This is completely outrageous. It's clearly illegal in my country per Norwegian Constitution §100, and I suspect it's illegal in quite a few other European countries too, wherever they have a working defence for freedom of speech, and not least presumably private conversations. (Because it's not so private anymore once third parties interfere in what you're allowed to share among grown ups.)
On Facebook, you now can't post the link to this New York Post article... FB will also prevent you from posting the Newsweek article which describes how the platform is blocking the New York Post article."
And amazingly, there are Facebook employees on HN all the time who can't understand why people hate Facebook.
I recently spent time with a couple of relatives who only get news from Facebook. I suspect there are millions of other people who do the same. (Because it's free and if it's on the internet, it must be true!)
This illustrates that they only know about the things that Facebook wants them to know.
>A Facebook spokesperson told Newsweek, "This content was removed for violating our privacy and personal information policy." The policy forbids articles that share details that could identify a person's financial and residential information, thus violating their privacy rights.
That seems like a pretty flimsy excuse given that I see stories about individuals of public interest buying expensive property on Facebook all the time. Just one example, Thiel buying property in Miami.
The identity of house buyers is a matter of public record. Not only is it searchable in multiple state databases (tax, real estate plats) but sale information including buyer and seller is typically published in the newspaper: https://www.chicagotribune.com/real-estate/sc-cons-0903-hous...
> The information about your home purchase and the terms and conditions of your mortgage loan are recorded among the land records in the jurisdiction where the property is located. These documents are public. In most states, you do not even have to go down to the local recorder of deeds office. You can search online from your living room and get all of the information that is published in your newspaper.
"The policy forbids articles that share details that could identifiy a person's financial and residential information."
Meanwhile selling access to Facebook users whose personal information matches certain financial, geolocation and other personal criteria, is how Facebook makes money.
Facebook is allowed to identify a person's residential and financial information, and it is allowed to use this information to sell access to users to other organisations, but it's a violation of Facebook policy for users to share this information.
I’m sure the 535 million people who recently had their personal information leaked by Facebook - the ones Facebook didn’t even bother to notify - will be glad to hear about Facebook’s strong stance against the sharing of personally identifying information.
My guess is a slew of "closely monitored" Facebook groups eagerly shared the article the moment it was posted and some machine intelligence auto-moderator immediately added it to a blacklist without any human oversight.
The article itself is pretty even-keeled (although has that typical New York Post editorialized spin). The article mentions other, unaffiliated BLM groups have already demanded transparency to where Cullors' income came from, and the amount spent isn't completely absurd for a best-selling writer, culture advisor, and public figure.
Blocking the article and spreading buzz about the abbreviated version of the article is definitely bad news. Someone needs to tell the product owners at Facebook that if they want to auto-moderate media across the United States, they should read the wikipedia article about the Streisand effect.
They can expect to be fined millions of Euros by a great many European countries if they illegally censor private conversations through their platform, due to European law on the matter. Many countries over here have free speech laws that aren't as gimped as the American Constitution (i.e. that it's limited to state institutions and not muh private company).
This is completely outrageous! I tried sharing the link in question in a private message on Facebook Messenger, but the recipient was unable to see it, and instead got a censorship warning.
In my country such censorship is illegal, per Norwegian Constitution §100, fourth sentence: “Pre-censorship and other preventive measures cannot be used unless it is needed to protect children and young people from the harmful effects of live images (we're both grown ups). Censorship of letters (messages on Facebook?) cannot be implemented, unless performed by a caretaking institution (jails, mental hospitals, etc).”
Who would think that an American company would resort to such invasive, blatant and not least illegal censorship!
American corporations—once they reach a certain size—do not act with respect to anything resembling supposedly American values. they often seem to exist entirely outside of government overwatch.
Of all the ways Facebook restricts speech on its platform this one is pretty low on the list in my opinion. Seems like that particular article has some content that violates their doxxing policy (whatever that is). Other articles about the same topic can be shared including from Fox.
Never been much of a fan of Facebook, but at this point it's basically turned into the McDonald's ball pit:
A pile of colorful, air-filled items (mostly ads) that lures certain people into coming back because they have nothing better to do than dive into some filth. Adults aren't allowed (no conversations, content, or political views that management doesn't agree with - "it's safe because look, everything around you is squishy and we don't allow things with sharp edges"), and if you spend time there, you're probably going to leave smelling like excrement.
I first learned this story because it was front-page news on Breitbart and quickly becoming a flashpoint for commentary and erm, "thoughtful analysis"
Maybe it got flagged because of factor such as who was sharing it and how it was being commented on? I have no idea how or what any of their moderation tools work, but if one of the flags is "popular with extremist disinformation sites," perhaps that was the trigger?
The post links to a neutral news story by Newsweek, which is a very reputable source. So what could be problematic about that article?
I fear that Hacker News might have a bias which makes them censor posts, exactly like Facebook does in this specific case. I don't want this to be true, but I can't think of any other reasons.
Users, especially those able to flag (meaning somewhat "senior" users, not sure about the exact karma threshold), are often annoyed, because the nature of the discussions some topics provoke are foreseeable and mostly questionable.
"Great, this will lead to half the comments discussing BLM in a questionable and highly politicized manner on hacker(!) news ; this will surely be productive ... /s"
Political and sociological stuff is sometimes here on HN (and technology often overlaps, so they might be relevant of course), but especially those topics that have little chance of inviting meaningful discussion are questionable and might get flagged.
I consider "flagging" part of how this site works, and a meaningful feature. Right to free speech is not the "right to be listened to or read by others." HN also isn't Facebook, or Instagram (size, societal influence, scope in topics which are discussed) and you can still read it, upvote it, and comment on it even though it's been flagged. So I don't think it's as bad as you make it out to be. Posts about the banning practices of Social Media (be it Facebook, Youtube, Twitter or other platforms) are regularly featured on HN.
> Our article features some pictures of the properties she bought, but includes no addresses, in fact doesn’t even say the city in some cases. Our reporter compiled the information from public records.
It's incredible that they don't allow this information but were completely fine with people discussing Trump's private tax returns, which were illegally obtained. The reality is that big tech companies and social media are not helping ideas live or die by their merit, but rather hiding good ideas from reaching recipients who can decide what they want to do with that information themselves.
Trump was the president of the United States, under 24/7 protection then and for the rest of his life. Most people, even fairly notable ones, don't have that luxury.
Tabloids publish potentially harmful information with reasonable frequency and FB refusing to republish a tabloid piece is not a meaningful impediment to the dissemination of ideas.
We had BLM protests in my city. I’m all for the message behind it, but they smashed up mine and my husbands car windows. Should have taken advantage of the lax work from home policy and should have stayed home I guess? I’m no fan of the actual “organization” or the people behind it though, and it’s sad FB is actively censuring information.
I guess I am further out of the loop than I thought (and imagine I'll get reemed for this comment), but I thought BLM was a movement (with dubious Russian propagandic origins designed to fuel divisiveness, but turned mostly noble), not an organization. How did this org even come to be? I'd love to read an actual timeline or history of this all.
Isn't part of the problem here that a lot of the BLM donation money has gone to fund stuff like buying their big property? There have also been other scandals regarding misuse of the donation money and it has made many regional BLM groups call to question where the money is going. There is very little accountability and transparency yet we have large companies like Amazon feeding them money via donations.
But the real reason there is outrage about this story is because BLM organizations received hundreds of millions of Dollars in donations in 2020, and it seems highly improbable that a long-time activist has somehow saved up enough to afford multiple millions in real estate purchases. Several BLM chapters rejected the foundation's offers last year and instead issued a public call for increased transparency, claiming they had received almost no funding over the years from the parent organization (https://www.latimes.com/world-nation/story/2021-02-23/ap-exc...). All this suggests there is corruption or grifting happening.
[+] [-] pcf|4 years ago|reply
FB will also prevent you from posting the Newsweek article which describes how the platform is blocking the New York Post article. Same link as in the title: https://www.newsweek.com/facebook-prevents-sharing-new-york-...
[+] [-] AnimalMuppet|4 years ago|reply
Is it possible that Facebook is a big enough share of the internet that they can block the Streisand Effect? My money is on "no".
[+] [-] kebman|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] reaperducer|4 years ago|reply
And amazingly, there are Facebook employees on HN all the time who can't understand why people hate Facebook.
I recently spent time with a couple of relatives who only get news from Facebook. I suspect there are millions of other people who do the same. (Because it's free and if it's on the internet, it must be true!)
This illustrates that they only know about the things that Facebook wants them to know.
[+] [-] Barrin92|4 years ago|reply
That seems like a pretty flimsy excuse given that I see stories about individuals of public interest buying expensive property on Facebook all the time. Just one example, Thiel buying property in Miami.
[+] [-] rayiner|4 years ago|reply
> The information about your home purchase and the terms and conditions of your mortgage loan are recorded among the land records in the jurisdiction where the property is located. These documents are public. In most states, you do not even have to go down to the local recorder of deeds office. You can search online from your living room and get all of the information that is published in your newspaper.
[+] [-] 1vuio0pswjnm7|4 years ago|reply
Meanwhile selling access to Facebook users whose personal information matches certain financial, geolocation and other personal criteria, is how Facebook makes money.
Facebook is allowed to identify a person's residential and financial information, and it is allowed to use this information to sell access to users to other organisations, but it's a violation of Facebook policy for users to share this information.
[+] [-] macksd|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jasonfarnon|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] imgabe|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] schnevets|4 years ago|reply
The article itself is pretty even-keeled (although has that typical New York Post editorialized spin). The article mentions other, unaffiliated BLM groups have already demanded transparency to where Cullors' income came from, and the amount spent isn't completely absurd for a best-selling writer, culture advisor, and public figure.
Blocking the article and spreading buzz about the abbreviated version of the article is definitely bad news. Someone needs to tell the product owners at Facebook that if they want to auto-moderate media across the United States, they should read the wikipedia article about the Streisand effect.
[+] [-] thinkingemote|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kebman|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jokethrowaway|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kebman|4 years ago|reply
In my country such censorship is illegal, per Norwegian Constitution §100, fourth sentence: “Pre-censorship and other preventive measures cannot be used unless it is needed to protect children and young people from the harmful effects of live images (we're both grown ups). Censorship of letters (messages on Facebook?) cannot be implemented, unless performed by a caretaking institution (jails, mental hospitals, etc).”
Who would think that an American company would resort to such invasive, blatant and not least illegal censorship!
[+] [-] adamrezich|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] egberts1|4 years ago|reply
- Even if you posted it “privately” through Facebook messenger, yep, that’s too a first: 30-day ban.
- Veteran FB bans.
[+] [-] buzzert|4 years ago|reply
This is so crazy I have to ask, you’re serious here? You’ll actually get BANNED for sharing privately over FB messenger?
[+] [-] BigW1lly|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] lenkite|4 years ago|reply
All news that is critical of USDP, its policies or its supporting movements will be banned. All actors that present such news will be blocked.
You WILL be Re-Educated for Your Safety.
[+] [-] nvr219|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] cousin_it|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pcf|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] curiousgeorgio|4 years ago|reply
A pile of colorful, air-filled items (mostly ads) that lures certain people into coming back because they have nothing better to do than dive into some filth. Adults aren't allowed (no conversations, content, or political views that management doesn't agree with - "it's safe because look, everything around you is squishy and we don't allow things with sharp edges"), and if you spend time there, you're probably going to leave smelling like excrement.
[+] [-] scelerat|4 years ago|reply
Maybe it got flagged because of factor such as who was sharing it and how it was being commented on? I have no idea how or what any of their moderation tools work, but if one of the flags is "popular with extremist disinformation sites," perhaps that was the trigger?
[+] [-] pcf|4 years ago|reply
The post links to a neutral news story by Newsweek, which is a very reputable source. So what could be problematic about that article?
I fear that Hacker News might have a bias which makes them censor posts, exactly like Facebook does in this specific case. I don't want this to be true, but I can't think of any other reasons.
[+] [-] Wxc2jjJmST9XWWL|4 years ago|reply
"Great, this will lead to half the comments discussing BLM in a questionable and highly politicized manner on hacker(!) news ; this will surely be productive ... /s"
Political and sociological stuff is sometimes here on HN (and technology often overlaps, so they might be relevant of course), but especially those topics that have little chance of inviting meaningful discussion are questionable and might get flagged.
I consider "flagging" part of how this site works, and a meaningful feature. Right to free speech is not the "right to be listened to or read by others." HN also isn't Facebook, or Instagram (size, societal influence, scope in topics which are discussed) and you can still read it, upvote it, and comment on it even though it's been flagged. So I don't think it's as bad as you make it out to be. Posts about the banning practices of Social Media (be it Facebook, Youtube, Twitter or other platforms) are regularly featured on HN.
[+] [-] rendall|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pflx|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] throwawaysea|4 years ago|reply
> Our article features some pictures of the properties she bought, but includes no addresses, in fact doesn’t even say the city in some cases. Our reporter compiled the information from public records.
It's incredible that they don't allow this information but were completely fine with people discussing Trump's private tax returns, which were illegally obtained. The reality is that big tech companies and social media are not helping ideas live or die by their merit, but rather hiding good ideas from reaching recipients who can decide what they want to do with that information themselves.
I think the most offensive part of this censorship, however, is that Facebook is also censoring this link from private messenger conversations. Abigail Shrier put it well (https://twitter.com/AbigailShrier/status/1382774842986954753):
> So Facebook is now effectively opening your mail and reading the contents for ideologically objectionable material.
> Anyone worried?
[+] [-] pvg|4 years ago|reply
Tabloids publish potentially harmful information with reasonable frequency and FB refusing to republish a tabloid piece is not a meaningful impediment to the dissemination of ideas.
[+] [-] disgrunt|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pcf|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] winstonchecksin|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] temp0826|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Animats|4 years ago|reply
Occupy Wall Street tried to do that, but they were so disorganized to accomplish much directly. They did, though, firmly establish "the 1%" meme.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Lives_Matter
[+] [-] BigW1lly|4 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] nefitty|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Fogest|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] throwawaysea|4 years ago|reply
But the real reason there is outrage about this story is because BLM organizations received hundreds of millions of Dollars in donations in 2020, and it seems highly improbable that a long-time activist has somehow saved up enough to afford multiple millions in real estate purchases. Several BLM chapters rejected the foundation's offers last year and instead issued a public call for increased transparency, claiming they had received almost no funding over the years from the parent organization (https://www.latimes.com/world-nation/story/2021-02-23/ap-exc...). All this suggests there is corruption or grifting happening.
[+] [-] unknown|4 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] AlexTWithBeard|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] disgrunt|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] thepasswordis|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|4 years ago|reply
[deleted]