5 ms·

Surely that's the result of a rogue moderator's overreach.

by Igrom 2y ago

jdxcode 2y ago
I agree, overzealousness sounds like the most likely reason for this. > Starting on January 19, 2025 Facebook's internal policy makers decided that Linux is malware and labelled groups associated with Linux as being "cybersecurity threats". The author gives no evidence to back up on this claim.
- paulnpace 2y ago
  > The author gives no evidence to back up on this claim. How can one provide evidence that something is not being displayed on a website? Isn't this, like, a formal fallacy, or something? > We've been hearing all week from readers who say they can no longer post about Linux on Facebook or share links to DistroWatch. Some people have reported their accounts have been locked or limited for posting about Linux.
  - fau 2y ago
    You've implied it's impossible to give such evidence and then you've immediately proved yourself wrong by giving it. But anyway, they're not asking for evidence that something isn't being displayed. They're asking for evidence that 'Starting on January 19, 2025 Facebook's internal policy makers decided that Linux is malware and labelled groups associated with Linux as being "cybersecurity threats"'.
- lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 2y ago
  > I agree, overzealousness sounds like the most likely reason for this. Who was overzealous if not one or more internal policy makers?
  - bagels 2y ago
    Machine learning algorithms? Someone hacked Facebook to block Linux? So, there are other options besides overzealous policy makers.
    - lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 2y ago
      That sounds like a distinction without a difference. It doesn’t seem to meaningfully refute the point; it’s just hung up on the semantics of “policy-maker”. Who cares that the policy-maker is an algorithm?
rnd0 2y ago
I attempted to post the distrowatch link to my feed and it was blocked as 'spam'. That seems pretty automated to me.
blast 2y ago
Or some overly optimistic attempt at AI moderation.
not2b 2y ago
Their "moderators" are bots, not humans, so it seems that the bots have "decided" that Linux-related links are malware or something.

Surely that's the result of a rogue moderator's overreach.

by Igrom 2y ago

Surely that's the result of a rogue moderator's overreach.

I agree, overzealousness sounds like the most likely reason for this. > Starting on January 19, 2025 Facebook's internal policy makers decided that Linux is malware and labelled groups associated with Linux as being "cybersecurity threats". The author gives no evidence to back up on this claim.

paulnpace 2y ago
> The author gives no evidence to back up on this claim. How can one provide evidence that something is not being displayed on a website? Isn't this, like, a formal fallacy, or something? > We've been hearing all week from readers who say they can no longer post about Linux on Facebook or share links to DistroWatch. Some people have reported their accounts have been locked or limited for posting about Linux.
- fau 2y ago
  You've implied it's impossible to give such evidence and then you've immediately proved yourself wrong by giving it. But anyway, they're not asking for evidence that something isn't being displayed. They're asking for evidence that 'Starting on January 19, 2025 Facebook's internal policy makers decided that Linux is malware and labelled groups associated with Linux as being "cybersecurity threats"'.
lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 2y ago
> I agree, overzealousness sounds like the most likely reason for this. Who was overzealous if not one or more internal policy makers?
- bagels 2y ago
  Machine learning algorithms? Someone hacked Facebook to block Linux? So, there are other options besides overzealous policy makers.
  - lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 2y ago
    That sounds like a distinction without a difference. It doesn’t seem to meaningfully refute the point; it’s just hung up on the semantics of “policy-maker”. Who cares that the policy-maker is an algorithm?

rnd0 2y ago

I attempted to post the distrowatch link to my feed and it was blocked as 'spam'. That seems pretty automated to me.

blast 2y ago

Or some overly optimistic attempt at AI moderation.

not2b 2y ago

Their "moderators" are bots, not humans, so it seems that the bots have "decided" that Linux-related links are malware or something.