8 ms·
Even if it's automated, it's still not great for Facebook that they are treating EFF as a spam link. That's a story in itself.
by colordrops 3y ago
Even if it's automated, it's still not great for Facebook that they are treating EFF as a spam link. That's a story in itself.
- tshaddox 3y agoIf it's a malfunctioning spam detection algorithm, and the malfunction has nothing to do with Facebook's actual policies about what constitutes spam, it's really not a story in itself, or at least no more of a story than any other downtime.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- lawlessone 3y agoYou can probably make it do this with any link if you post it enough multiple times in quick succession.
- freedomben 3y agoI'm a paying supporter of the EFF, so they are important to me. But I disagree, it would be a story if this was a regular occurrence for sure, but moderation is a hugely complex, distributed, and opaque process. If somebody found code like `post.censor() if post.mentions("EFF")` then yes, it's an outrage. But it's not gonna be that simple. The real story is probably "when using statistics to make decisions, sometimes things that shouldn't get flagged get flagged, and vice versa"
- tqi 3y agoAlso important to note that it's not as simple as having a whitelist of domains that are exempt, because at Facebook scale that immediately becomes an avenue for accusations of bias (see all of the noise around the twitter files).
- gaius_baltar 3y ago> Even if it's automated, it's still not great for Facebook that they are treating EFF as a spam link. That's a story in itself. Exactly! This is also one of the most traditional domain names (Creation Date: 1990-10-10T04:00:00Z). I can assume FB has a lot of people working on spam prevention and they should have reviewed all old domains, relevant NGOs, political parties, country-level governments, etc. by now and chose to not whitelist EFF. If it was malice or incompetence it is a matter of (endless?) discussion, however.