5 ms·

Facebook is fighting against the "huge target on its back" effect. The bigger of an audience you are, the more interest there is in posting abusive content, whe

Facebook is fighting against the "huge target on its back" effect. The bigger of an audience you are, the more interest there is in posting abusive content, whether it's spam, trolling, or something else. The result is usually that you end up digging a bigger and bigger moat around your submission and curation process, so that your service is not completely flooded with crap. I think this is what you are seeing here, rather than censorship of this specific link or cause. I once posted a URL to a forum site I was developing for a community to Facebook, and somehow it set off the spam detector. For the next several months, I would get regular notices that a comment I left on another group's discussion was marked as spam, and was not visible to anyone else. I was posting regular comments, without links, apolitical, not critical of anyone, just adding to the discussion. The notices have since stopped, but I still rarely get any response to my comments, and anything I post to my profile's feed usually gets "ignored" completely, while in the past I'd get a pretty stable number of likes from friends (in the low double digits or high single digits.) As someone who has moderated a decent size sub-reddit in the past, I understand that there's no malicious intent on Facebook's part in this. They are just so much bigger than this one individual that they simply cannot see me, the same way I cannot see a bacteria, and may not notice a tiny gnat.

pjc50 5y ago
Indeed. It's possible that there's someone maliciously flagging your link as spam, but to a great extent Facebook and Twitter etc do not think deeply beyond "does this look like spam / is this getting reported as spam a lot". Try setting up a publiccode Facebook page and see if that gets flagged.
madsbuch 5y ago
They should hire more people to do things they have not successfully automated! Oh, maybe that would carve too much into the profit margin? Luckily we do have governance that can make companies comply with doing ethical business -- even though they don't hit bulls eyes every time.
- IntrepidWorm 5y ago
  Legally, the government can force compliance by large technical companies. In practice, there's no current chance of that happening. Believing that Facebook, Google, Twitter et. al. are beholden to the government given the past several years is somewhat laughable. Government is slow, and tech business is fast. Our politicians cannot keep up, even when they try.
  - b112 5y ago
    Tech corporate change has slown down significantly, in as, the market is now full of entrenched players, and the market place is extremely static compared to 20+ years ago. Plus, 20 years ago only a small number of people were on the internet compared to now. Where did all of Google's, of Facebook's growth come from? An expanding internet. That's over. US adoption rates went from basically single digits, to essentially everyone, over 15+ years. Other places are even pulling away, or becoming more restrictive. EG, China, Russia, and even the EU slapping fines around. Google, Facebook, the massive growth is over here, in their entrenched markets. Meanwhile, more and more politicians grew up with the internet, use it daily, have smart phones, and "get" it. EG, an early adopter at 18, in 2000, would be 40 now. And, adopters of tech at 30, in 2010, are 42 now! During the rise of Google, eg 2000s, even the youngest Senators and Congress members were unaware of email, or the implications of smartphones, ad networks, tracking. Now, they almost all use the Internet daily, see annoying banner ads, notice how they are tracked. Further, some ... before entering politics, will experience the horrors of trying to deal with a real problem with Google, Facebook, and their lack of customer service. My point is, it was not the speed of market change, but instead, that it was a new market. That's over now. The tech market is old.
    - b112 5y ago
      And to speak to this... Electronic computers have essentially been around for a century. The internet is easentially a subset of that market, and bam!, that massive growth. With that growth has come all of this change. Some of this change is not even about the internet, but instead, about storage, capacity growth, and thus centralized control. (Not just govenment, but for example, large banks have a central office approve or deny things, where 50 years ago branches made such decisions). My point is, big change in an existent market, due to new tech. That market has cooled, with repect to change. Another grows. Biotech. Fueled by computing changes, and other tech changes, it will soon be as transformative as the internet was. Just genetically engineer humans as a start. But all the other tech surrounding this, it will make the change the internet wrought seem tiny in comparison. Just imagine furries everywhere, for example. shudder
b112 5y ago
Or maybe, they are trying to cost-save, by using algorithmic methods to block people, and spam? And maybe, just like the little guy, they should curtail, and moderate manually? There is no reason they cannot, other than it costs. And if the "little guy" can manually moderate a forum, and respond to unblock requests, then it is no problem for Facebook, or any other big player too. In truth, Facebook would still save over "the little guy's" moderation methods, as Facebook has the size and scope to develop software tools to significantly improve the workflow of manual moderators. All this "but it is impossible!" blather I hear, re: manual moderation just means "cause our profits would drop a little". Oh boo hoo! Manual moderation is the future.
- lakomen 5y ago
  I ran a site in the mid 2000s with about 2500 forums. The site barely paid the server cost. I was no Facebook ofc. I had about a million visitors per month. So me not being able to monetize this circumstance lead to me manually fighting spam, which took up all my time. Plus answering support requests and continued development of the site as well as maintenance. I can absolutely understand they automate that. It IS impossible to manage the volume of posts and comments. Even with hired labor Facebook can afford. It's not all that simple as you make it to be. How many moderators do you need to moderate millions of people's posts?
  - b112 5y ago
    Facebook has a much more profitable revenue stream than you ever had, and as I mentioned, the ability to code tools to vastly improve the moderation workflow. There is nothing wrong with automatic flagging, only with automatic action after that flagging. And key here is, a way to legitimately dispute. Your case is not a parallel case.
    - Cederfjard 5y ago
      You seem confident in this, so I assume you have run the numbers. How many support agents do you need to moderate 3bn monthly active accounts?
CyanDeparture 5y ago
Totally agree. You're describing Hanlon's razor. No malace behind blocking it, just a result of incompetence.
pmlnr 5y ago
> I understand that there's no malicious intent on Facebook's part in this There mere existence of such system is malicious intent.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
TomSwirly 5y ago
> They are just so much bigger than this one individual that they simply cannot see me, the same way I cannot see a bacteria, and may not notice a tiny gnat. "They're too big to do the right thing, so suck it up." What a terrible idea. If Facebook is really that big, they should be broken up.
- forgotmypw17 5y ago
  The reality is that Facebook is huge, and I personally cannot break them up, nor can I take any action that is likely to make it happen, so I am left with finding the best way to operate in this reality. For me, that means creating my own little corner of the Internet which I'm comfortable in, and limiting my interactions with the giants.

pjc50 5y ago

Indeed. It's possible that there's someone maliciously flagging your link as spam, but to a great extent Facebook and Twitter etc do not think deeply beyond "does this look like spam / is this getting reported as spam a lot". Try setting up a publiccode Facebook page and see if that gets flagged.

madsbuch 5y ago

They should hire more people to do things they have not successfully automated! Oh, maybe that would carve too much into the profit margin? Luckily we do have governance that can make companies comply with doing ethical business -- even though they don't hit bulls eyes every time.

IntrepidWorm 5y ago
Legally, the government can force compliance by large technical companies. In practice, there's no current chance of that happening. Believing that Facebook, Google, Twitter et. al. are beholden to the government given the past several years is somewhat laughable. Government is slow, and tech business is fast. Our politicians cannot keep up, even when they try.
- b112 5y ago
  Tech corporate change has slown down significantly, in as, the market is now full of entrenched players, and the market place is extremely static compared to 20+ years ago. Plus, 20 years ago only a small number of people were on the internet compared to now. Where did all of Google's, of Facebook's growth come from? An expanding internet. That's over. US adoption rates went from basically single digits, to essentially everyone, over 15+ years. Other places are even pulling away, or becoming more restrictive. EG, China, Russia, and even the EU slapping fines around. Google, Facebook, the massive growth is over here, in their entrenched markets. Meanwhile, more and more politicians grew up with the internet, use it daily, have smart phones, and "get" it. EG, an early adopter at 18, in 2000, would be 40 now. And, adopters of tech at 30, in 2010, are 42 now! During the rise of Google, eg 2000s, even the youngest Senators and Congress members were unaware of email, or the implications of smartphones, ad networks, tracking. Now, they almost all use the Internet daily, see annoying banner ads, notice how they are tracked. Further, some ... before entering politics, will experience the horrors of trying to deal with a real problem with Google, Facebook, and their lack of customer service. My point is, it was not the speed of market change, but instead, that it was a new market. That's over now. The tech market is old.
  - b112 5y ago
    And to speak to this... Electronic computers have essentially been around for a century. The internet is easentially a subset of that market, and bam!, that massive growth. With that growth has come all of this change. Some of this change is not even about the internet, but instead, about storage, capacity growth, and thus centralized control. (Not just govenment, but for example, large banks have a central office approve or deny things, where 50 years ago branches made such decisions). My point is, big change in an existent market, due to new tech. That market has cooled, with repect to change. Another grows. Biotech. Fueled by computing changes, and other tech changes, it will soon be as transformative as the internet was. Just genetically engineer humans as a start. But all the other tech surrounding this, it will make the change the internet wrought seem tiny in comparison. Just imagine furries everywhere, for example. shudder

b112 5y ago

Or maybe, they are trying to cost-save, by using algorithmic methods to block people, and spam? And maybe, just like the little guy, they should curtail, and moderate manually? There is no reason they cannot, other than it costs. And if the "little guy" can manually moderate a forum, and respond to unblock requests, then it is no problem for Facebook, or any other big player too. In truth, Facebook would still save over "the little guy's" moderation methods, as Facebook has the size and scope to develop software tools to significantly improve the workflow of manual moderators. All this "but it is impossible!" blather I hear, re: manual moderation just means "cause our profits would drop a little". Oh boo hoo! Manual moderation is the future.

lakomen 5y ago
I ran a site in the mid 2000s with about 2500 forums. The site barely paid the server cost. I was no Facebook ofc. I had about a million visitors per month. So me not being able to monetize this circumstance lead to me manually fighting spam, which took up all my time. Plus answering support requests and continued development of the site as well as maintenance. I can absolutely understand they automate that. It IS impossible to manage the volume of posts and comments. Even with hired labor Facebook can afford. It's not all that simple as you make it to be. How many moderators do you need to moderate millions of people's posts?
- b112 5y ago
  Facebook has a much more profitable revenue stream than you ever had, and as I mentioned, the ability to code tools to vastly improve the moderation workflow. There is nothing wrong with automatic flagging, only with automatic action after that flagging. And key here is, a way to legitimately dispute. Your case is not a parallel case.
  - Cederfjard 5y ago
    You seem confident in this, so I assume you have run the numbers. How many support agents do you need to moderate 3bn monthly active accounts?

CyanDeparture 5y ago

Totally agree. You're describing Hanlon's razor. No malace behind blocking it, just a result of incompetence.

pmlnr 5y ago

> I understand that there's no malicious intent on Facebook's part in this There mere existence of such system is malicious intent.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

TomSwirly 5y ago

> They are just so much bigger than this one individual that they simply cannot see me, the same way I cannot see a bacteria, and may not notice a tiny gnat. "They're too big to do the right thing, so suck it up." What a terrible idea. If Facebook is really that big, they should be broken up.

forgotmypw17 5y ago
The reality is that Facebook is huge, and I personally cannot break them up, nor can I take any action that is likely to make it happen, so I am left with finding the best way to operate in this reality. For me, that means creating my own little corner of the Internet which I'm comfortable in, and limiting my interactions with the giants.