4 ms·

It's censorship, and more specifically it's corporate censorship. When it comes to ranking a feed, you have more of an argument, but blocking direct and suppose

by strken 5y ago

It's censorship, and more specifically it's corporate censorship. When it comes to ranking a feed, you have more of an argument, but blocking direct and supposedly "private" messages on the basis of their content is censorship.

eyelidlessness 5y ago
Okay. I'll concede, Facebook is controlling what content is sent on Facebook's own network and services. How. Dare. They? I should be able to send whatever I see fit on their DMs right? Child porn? Coordinated mass violence? Pictures of patterns of holes that upset people with trypophobia? Credit scams? How dare they silence this Nigerian prince?
- fragileone 5y ago
  You're moving goalposts. First you claimed that this wasn't censorship, now you're saying okay it is but it's fine for them to do so here. Censorship is unacceptable in private messages, there's already reporting functionality.
  - eyelidlessness 5y ago
    I’m saying none of those causes is censorship, Facebook has no obligation to send your private messages to anyone, and I was glib enough in saying so to include my own personal squick about patterns of holes in things to emphasize the point. If Facebook doesn’t want to send my message to you, that’s their choice. It’s not my right to send messages through Facebook and expect them to be delivered to you. Even if they contain horrific circles in a pattern that makes me squirm just describing them.
- mistermann 5y ago
  Maybe I'm misreading your message, but you seem to be writing as if your counterpart in the discussion believes these things, despite saying nothing of the kind. Am I misreading you?
  - eyelidlessness 5y ago
    No I’m saying “censorship” as a rallying cry around moderation of a platform is effectively demanding permission for those. If you say a private company can’t moderate private messages it hosts, you’re saying it must allow private exchange of child porn. And harassing people with pictures of patterns of holes they find unnerving. And basically any harmful behavior you can imagine. If Facebook wants to provide private messaging that’s actually so private they can’t know its content, that’s another story. But if they’re hosting messaging they know about, they’re entirely within their rights to decide what content is appropriate on their own resources.
    - Thorrez 5y ago
      >No I’m saying “censorship” as a rallying cry around moderation of a platform is effectively demanding permission for those. I don't think so. The 2 specific situations you list are different. For child porn, it's illegal. So if Facebook blocks it, it's the government choosing what to censor, not Facebook. And I think it's possible to prevent "harassing people with pictures of patterns of holes they find unnerving" without Facebook censoring content. Facebook has a block functionality, and the receiver could block the sender. As for the sender making multiple accounts, if Facebook blocks that, that's not censorship of content, that's enforcing a 1 account policy.
    - strken 5y ago
      I wasn't saying any of those things. I was responding to the outrageous claim that this wasn't censorship. Facebook is also allowed to censor child porn in private messages, and that they do so is a good thing, yet it's still censorship.
    - mistermann 5y ago
      > No I’m saying “censorship” as a rallying cry Is it possible to use the word censorship without it being a rallying cry (which then seems to somehow ~bend reality)?

by strken 5y ago

eyelidlessness 5y ago

Okay. I'll concede, Facebook is controlling what content is sent on Facebook's own network and services. How. Dare. They? I should be able to send whatever I see fit on their DMs right? Child porn? Coordinated mass violence? Pictures of patterns of holes that upset people with trypophobia? Credit scams? How dare they silence this Nigerian prince?

fragileone 5y ago
You're moving goalposts. First you claimed that this wasn't censorship, now you're saying okay it is but it's fine for them to do so here. Censorship is unacceptable in private messages, there's already reporting functionality.
- eyelidlessness 5y ago
  I’m saying none of those causes is censorship, Facebook has no obligation to send your private messages to anyone, and I was glib enough in saying so to include my own personal squick about patterns of holes in things to emphasize the point. If Facebook doesn’t want to send my message to you, that’s their choice. It’s not my right to send messages through Facebook and expect them to be delivered to you. Even if they contain horrific circles in a pattern that makes me squirm just describing them.
mistermann 5y ago
Maybe I'm misreading your message, but you seem to be writing as if your counterpart in the discussion believes these things, despite saying nothing of the kind. Am I misreading you?
- eyelidlessness 5y ago
  No I’m saying “censorship” as a rallying cry around moderation of a platform is effectively demanding permission for those. If you say a private company can’t moderate private messages it hosts, you’re saying it must allow private exchange of child porn. And harassing people with pictures of patterns of holes they find unnerving. And basically any harmful behavior you can imagine. If Facebook wants to provide private messaging that’s actually so private they can’t know its content, that’s another story. But if they’re hosting messaging they know about, they’re entirely within their rights to decide what content is appropriate on their own resources.
  - Thorrez 5y ago
    >No I’m saying “censorship” as a rallying cry around moderation of a platform is effectively demanding permission for those. I don't think so. The 2 specific situations you list are different. For child porn, it's illegal. So if Facebook blocks it, it's the government choosing what to censor, not Facebook. And I think it's possible to prevent "harassing people with pictures of patterns of holes they find unnerving" without Facebook censoring content. Facebook has a block functionality, and the receiver could block the sender. As for the sender making multiple accounts, if Facebook blocks that, that's not censorship of content, that's enforcing a 1 account policy.
  - strken 5y ago
    I wasn't saying any of those things. I was responding to the outrageous claim that this wasn't censorship. Facebook is also allowed to censor child porn in private messages, and that they do so is a good thing, yet it's still censorship.
  - mistermann 5y ago
    > No I’m saying “censorship” as a rallying cry Is it possible to use the word censorship without it being a rallying cry (which then seems to somehow ~bend reality)?