6 ms·
> Starting on January 19, 2025 Facebook's internal policy makers decided that Linux is malware and labelled groups associated with Linux as being "cybersecurity
by oneeyedpigeon 2y ago
> 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".
That's quite the statement to make without any source to back it up; I wonder what the evidence for this is.
- paulnpace 2y ago[flagged]
- oneeyedpigeon 2y agoI can't speak for anyone else, it just seems that statement is a very specific accusation with nothing backing it up. I'm curious, that's all. It is very much possible that there's some evidence of policy makers discussing this, or even a public statement; nothing to do with "proving a negative".
- paulnpace 2y ago[flagged]
- oneeyedpigeon 2y ago[flagged]
- paulnpace 2y ago[flagged]
- jsnell 2y agoHow is this asking to prove a negative?
- soneil 2y agoSurely this is entirely the opposite of proving a negative? It's a direct, testable, provable claim.
- lofenfew 2y agoThey are the source. A journo could write an article and mention distrowatch as where they got their information from. If you don't trust them - great, you can do your own research. > I wonder what the evidence for it is Maybe "Any posts mentioning DistroWatch and multiple groups associated with Linux and Linux discussions have either been shut down or had many of their posts removed" and "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" What do you think evidence consists of if not that?
- MrDresden 2y agoI thoroughly dislike Facebook as much as the next person, but none of what you quoted constitutes evidence for a ban on discussing Linux on the platform. Reading the post, it sounds like this may rather be because of incorrect categorization of DistroWatch and links to it than an outright ban on Linux discussion. So yet another issue with Facebook's content moderation methods.
- taurknaut 2y agoDoes the distinction matter?
- themaninthedark 2y agoYes; the scope of censorship over discussing Linux at all vs the scope of censorship of linking to Distro Watch is vastly different. If Facebook was removing links to an Pro-Catholic website for some reason but still allowed the discussion of Catholicism, Catholic Church groups, etc. You would be daft to claim that FaceBook is banning all Catholics and discussion of thereof.
- valicord 2y agoThe evidence shows that Facebook is blocking Linux related posts, while the initial "policy makers decided" claim is significantly stronger and is not supported by anything. Much more obvious explanation is that some buggy ML classifier has added the distrowatch website to the spam list which triggers automated enforcement without any policy maker involvement.
- dec0dedab0de 2y agoI assumed that part was conjecture. However, if you define “internal policy makers” broadly from the users perspective, then it’s provably true from the result. I get that it is worded like it was people in a boardroom making a decision after having a debate. However an overworked admin, or an AI Moderator could just as easily be lumped together as “internal policy makers” from the users perspective.
- buyucu 2y agothe evidence is that facebook is blocking this content.
- amatecha 2y agoProbably this: "I've tried to appeal the ban and was told the next day that Linux-related material is staying on the cybersecurity filter." (from the OP) .. Of course, it would have helped if the post author quoted FB's response so we could judge that for ourselves.