4 ms·

Repro Uncensored, an NGO tracking digital censorship against movements focused on gender, health and justice, said that it had tracked 210 incidents of account

Repro Uncensored, an NGO tracking digital censorship against movements focused on gender, health and justice, said that it had tracked 210 incidents of account removals and severe restrictions affecting these groups this year, compared with 81 last year. Meta denied an escalating trend of censorship. “Every organisation and individual on our platforms is subject to the same set of rules, and any claims of enforcement based on group affiliation or advocacy are baseless,” it said in a statement, adding that its policies on abortion-related content had not changed. Has The Guardian confirmed the facts either way? Or are they just reporting what people say without digging deeper? I think reporting ought to try to get to some level of truth through rigor.

makeitdouble 11mo ago
Wouldn't the same rule applying to everyone be consistent with the censorship, if every org is subject to the same strict censorship on reproductive themes and sexual orientation ? "we're consistent" doesn't mean "we're fair"
- andsoitis 11mo ago
  Is that in fact the case here? Are all accounts linked to abortion or queer content now gone from Facebook? I don’t believe that’s the case, right?
  - ImPostingOnHN 11mo ago
    The question would be, are any such accounts limited, blocked, or removed? It seems the answer there is "yes". That would mean Facebook's response is either blatantly false, or deceptively using weasel wording.
    - dec0dedab0de 11mo ago
      or they got banned for other reasons
  - Forgeties79 11mo ago
    > Are all accounts linked to abortion or queer content now gone from Facebook? Is that what the guardian claimed?
  - makeitdouble 11mo ago
    _all_ accounts are surely not gone, that's so much moderating effort it never happened for any specific rule. Do all the reported accounts and content get nuked ? Potentially yes ?
  - DANmode 11mo ago
    That’s not what the person you’re replying to said.
    - andsoitis 11mo ago
      Then help me understand what they mean.
- y-curious 11mo ago
  Good point, it’s I ind of like how NSO, the spyware company, “complies with all applicable laws” of the countries they sell their spyware to.
  - embedding-shape 11mo ago
    NSO also claimed that their Pegasus software couldn't target US or Israeli phone numbers, but we now know that isn't true, so excuse me if it's hard to take their word for anything they say publicly. Not to mention that time they claimed they weren't involved in the murder of Jamal Khashoggi, and then later we found Pegasus on the phones of his fiancée, wife, and other relatives. Same goes for Meta, at one point it becomes blatantly obvious that you cannot trust any of their statements, because they turn out again and again to not be true.
- rurp 11mo ago
  Reminds me of the anti gay marriage folks who claim they aren't discriminating because any man can marry any woman of their choice and vice versa.
- johnnyanmac 11mo ago
  >“The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal their bread.” ― Anatole France
malfist 11mo ago
This is not a new behavior for Facebook. Back when I was on Facebook (left in 2016) the LGBT groups I was part of kept constantly getting banned or suspended, but they never once acted on a report I sent them from people posting blatantly racists content or inciting violence. Someone could post that all black people are stupid and were better off enslaved and Facebook would respond to a report saying it doesn't violate any policies, but someone posting a shirtless photo of themselves to an lgbt group gets it shutdown for a week.
- bgbntty2 11mo ago
  Facebook has never had a consistent policy with what's allowed and what isn't. They haven't banned several obvious scams I've reported, but have banned a post that contains a picture of dog medicine (a blister of pills). The vague reason given was that it (could've been?) related to recreational drugs or something like this.
  - LexiMax 11mo ago
    Nearly all of the LGBT groups that I am aware of are primarily on Discord and other, similar services for this very reason. All of the other socials exist only as on ramps to the real community. The weirdos can shout into the void all they like, but nobody's listening to or engaging with them. This is also why I keep saying that the Discord model is the future of social media, not Facebook or Twitter. Turns out that when you can allow users to exert meaningful control over their social spaces, instead of relying on the judgment of some of the most sociopathic, self-interested and immoral people in tech, you can create actual communities.
    - lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 11mo ago
      > the Discord model is the future of social media Curious what it is about Discord you think is different enough from other social media to warrant this claim. I don't have strong feelings one way or the other, just curious.
      - 11mo ago
exasperaited 11mo ago
They have been reporting on this trend for a considerable time. Confirmation bias is obviously a risk but I don't see any particular reason to doubt their reporting because they are reporting on organisations who do long-term tracking and saying so. Reporting what concerned and informed people say is still one of the jobs of journalism after all. They do some data-oriented investigations with partners but their budget is very finite as an organisation.
joemazerino 11mo ago
[flagged]
- aa_is_op 11mo ago
  [flagged]
- lingrush4 11mo ago
  Yes, I do. Though in fairness, they were the ones pushing for censorship.
Forgeties79 11mo ago
> Has The Guardian confirmed the facts either way? Or are they just reporting what people say without digging deeper? This reads like what you’re accusing them of doing. The way you’re asking the questions communicates skepticism in favor of facebook’s official statement. Facebook’s track record on policing content is not exactly one that inspires confidence in their narrative.
- andsoitis 11mo ago
  The Guardian has a duty and responsibility to not create false narratives or misinformation. I am entitled to a dose of healthy skepticism. If I believed that Meta is suspending accounts for the mere fact that they link to abortion information or non-pornographic queer content, rather some other policy reason, then I WOULD dig deeper because apparently The Gaurdian can’t be bothered to. However, I don’t believe that to be the case by the mere fact that there are millions of accounts active that DO link to queer content or abortion information. Heck, Planned Parenthood has an active Facebook account: https://www.facebook.com/plannedparenthood/ https://www.facebook.com/plannedparenthood/
  - crote 11mo ago
    Nobody is claiming that Facebook is shutting down all accounts posting abortion info and queer content. The fact that some high-profile accounts are still online doesn't in any way invalidate the possibility that it is shutting down smaller accounts at an increased rate. The Guardian article interviews several people whose accounts have been shut down. Are you proposing that all those people are lying, or is there perhaps the possibility of Facebook not telling the whole truth? Should you not be skeptical of Facebook's "we didn't do anything" claim as well?
    - andsoitis 11mo ago
      What matters is the reason for them being shuttered. I totally believe that those accounts have been shut down (without checking even one), but I do not buy that it is for the mere fact that they link to abortion info or queer content which is the framing in the article and a lot of the assumption in this discussion thread, because the counter evidence is clear and voluminous. I get that people are passionate about topics that are important to them, but I will also say that one ought to keep a level head, even if only for one’s one emotional resilience. I also accept that people need to vent (against corporations, rich people, government, etc.) and I try to give people the space to do so even when I think they’re wrong. At the same time, I think what is more helpful is to lean in with curiosity and not to assume you’re right.
SecretDreams 11mo ago
> I think reporting ought to try to get to some level of truth through rigor. Information literally moves faster on socials than it does from need sources and those things come with far less "truth through rigor". I agree news sources should do leg work.. but in a world where nobody cares about the facts when spreading a story, is there still a point?
- andsoitis 11mo ago
  > but in a world where nobody cares about the facts when spreading a story, is there still a point? I might be an illogical optimist, but I undoubtedly believe that’s the job of journalists and newspaper editors in such a world. To FIGHT false narratives and misinformation.
  - SecretDreams 11mo ago
    I'm an optimist, myself. But, I think the system can't be fixed until the ability for individuals/influencers to spread false narratives is heavily modified. The news literally cannot keep pace with the fake news. The latter takes a fraction of the time to generate and spreads using more guerilla like techniques.. and nobody is punished at all for enabling it. We're asking credible news sources to fit a gun fit with sticks.
    - SecretDreams 11mo ago
      Noting I spelled fight incorrectly.. twice lol.
reaperducer 11mo ago
Has The Guardian confirmed the facts either way? Or are they just reporting what people say without digging deeper? I think reporting ought to try to get to some level of truth through rigor. I think I'm getting bored with all the deflection bots and puppets on HN saying, "Don't discuss the issue in the OP's article! Look over here, instead!"
classified 11mo ago
So you just take Meta at their word? How naive can you be?

makeitdouble 11mo ago

Wouldn't the same rule applying to everyone be consistent with the censorship, if every org is subject to the same strict censorship on reproductive themes and sexual orientation ? "we're consistent" doesn't mean "we're fair"

andsoitis 11mo ago
Is that in fact the case here? Are all accounts linked to abortion or queer content now gone from Facebook? I don’t believe that’s the case, right?
- ImPostingOnHN 11mo ago
  The question would be, are any such accounts limited, blocked, or removed? It seems the answer there is "yes". That would mean Facebook's response is either blatantly false, or deceptively using weasel wording.
  - dec0dedab0de 11mo ago
    or they got banned for other reasons
- Forgeties79 11mo ago
  > Are all accounts linked to abortion or queer content now gone from Facebook? Is that what the guardian claimed?
- makeitdouble 11mo ago
  _all_ accounts are surely not gone, that's so much moderating effort it never happened for any specific rule. Do all the reported accounts and content get nuked ? Potentially yes ?
- DANmode 11mo ago
  That’s not what the person you’re replying to said.
  - andsoitis 11mo ago
    Then help me understand what they mean.
y-curious 11mo ago
Good point, it’s I ind of like how NSO, the spyware company, “complies with all applicable laws” of the countries they sell their spyware to.
- embedding-shape 11mo ago
  NSO also claimed that their Pegasus software couldn't target US or Israeli phone numbers, but we now know that isn't true, so excuse me if it's hard to take their word for anything they say publicly. Not to mention that time they claimed they weren't involved in the murder of Jamal Khashoggi, and then later we found Pegasus on the phones of his fiancée, wife, and other relatives. Same goes for Meta, at one point it becomes blatantly obvious that you cannot trust any of their statements, because they turn out again and again to not be true.
rurp 11mo ago
Reminds me of the anti gay marriage folks who claim they aren't discriminating because any man can marry any woman of their choice and vice versa.
johnnyanmac 11mo ago
>“The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal their bread.” ― Anatole France

malfist 11mo ago

This is not a new behavior for Facebook. Back when I was on Facebook (left in 2016) the LGBT groups I was part of kept constantly getting banned or suspended, but they never once acted on a report I sent them from people posting blatantly racists content or inciting violence. Someone could post that all black people are stupid and were better off enslaved and Facebook would respond to a report saying it doesn't violate any policies, but someone posting a shirtless photo of themselves to an lgbt group gets it shutdown for a week.

bgbntty2 11mo ago
Facebook has never had a consistent policy with what's allowed and what isn't. They haven't banned several obvious scams I've reported, but have banned a post that contains a picture of dog medicine (a blister of pills). The vague reason given was that it (could've been?) related to recreational drugs or something like this.
- LexiMax 11mo ago
  Nearly all of the LGBT groups that I am aware of are primarily on Discord and other, similar services for this very reason. All of the other socials exist only as on ramps to the real community. The weirdos can shout into the void all they like, but nobody's listening to or engaging with them. This is also why I keep saying that the Discord model is the future of social media, not Facebook or Twitter. Turns out that when you can allow users to exert meaningful control over their social spaces, instead of relying on the judgment of some of the most sociopathic, self-interested and immoral people in tech, you can create actual communities.
  - lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 11mo ago
    > the Discord model is the future of social media Curious what it is about Discord you think is different enough from other social media to warrant this claim. I don't have strong feelings one way or the other, just curious.
    - 11mo ago

exasperaited 11mo ago

They have been reporting on this trend for a considerable time. Confirmation bias is obviously a risk but I don't see any particular reason to doubt their reporting because they are reporting on organisations who do long-term tracking and saying so. Reporting what concerned and informed people say is still one of the jobs of journalism after all. They do some data-oriented investigations with partners but their budget is very finite as an organisation.

joemazerino 11mo ago

[flagged]

aa_is_op 11mo ago
[flagged]
lingrush4 11mo ago
Yes, I do. Though in fairness, they were the ones pushing for censorship.

Forgeties79 11mo ago

> Has The Guardian confirmed the facts either way? Or are they just reporting what people say without digging deeper? This reads like what you’re accusing them of doing. The way you’re asking the questions communicates skepticism in favor of facebook’s official statement. Facebook’s track record on policing content is not exactly one that inspires confidence in their narrative.

andsoitis 11mo ago
The Guardian has a duty and responsibility to not create false narratives or misinformation. I am entitled to a dose of healthy skepticism. If I believed that Meta is suspending accounts for the mere fact that they link to abortion information or non-pornographic queer content, rather some other policy reason, then I WOULD dig deeper because apparently The Gaurdian can’t be bothered to. However, I don’t believe that to be the case by the mere fact that there are millions of accounts active that DO link to queer content or abortion information. Heck, Planned Parenthood has an active Facebook account: https://www.facebook.com/plannedparenthood/ https://www.facebook.com/plannedparenthood/
- crote 11mo ago
  Nobody is claiming that Facebook is shutting down all accounts posting abortion info and queer content. The fact that some high-profile accounts are still online doesn't in any way invalidate the possibility that it is shutting down smaller accounts at an increased rate. The Guardian article interviews several people whose accounts have been shut down. Are you proposing that all those people are lying, or is there perhaps the possibility of Facebook not telling the whole truth? Should you not be skeptical of Facebook's "we didn't do anything" claim as well?
  - andsoitis 11mo ago
    What matters is the reason for them being shuttered. I totally believe that those accounts have been shut down (without checking even one), but I do not buy that it is for the mere fact that they link to abortion info or queer content which is the framing in the article and a lot of the assumption in this discussion thread, because the counter evidence is clear and voluminous. I get that people are passionate about topics that are important to them, but I will also say that one ought to keep a level head, even if only for one’s one emotional resilience. I also accept that people need to vent (against corporations, rich people, government, etc.) and I try to give people the space to do so even when I think they’re wrong. At the same time, I think what is more helpful is to lean in with curiosity and not to assume you’re right.

SecretDreams 11mo ago

> I think reporting ought to try to get to some level of truth through rigor. Information literally moves faster on socials than it does from need sources and those things come with far less "truth through rigor". I agree news sources should do leg work.. but in a world where nobody cares about the facts when spreading a story, is there still a point?

andsoitis 11mo ago
> but in a world where nobody cares about the facts when spreading a story, is there still a point? I might be an illogical optimist, but I undoubtedly believe that’s the job of journalists and newspaper editors in such a world. To FIGHT false narratives and misinformation.
- SecretDreams 11mo ago
  I'm an optimist, myself. But, I think the system can't be fixed until the ability for individuals/influencers to spread false narratives is heavily modified. The news literally cannot keep pace with the fake news. The latter takes a fraction of the time to generate and spreads using more guerilla like techniques.. and nobody is punished at all for enabling it. We're asking credible news sources to fit a gun fit with sticks.
  - SecretDreams 11mo ago
    Noting I spelled fight incorrectly.. twice lol.

reaperducer 11mo ago

Has The Guardian confirmed the facts either way? Or are they just reporting what people say without digging deeper? I think reporting ought to try to get to some level of truth through rigor. I think I'm getting bored with all the deflection bots and puppets on HN saying, "Don't discuss the issue in the OP's article! Look over here, instead!"

classified 11mo ago

So you just take Meta at their word? How naive can you be?