5 ms·

Facebook banned website that links to critical article, claims phishing

114 points by jrflowers 3y ago

vorticalbox 3y ago
On one hand it's not great to censor but on the other it's their platform and they would like to protect it.
- piva00 3y ago
  They shouldn't be underhanded about it then, misrepresenting as phishing just make them even more spineless. If they had been clear about it, posting a warning "we consider this post detrimental to our business" go ahead and censor it, being underhanded just made it stink much, much more.
  - LocalH 3y ago
    They won't do that because the path they're taking now has the "air" of a process run amok, that wasn't "intended" to be used for this purpose. If they outright said "we're going to censor content that is critical of Facebook" there would be such a massive outcry that it could potentially mark the end of Facebook.
- smt88 3y ago
  They have a right to protect their platform, and we have a responsibility to criticize them publicly when they lie about it or do it in a harmful way.
sud069 3y ago
I have seen ads on facebook that are phising links. lol
- partitioned 3y ago
  exactly. have you ever tried to watch youtube without adblock? I started reporting them when they temporarily were able to get around adblock because they were obvious scams, but thats 90% of the ads on there. google/facebook ads are barely above pornsite advertisements as of 2024. the only people clicking on them are extremely low info olds
  - passwordoops 3y ago
    My funniest instance was reporting an obvious crypto scam as potential SPAM or fraud to LinkedIn. It featured Wayne Gretzky promoting a can't-miss investment of lifetime. It took less than 10 minutes for the Safety and Security team to thank me for the report, but that the ad was determined to be legit
    - kstrauser 3y ago
      Legit means the payment cleared.
    - lupire 3y ago
      Wayne Gretsky is on MGM gambling ads on TV. Putting us image in crypto scams isn't any worse than his "legit" ads.
      - partitioned 3y ago
        Seems a little different, because MGM admits it's gambling, while the other claims to be an investment
  - sud069 3y ago
    Those ads on facebook for some random dating site, i had stumbled upon 10-15 ads in few hours while scrolling reels. I reported each one of them, until I got tired and uninstalled facebook ffs. The weird thing about some of those ads were full NSFW content. Literally Porn. During reporitng the ads, it says "It was targeted to People from the age of 19 - 30, living in country <Some Asian Country>. It was a third world country. It seems like they don't fukin care who promotes what contents in such countries.
Aurornis 3y ago
This is the entire text of the linked Bluesky post (which is part of several threads): > Looks like it a few domains, including thehandbasket.co, were mistakenly classified as a phishing site, which has since been corrected as Andy mentioned. Unfortunately, at our scale, we get false positives on safety measures all the time. Apologies for the trouble. False positive that was already corrected at the time is was posted on Bluesky and corrected long before it was posted here on HN. This all happened and was fixed days ago, but people are still trying to post headlines that imply something more nefarious is still happening. There is no story here, just journalists trying to stir up controversy and imply malice. Unfortunately this is a valid tactic for driving attention to small substacks and similar outlets who wouldn’t otherwise be noteworthy. Getting “banned” by Facebook is the most effective thing they could ask for to gain more exposure, as evidenced by the way this has shot to number 1 on Hacker News despite having been corrected days ago.
- barbazoo 3y ago
  > Unfortunately, at our scale, we get false positives on safety measures all the time. At this point, the “at our scale …” argument is such an arrogant excuse for doing damage all over the world. If I can’t ensure people are treated fairly, don’t get harassed, etc, maybe it’s not a viable business then. Stop offloading all kinds of externalities onto the public.
  - root_axis 3y ago
    The "doing damage all over the world" framing makes no sense here. Blocking a link on your own website is not an externality by definition.
    - barbazoo 3y ago
      Think of Myanmar https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2022/09/myanmar-facebooks-systems-promoted-violence-against-rohingya-meta-owes-reparations-new-report/ https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2022/09/myanmar-faceb...
ChrisArchitect 3y ago
Related: original Kansas Reflector post: Facebook blocked local news site for posting an editorial critical of them https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39936960 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39936960
bluelouie 3y ago
This reminds me of how this website that a friend runs was banned from Facebook: https://www.rs21.org.uk https://www.rs21.org.uk (small UK socialist group) After they posted - guess what - an article critical of Facebook: "How Facebook tried to censor indigenous struggle" https://www.rs21.org.uk/2020/10/07/how-facebook-tried-to-censor-indigenous-struggle/ https://www.rs21.org.uk/2020/10/07/how-facebook-tried-to-cen... Fits a pattern, I think...
hit8run 3y ago
Irony is that you post this on hackernews that is known to censor critical things that could affect ycombinator negatively. If you use a centralized service be prepared to get censored by the providing overlord if it goes against his agenda.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
tata19999 3y ago
[dead]
- tata0909 3y ago
  tata19999

114 points by jrflowers 3y ago

vorticalbox 3y ago

On one hand it's not great to censor but on the other it's their platform and they would like to protect it.

piva00 3y ago
They shouldn't be underhanded about it then, misrepresenting as phishing just make them even more spineless. If they had been clear about it, posting a warning "we consider this post detrimental to our business" go ahead and censor it, being underhanded just made it stink much, much more.
- LocalH 3y ago
  They won't do that because the path they're taking now has the "air" of a process run amok, that wasn't "intended" to be used for this purpose. If they outright said "we're going to censor content that is critical of Facebook" there would be such a massive outcry that it could potentially mark the end of Facebook.
smt88 3y ago
They have a right to protect their platform, and we have a responsibility to criticize them publicly when they lie about it or do it in a harmful way.

sud069 3y ago

I have seen ads on facebook that are phising links. lol

partitioned 3y ago
exactly. have you ever tried to watch youtube without adblock? I started reporting them when they temporarily were able to get around adblock because they were obvious scams, but thats 90% of the ads on there. google/facebook ads are barely above pornsite advertisements as of 2024. the only people clicking on them are extremely low info olds
- passwordoops 3y ago
  My funniest instance was reporting an obvious crypto scam as potential SPAM or fraud to LinkedIn. It featured Wayne Gretzky promoting a can't-miss investment of lifetime. It took less than 10 minutes for the Safety and Security team to thank me for the report, but that the ad was determined to be legit
  - kstrauser 3y ago
    Legit means the payment cleared.
  - lupire 3y ago
    Wayne Gretsky is on MGM gambling ads on TV. Putting us image in crypto scams isn't any worse than his "legit" ads.
    - partitioned 3y ago
      Seems a little different, because MGM admits it's gambling, while the other claims to be an investment
- sud069 3y ago
  Those ads on facebook for some random dating site, i had stumbled upon 10-15 ads in few hours while scrolling reels. I reported each one of them, until I got tired and uninstalled facebook ffs. The weird thing about some of those ads were full NSFW content. Literally Porn. During reporitng the ads, it says "It was targeted to People from the age of 19 - 30, living in country <Some Asian Country>. It was a third world country. It seems like they don't fukin care who promotes what contents in such countries.

Aurornis 3y ago

This is the entire text of the linked Bluesky post (which is part of several threads): > Looks like it a few domains, including thehandbasket.co, were mistakenly classified as a phishing site, which has since been corrected as Andy mentioned. Unfortunately, at our scale, we get false positives on safety measures all the time. Apologies for the trouble. False positive that was already corrected at the time is was posted on Bluesky and corrected long before it was posted here on HN. This all happened and was fixed days ago, but people are still trying to post headlines that imply something more nefarious is still happening. There is no story here, just journalists trying to stir up controversy and imply malice. Unfortunately this is a valid tactic for driving attention to small substacks and similar outlets who wouldn’t otherwise be noteworthy. Getting “banned” by Facebook is the most effective thing they could ask for to gain more exposure, as evidenced by the way this has shot to number 1 on Hacker News despite having been corrected days ago.

barbazoo 3y ago
> Unfortunately, at our scale, we get false positives on safety measures all the time. At this point, the “at our scale …” argument is such an arrogant excuse for doing damage all over the world. If I can’t ensure people are treated fairly, don’t get harassed, etc, maybe it’s not a viable business then. Stop offloading all kinds of externalities onto the public.
- root_axis 3y ago
  The "doing damage all over the world" framing makes no sense here. Blocking a link on your own website is not an externality by definition.
  - barbazoo 3y ago
    Think of Myanmar https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2022/09/myanmar-facebooks-systems-promoted-violence-against-rohingya-meta-owes-reparations-new-report/ https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2022/09/myanmar-faceb...

ChrisArchitect 3y ago

Related: original Kansas Reflector post: Facebook blocked local news site for posting an editorial critical of them https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39936960 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39936960

bluelouie 3y ago

This reminds me of how this website that a friend runs was banned from Facebook: https://www.rs21.org.uk https://www.rs21.org.uk (small UK socialist group) After they posted - guess what - an article critical of Facebook: "How Facebook tried to censor indigenous struggle" https://www.rs21.org.uk/2020/10/07/how-facebook-tried-to-censor-indigenous-struggle/ https://www.rs21.org.uk/2020/10/07/how-facebook-tried-to-cen... Fits a pattern, I think...

hit8run 3y ago

Irony is that you post this on hackernews that is known to censor critical things that could affect ycombinator negatively. If you use a centralized service be prepared to get censored by the providing overlord if it goes against his agenda.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

tata19999 3y ago

[dead]

tata0909 3y ago
tata19999