And yes, it is a meaningful impediment to dissemination of ideas since virtually all our society's conversations today take place on platforms owned by big tech companies. Our fundamental rights to free speech have been eroded by outsourcing the public town square to these companies that act in discriminatory ways. It's time to break them up, treat them as utilities, and regulate them heavily to uphold principles of free speech

temp0826 5y ago

I guess I am further out of the loop than I thought (and imagine I'll get reemed for this comment), but I thought BLM was a movement (with dubious Russian propagandic origins designed to fuel divisiveness, but turned mostly noble), not an organization. How did this org even come to be? I'd love to read an actual timeline or history of this all.

Animats 5y ago
There seem to be multiple Black Lives Matter organizations, going in various directions. Wikipedia tries to sort this out.[1] Occupy Wall Street tried to do that, but they were so disorganized to accomplish much directly. They did, though, firmly establish "the 1%" meme. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Lives_Matter https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Lives_Matter
BigW1lly 5y ago
Slightly unrelated but for people that don't know, the "Black Futures Lab" which is an organization directly tied to BLM, is being funded by the "Chinese Progressive Association." I don't know what this entails but it's nice to see that the Chinese are interested in progressivism here in America.
- dragonwriter 5y ago
  > Slightly unrelated but for people that don't know, the "Black Futures Lab" which is an organization directly tied to BLM, is being funded by the "Chinese Progressive Association." I don't know what this entails but it's nice to see that the Chinese are interested in progressivism here in America. “the Chinese” at issue are people of Chinese ethnicity in (and, largely, citizens of) the US, so, aside from appeal to straight-up anti-Asian racism, why is this so interesting? “Founded in 1972, the Chinese Progressive Association educates, organizes and empowers the low income and working class immigrant Chinese community in San Francisco to build collective power with other oppressed communities to demand better living and working conditions and justice for all people.” https://cpasf.org/about/mission-history/ https://cpasf.org/about/mission-history/

scelerat 5y ago

I first learned this story because it was front-page news on Breitbart and quickly becoming a flashpoint for commentary and erm, "thoughtful analysis" Maybe it got flagged because of factor such as who was sharing it and how it was being commented on? I have no idea how or what any of their moderation tools work, but if one of the flags is "popular with extremist disinformation sites," perhaps that was the trigger?

imgabe 5y ago

I’m sure the 535 million people who recently had their personal information leaked by Facebook - the ones Facebook didn’t even bother to notify - will be glad to hear about Facebook’s strong stance against the sharing of personally identifying information.

himujjal 5y ago
lol. that was good!
stretchymantis 5y ago
Apples to oranges. You're referencing an incident that involves someone stealing the information from Facebook as opposed to Facebook intentionally releasing the information. One has no bearing on the other.

curiousgeorgio 5y ago

Never been much of a fan of Facebook, but at this point it's basically turned into the McDonald's ball pit: A pile of colorful, air-filled items (mostly ads) that lures certain people into coming back because they have nothing better to do than dive into some filth. Adults aren't allowed (no conversations, content, or political views that management doesn't agree with - "it's safe because look, everything around you is squishy and we don't allow things with sharp edges"), and if you spend time there, you're probably going to leave smelling like excrement.

BigW1lly 5y ago

Yes folks. Facebook is politically "neutral", or so they say. Hmm.. I'm not sure everybody. I'm really not so sure about that.

egberts1 5y ago

An automatic 30-day Facebook ban, this will get you. - Even if you posted it “privately” through Facebook messenger, yep, that’s too a first: 30-day ban. - Veteran FB bans.

buzzert 5y ago
> Even if you posted it “privately” through Facebook messenger, yep, that’s too a first: 30-day ban This is so crazy I have to ask, you’re serious here? You’ll actually get BANNED for sharing privately over FB messenger?
- egberts1 5y ago
  Yes, as of recently.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

disgrunt 5y ago

Ironically, this submission is now flagged.

pcf 5y ago
So it's not on the front page anymore?

pcf 5y ago

Why is this post "flagged" by Hacker News? The post links to a neutral news story by Newsweek, which is a very reputable source. So what could be problematic about that article? I fear that Hacker News might have a bias which makes them censor posts, exactly like Facebook does in this specific case. I don't want this to be true, but I can't think of any other reasons.

Wxc2jjJmST9XWWL 5y ago
Users, especially those able to flag (meaning somewhat "senior" users, not sure about the exact karma threshold), are often annoyed, because the nature of the discussions some topics provoke are foreseeable and mostly questionable. "Great, this will lead to half the comments discussing BLM in a questionable and highly politicized manner on hacker(!) news ; this will surely be productive ... /s" Political and sociological stuff is sometimes here on HN (and technology often overlaps, so they might be relevant of course), but especially those topics that have little chance of inviting meaningful discussion are questionable and might get flagged. I consider "flagging" part of how this site works, and a meaningful feature. Right to free speech is not the "right to be listened to or read by others." HN also isn't Facebook, or Instagram (size, societal influence, scope in topics which are discussed) and you can still read it, upvote it, and comment on it even though it's been flagged. So I don't think it's as bad as you make it out to be. Posts about the banning practices of Social Media (be it Facebook, Youtube, Twitter or other platforms) are regularly featured on HN.
- himujjal 5y ago
  HN regularly posts non-tech related stuffs. Specially during the last US elections. And don't even ban/flag it if it supports on spectrum.

kebman 5y ago

This is completely outrageous! I tried sharing the link in question in a private message on Facebook Messenger, but the recipient was unable to see it, and instead got a censorship warning. In my country such censorship is illegal, per Norwegian Constitution §100, fourth sentence: “Pre-censorship and other preventive measures cannot be used unless it is needed to protect children and young people from the harmful effects of live images (we're both grown ups). Censorship of letters (messages on Facebook?) cannot be implemented, unless performed by a caretaking institution (jails, mental hospitals, etc).” Who would think that an American company would resort to such invasive, blatant and not least illegal censorship!

adamrezich 5y ago
American corporations—once they reach a certain size—do not act with respect to anything resembling supposedly American values. they often seem to exist entirely outside of government overwatch.

pflx 5y ago

Why is this story 'flagged'?

rendall 5y ago

And this story is [flagged]. >:(

lenkite 5y ago

It's becoming more and more clear to most folks around the world that Facebook is effectively an Enforcement Arm of the US Democratic Party. All news that is critical of USDP, its policies or its supporting movements will be banned. All actors that present such news will be blocked. You WILL be Re-Educated for Your Safety.