5 ms·
Hold your horses. It is not "the internet". It is private chat. You need to understand difference between communication that is meant to be public from one tha
by lmilcin 5y ago
Hold your horses. It is not "the internet". It is private chat.
You need to understand difference between communication that is meant to be public from one that is meant to be private.
Law makes clear distinction.
- cmeacham98 5y agoFacebook is not an outlier in this case: Reddit shadowbans affect DMs too. Not sure why you brought the law up, as far as I know what FB is doing is 100% legal.
- lmilcin 5y agoDo you not understand what private communication is and how it is different from Reddit?
- cmeacham98 5y agoSerious question: What's the difference, for your definition of "private communication", between a FB Messenger message and Reddit DM? I can't think of any reason one would be considered private and the other not.
- lmilcin 5y agoSame way I can expect my phone operator to not change meaning of my texts between me and my wife but allow me to block messages from strangers I don't want to be bothered by.
- cmeacham98 5y agoThis doesn't answer my question, which I will restate: Why is FB Messenger 'private' while Reddit DMs are 'not private'?
- kevin_thibedeau 5y agoFacebook is not a common carrier. You aren't having a private conversation on any of its properties. You're communicating with Facebook and they relay non-public messages to recipients.
- lmilcin 5y agoIt is private conversation because it is not meant to be made public by its users. Not because Facebook isn't "common carrier". Piece of paper isn't common carrier. If I write a note to my wife and give it myself it is private because I wanted and expected it private. If I taped it to a billboard it means I no longer expect it private and it is public.
- otterley 5y agoYou’re mixing up two legal concepts: expectation of privacy and common carriers. Despite phone companies being common carriers (and thus being required to carry communications without censoring them), the Supreme Court has made it clear that people should have no reasonable expectation of privacy when they relay communications through a pay phone. The reasoning was that you give up your right to privacy when you involve a third party to your conversation. See Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967). So the two can coexist. Only common carriers are forced to carry speech unimpeded, regardless of its content. Expectation of privacy is irrelevant to common carrier status. The former is about whether it can be intercepted. The latter is about whether it can be impeded.
- sjy 5y agoKatz v. United States held the opposite: “The Government’s activities in electronically listening to and recording the petitioner’s words violated the privacy upon which he justifiably relied while using the telephone booth and thus constituted a ‘search and seizure’ within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment.” More recent decisions suggest that the third party doctrine, according to which there is no legitimate expectation of privacy in information voluntarily turned over to third parties, is unlikely to apply to private messages on Facebook: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Warshak https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Warshak https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carpenter_v._United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carpenter_v._United_States
- graeme 5y agoReddit shadowbans in private chat too. Gmail does shadowban equivalent. HN doesn’t have private chat, but I imagine they’d use the tool if they could. If you’ve never moderated anything halfway popular you have no idea what “uncensored” means in 2021. It isn’t early 90s usenet. It’s endless spam, porn, etc