7 ms·

They 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

They 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 ago
I 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 ago
  Does the distinction matter?
  - themaninthedark 2y ago
    Yes; 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 ago
The 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.
- anigbrowl 2y ago
  The purpose of a system is what it does. If this behavior is happening because nobody with authority cares to do anything about it, that's also a decision. I never understand why people rush to make excuses for these huge companies awash in resources with no real accountability or customer support.
  - valicord 2y ago
    I'm obviously not claiming that Facebook moderation is perfect but it's a pretty big stretch to go from "Facebook does a bad job of reducing false positives" to "Facebook purposefully bans Linux discussions". > I never understand why people rush to make excuses for these huge companies awash in resources with no real accountability or customer support Because if nobody pushes back against the hyperbole then it just becomes a competition of who can make up the most exaggerated claim in order to attract the most attention.
    - anigbrowl 2y ago
      Would that people would make the same effort to push back against PR departments, which in the case of social media companies often end up enabling the industrialized production and distribution of hyperbole.
      - valicord 2y ago
        Where can I downvote the PR department?
        anigbrowl 2y ago
        Wherever you see someone repeating their talking points.
    - phendrenad2 2y ago
      There's a lot of "come on just let me have my hyperbole, man" begging on the internet lately. And yes, it needs to be beaten back with truth and logic. I don't understand the mentality of people who think any amount of hyperbole is acceptable, because the effect it has on public perception is very serious. People get their news from Facebook. Should they? Probably not. But if we let people have their fun little "maybe X.... I'm going to go ahead and say DEFINITELY X" clout-chasing moment then we're allowing a lot of people to be deceived.
nwienert 2y ago
Three claims are there: - Facebook is censoring this content - They decided Linux is malware - They label groups associated with Linux as "cybersecurity threats" The first one they seem to give evidence for the second two seem to be assumptions.
- onli 2y ago
  There is a screenshot in the article of the appeal, confirming 1 and 2. Three follows logically.
  - nwienert 2y ago
    Confirms that one time, one moderator labeled it that, not that "Facebook decided" it.
  - notfed 2y ago
    To be fair, the screenshots are data points, but more would be needed to support the generalization being made.
  - loeg 2y ago
    No, this doesn't show (2). It shows that Distrowatch specifically was considered malware -- not Linux in general. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42847474 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42847474
- skissane 2y ago
  > - Facebook is censoring this content I’m surprised we haven’t yet heard from the “it isn’t censorship if a private company is doing it” crowd in this conversation
  - Hasu 2y ago
    As a member of that crowd, you're misrepresenting the argument. It is absolutely censorship when a private company does it, but they have the right to do so; it is not illegal. But they also cannot force me to use their platform, I have the right not to use it. I don't have a problem with the censorship here on HN, so I post here. I do have a problem with the censorship on Meta properties (aside from being offended by their product design and general aims as an organization), so I don't have accounts with them or view content on their properties. I also have the right to criticize them for their censorship, but not the right to prevent anyone else from using it if they want.
thekevan 2y ago
That's circular logic and none of it is evidence. "A bad thing is happening and the evidence of it happening is that I said it's happening." By the way, I love DistroWatch and do think FB is messing with their posts. But there's no evidence to show if it's a new policy, a glitch in the moderation or an internal screw up.
- Dylan16807 2y ago
  That's not circular. They are citing sources. The evidence is the direct experience of the sources. If you don't believe them, that's a different objection. And glitch policies are policies if they're getting enforced.

MrDresden 2y ago

I 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 ago
Does the distinction matter?
- themaninthedark 2y ago
  Yes; 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 ago

The 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.

anigbrowl 2y ago
The purpose of a system is what it does. If this behavior is happening because nobody with authority cares to do anything about it, that's also a decision. I never understand why people rush to make excuses for these huge companies awash in resources with no real accountability or customer support.
- valicord 2y ago
  I'm obviously not claiming that Facebook moderation is perfect but it's a pretty big stretch to go from "Facebook does a bad job of reducing false positives" to "Facebook purposefully bans Linux discussions". > I never understand why people rush to make excuses for these huge companies awash in resources with no real accountability or customer support Because if nobody pushes back against the hyperbole then it just becomes a competition of who can make up the most exaggerated claim in order to attract the most attention.
  - anigbrowl 2y ago
    Would that people would make the same effort to push back against PR departments, which in the case of social media companies often end up enabling the industrialized production and distribution of hyperbole.
    - valicord 2y ago
      Where can I downvote the PR department?
      - anigbrowl 2y ago
        Wherever you see someone repeating their talking points.
  - phendrenad2 2y ago
    There's a lot of "come on just let me have my hyperbole, man" begging on the internet lately. And yes, it needs to be beaten back with truth and logic. I don't understand the mentality of people who think any amount of hyperbole is acceptable, because the effect it has on public perception is very serious. People get their news from Facebook. Should they? Probably not. But if we let people have their fun little "maybe X.... I'm going to go ahead and say DEFINITELY X" clout-chasing moment then we're allowing a lot of people to be deceived.

nwienert 2y ago

Three claims are there: - Facebook is censoring this content - They decided Linux is malware - They label groups associated with Linux as "cybersecurity threats" The first one they seem to give evidence for the second two seem to be assumptions.

onli 2y ago
There is a screenshot in the article of the appeal, confirming 1 and 2. Three follows logically.
- nwienert 2y ago
  Confirms that one time, one moderator labeled it that, not that "Facebook decided" it.
- notfed 2y ago
  To be fair, the screenshots are data points, but more would be needed to support the generalization being made.
- loeg 2y ago
  No, this doesn't show (2). It shows that Distrowatch specifically was considered malware -- not Linux in general. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42847474 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42847474
skissane 2y ago
> - Facebook is censoring this content I’m surprised we haven’t yet heard from the “it isn’t censorship if a private company is doing it” crowd in this conversation
- Hasu 2y ago
  As a member of that crowd, you're misrepresenting the argument. It is absolutely censorship when a private company does it, but they have the right to do so; it is not illegal. But they also cannot force me to use their platform, I have the right not to use it. I don't have a problem with the censorship here on HN, so I post here. I do have a problem with the censorship on Meta properties (aside from being offended by their product design and general aims as an organization), so I don't have accounts with them or view content on their properties. I also have the right to criticize them for their censorship, but not the right to prevent anyone else from using it if they want.

thekevan 2y ago

That's circular logic and none of it is evidence. "A bad thing is happening and the evidence of it happening is that I said it's happening." By the way, I love DistroWatch and do think FB is messing with their posts. But there's no evidence to show if it's a new policy, a glitch in the moderation or an internal screw up.

Dylan16807 2y ago
That's not circular. They are citing sources. The evidence is the direct experience of the sources. If you don't believe them, that's a different objection. And glitch policies are policies if they're getting enforced.