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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
If "some buggy ML classifier" is allowed to make decisions that trigger broad enforcement, that classifier is, for all intents and purposes, a policy maker. The claim made by the article is somewhat broad relative to the evidence presented, but whether policy decisions are automated or not doesn't really matter.
In the past I would have agreed with this statement, but nowadays I would assume an organization's actions are their policy until they state and act otherwise.
They have a screenshot of Facebook reviewing the post and deciding not to restore it, so I guess it isn’t just a buggy ML classifier (although it could be a buggy ML classifier combined with a human that doesn’t feel able to overturn it).
What you just did is a fallacy. That's fine, but it needs to be asked: what sort of "Nazi content" did you report?
If it was a user calling Trump a Nazi, then it should have been removed, and their moderation failed.
If it just espouses Nazi ideology or rhetoric, that's free speech in the US.
That's just how it is. It's part of this country. I have to listen to both the throaty, greasy growl of the white supremacist and the piercing howl of the victims wounded by words.
edit to add additional context:
There's a difference between someone "posting" "nazi" content on facebook and here on HN, for example. on FB they figure you're seeing it because of your actions. Your friends, a group you joined, etc. If it's a friend posting on their wall, your moderation task is easy, block the friend, unfriend, talk to the friend, call them out. regardless of your decision, FB doesn't have any obligation or, i would argue, right to step in and moderate in those circumstances. If it's in a group, the moderators of the group have to decide if it represents the group. If it does and you disagree, leave the group.
Someone spouting nazi nonsense on HN is spouting it into a megaphone on the streetcorner, as it were. I have to read the content, even if i didn't actively follow that user or "join" that group.
there are different moderation strategies. merely invoking "nazi" as the boogyman to back up your point is fallacious.
It's to easy to hide behind a computer to avoid responsibilities. "It's not my fault, the computer did it!" is a bad excuse. Computers don't have agency but people do. Anything a computer someone own do is one's fault. One had the choice to not boot it. One had the choice to not buy it.
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.
Why would he bring up what he views as hypocrisy of members of this community when they espouse the view that it is not censorship when a private entity censors one view point(something they disagree with) but stays silent(viewed as tacitly agreeing) when there is outrage over viewpoints being removed that those members agree with.
IMO, it adds more to the conversation than all the comments the dog-piled with "It's not censorship because it's not the government".
>What would a definition of censorship be that includes private entities?
Censorship is the suppression of speech, public communication, or other information. This may be done on the basis that such material is considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or "inconvenient". Censorship can be conducted by governments and private institutions.
Censorship, the suppression of words, images, or ideas that are "offensive," happens whenever some people succeed in imposing their personal political or moral values on others. Censorship can be carried out by the government as well as private pressure groups. https://www.aclu.org/documents/what-censorship
Censorship, the changing or the suppression or prohibition of speech or writing that is deemed subversive of the common good. It occurs in all manifestations of authority to some degree, but in modern times it has been of special importance in its relation to government and the rule of law.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/censorship
I would ask you if you can link to a definition of censorship that only calls out the government? Aside from XKCD's terrible comic. https://xkcd.com/1357/
> What would a definition of censorship be that includes private entities? Can you link to one?
Merriam-Webster defines censorship [0] sense 1(a) as "the institution, system, or practice of censoring" and sense 1(b) as "the actions or practices of censors". Neither definition includes an explicit requirement that it must be done by the government as opposed to a private entity, although we also have to look at their definitions of "censoring" and "censors". Their example for sense 1(a) does mention the government ("They oppose government censorship") – but I don't think we should read examples as limiting the scope of the definition, plus the very phrase "government censorship" suggests there may also be "non-government censorship".
For "censor" (noun), their sense (1) is "a person who supervises conduct and morals" – it doesn't say such a person can only belong to the government. It then says "such as" (which I read as implying that the following subsenses shouldn't be considered exhaustive), sense (1)(a) "an official who examines materials (such as publications or films) for objectionable matter" – an "official" needn't be government – indeed, their definition of "official" [2] gives two examples, a "government officials" and a "company official", clearly indicating that officials can be either public or private. Their example for censor noun sense (1)(a) mentions "Government censors..." – but again, examples don't limit the scope of the definition, and qualifying them as "government" implies there may be others lacking that qualification.
For "censor" as a verb, Merriam-Webster gives two senses, "to examine in order to suppress (see suppress sense 2) or delete anything considered objectionable" (example: "censor the news"), and "to suppress or delete as objectionable" (example: "censor out indecent passages"). Neither gives any hint of being limited to the government. Let me give my own example of the verb "censor" being used, quite naturally, in a sense in which the government is not directly involved: "The Standards and Practices department of NBC censored one of Jack Paar's jokes on the February 10, 1960, episode of The Tonight Show", from the Wikipedia article "Broadcast Standards and Practices". [3] Now, you might argue that NBC was forced into censorship by the FCC – possibly, but I'm not sure if the FCC would have objected to the specific joke in question, and NBC had (and still does have) their own commercial motivations for censorship separate from whatever legal requirements the FCC imposed on them.
Similarly, Wiktionary's definition of "censorship" starts with "The use of state or group power to control freedom of expression or press..." [4]. The fact it says "state or group" as opposed to just "state" implies that non-governmental actors can engage in censorship per their definition.
Wiktionary's definition of the noun "censor" includes "An official responsible for the removal or suppression of objectionable material (for example, if obscene or likely to incite violence) or sensitive content in books, films, correspondence, and other media" [5] – it never says the official has to be a government official, and their example sense is "The headmaster was an even stricter censor of his boarding pupils’ correspondence than the enemy censors had been of his own when the country was occupied" – which could very easily be about a private school rather than a government-run one.
I should also point out that the Catholic Church has officials called "censors". To quote the 1908 Catholic Encyclopaedia article "Censorship of Books" [6], "Pius X in the Encyclical 'Pascendi Dominici gregis' of 8 September, 1907 (Acta S. Sedis, XL, 645), expressly orders all bishops to appoint as censors qualified theologians, to whom the censorship of books appertains ex officio." And the Catholic Church still employs "censors" to this day, [7] although their role has shrunk greatly – generally they are theologians (most commonly priests, although I believe laypersons are eligible for appointment) to whom a bishop delegates the review of certain publications (primarily religious education curricula) and who then makes a recommendation to the bishop as to whether to approve the publication or demand changes to it. Obviously if the Catholic Church has "censors", the concept includes private bodies, since the Catholic Church is a private body almost everywhere (Vatican City and the Holy See excluded).
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.
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.
"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.
> 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?