6 ms·

I do confirm that i explicitly tested this with my super unused facebook account, just stating that i was testing restrictions on talking about Linux, the text

I do confirm that i explicitly tested this with my super unused facebook account, just stating that i was testing restrictions on talking about Linux, the text was: """I don't often (or ever) post anything on Facebook, but when I do, it's to check if they really, as announced on hckrnews, are restricting discussing Linux. So here's a few links to trigger that: https://www.qubes-os.org/downloads/ https://www.qubes-os.org/downloads/ ... https://www.debian.org/releases/stable/ https://www.debian.org/releases/stable/""" and indeed within seconds I got the following warning: """ We removed your post The post may use misleading links or content to trick people to visit, or stay on, a website. """. This is one massive wow considering how much Facebook runs on Linux.

ashoeafoot 2y ago
Relicense the kernel with license that prevents usage for dystopiadistros?
- froh 2y ago
  relicensing needs a cla.
- tobylane 2y ago
  That's non-free. Quoting from https://opensource.org/osd https://opensource.org/osd > 6. No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the program in a specific field of endeavor. For example, it may not restrict the program from being used in a business, or from being used for genetic research.
  - jdiff 2y ago
    nonfree according to OSI and several other organizations. If you have strong feelings that direct you in such a way, there's no reason to hold their opinion in sacred regard. Multiple philosophies can coexist. The DFSG and the FSF's schools of thought for instance are often in conflict and yet the world keeps on spinning. Your custom license built with your own philosophy will still interoperate just fine with many common open source licenses, and as a bonus for some, will ward off corporations with cautious lawyers who don't like unknown software licenses.
  - robinsonb5 2y ago
    Indeed. One of the most important freedoms you grant to others by using an Open Source license is the freedom to do something you might not like.
  - taurknaut 2y ago
    Non-open, you mean. OSI never tried to contribute to the free software movement.
- Propelloni 2y ago
  What is a "dystopiadistro"? It's not like that I don't know the individual words, but combined? What is "dystopiadistro" supposed to mean?
  - ashoeafoot 2y ago
    Companies that actively decay society for profit? PS: Compamies that support change away from lawbased society also violate the license by virtue of it being based on laws and rules
zdp7 2y ago
I just tried the same two URLs. I also got a message saying the post was removed.
krisoft 2y ago
A user who never posts anything suddenly posting a message containing urls might in itself be a signal that something is weird. It would be an interestint test to post something not linux related and see how that fares.
- darig 2y ago
  [dead]
- Vrondi 2y ago
  Any user ever posting URLs should never ever be removed. The Web should be allowed to exist. This is utterly despicable behavior.
  - quesera 2y ago
    Insanity. Absolutely. Maybe. Clearly there's a need for some kind of bad-url blocker. You don't want compromised accounts (or clueless people) sharing nefarious links to trusted friends. And clearly blocking distrowatch etc is bizarre overreach. And probably not intended behaviour -- it just makes no sense. The web exists just fine. Using Facebook as a front end to the web is a terrible idea though.
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
  - seattle_spring 2y ago
    The internet would look like the spam folder of a compromised email address. No thanks.
    - lostlogin 2y ago
      When you browse without a Pihole and a blocker, it does.
    - mardef 2y ago
      Not if I only seeing updates from the people I actually know and explicitly connected to on the social graph. The current problem exists because the content is chosen algorithmically
amatecha 2y ago
I'd be curious if it's blocked if someone links just debian.org . I can definitely see a [totally overzealous] "security filter" blocking Qubes, but Debian is one of the most popular Linux distros in the world, so that would be especially ridiculous.
lemper 2y ago
giving you another confirmation, mate. zuck removed my post about qubeos.
richrichardsson 2y ago
Opposite anecdata point: posted a link to DistroWatch and mentioned Linux without issue.

ashoeafoot 2y ago

Relicense the kernel with license that prevents usage for dystopiadistros?

froh 2y ago
relicensing needs a cla.
tobylane 2y ago
That's non-free. Quoting from https://opensource.org/osd https://opensource.org/osd > 6. No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the program in a specific field of endeavor. For example, it may not restrict the program from being used in a business, or from being used for genetic research.
- jdiff 2y ago
  nonfree according to OSI and several other organizations. If you have strong feelings that direct you in such a way, there's no reason to hold their opinion in sacred regard. Multiple philosophies can coexist. The DFSG and the FSF's schools of thought for instance are often in conflict and yet the world keeps on spinning. Your custom license built with your own philosophy will still interoperate just fine with many common open source licenses, and as a bonus for some, will ward off corporations with cautious lawyers who don't like unknown software licenses.
- robinsonb5 2y ago
  Indeed. One of the most important freedoms you grant to others by using an Open Source license is the freedom to do something you might not like.
- taurknaut 2y ago
  Non-open, you mean. OSI never tried to contribute to the free software movement.
Propelloni 2y ago
What is a "dystopiadistro"? It's not like that I don't know the individual words, but combined? What is "dystopiadistro" supposed to mean?
- ashoeafoot 2y ago
  Companies that actively decay society for profit? PS: Compamies that support change away from lawbased society also violate the license by virtue of it being based on laws and rules

zdp7 2y ago

I just tried the same two URLs. I also got a message saying the post was removed.

krisoft 2y ago

A user who never posts anything suddenly posting a message containing urls might in itself be a signal that something is weird. It would be an interestint test to post something not linux related and see how that fares.

darig 2y ago
[dead]
Vrondi 2y ago
Any user ever posting URLs should never ever be removed. The Web should be allowed to exist. This is utterly despicable behavior.
- quesera 2y ago
  Insanity. Absolutely. Maybe. Clearly there's a need for some kind of bad-url blocker. You don't want compromised accounts (or clueless people) sharing nefarious links to trusted friends. And clearly blocking distrowatch etc is bizarre overreach. And probably not intended behaviour -- it just makes no sense. The web exists just fine. Using Facebook as a front end to the web is a terrible idea though.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
- seattle_spring 2y ago
  The internet would look like the spam folder of a compromised email address. No thanks.
  - lostlogin 2y ago
    When you browse without a Pihole and a blocker, it does.
  - mardef 2y ago
    Not if I only seeing updates from the people I actually know and explicitly connected to on the social graph. The current problem exists because the content is chosen algorithmically

amatecha 2y ago

I'd be curious if it's blocked if someone links just debian.org . I can definitely see a [totally overzealous] "security filter" blocking Qubes, but Debian is one of the most popular Linux distros in the world, so that would be especially ridiculous.

lemper 2y ago

giving you another confirmation, mate. zuck removed my post about qubeos.

richrichardsson 2y ago

Opposite anecdata point: posted a link to DistroWatch and mentioned Linux without issue.