On Facebook, you now can't post the link to this New York Post article:
<a href="https://nypost.com/2021/04/10/inside-blm-co-founder-patrisse-khan-cullors-real-estate-buying-binge/" rel="nofollow">https://nypost.com/2021/04/10/inside-blm-co-founder-patrisse...</a><p>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:
<a href="https://www.newsweek.com/facebook-prevents-sharing-new-york-post-story-black-lives-matter-founder-patrisse-cullors-real-1584050" rel="nofollow">https://www.newsweek.com/facebook-prevents-sharing-new-york-...</a>
>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.<p>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.
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.<p>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.<p>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.
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.<p>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).”<p>Who would think that an <i>American</i> company would resort to such invasive, blatant and not least illegal censorship!
An automatic 30-day Facebook ban, this will get you.<p>- Even if you posted it “privately” through Facebook messenger, yep, that’s too a first: 30-day ban.<p>- Veteran FB bans.
It's becoming more and more clear to most folks around the world that Facebook is effectively an Enforcement Arm of the US Democratic Party.<p>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.<p>You WILL be Re-Educated for Your Safety.
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:<p>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"<p>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?
Why is this post "flagged" by Hacker News?<p>The post links to a neutral news story by Newsweek, which is a very reputable source. So what could be problematic about that article?<p>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.
Here is the New York Post's reply to to this (<a href="https://nypost.com/2021/04/16/social-media-again-silences-the-post-for-reporting-the-news/" rel="nofollow">https://nypost.com/2021/04/16/social-media-again-silences-th...</a>):<p>> 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.<p>It's incredible that they don't allow this information but were completely fine with people discussing Trump's private tax returns, which were <i>illegally obtained</i>. 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.<p>I think the most offensive part of this censorship, however, is that Facebook is also censoring this link from <i>private messenger conversations</i>. Abigail Shrier put it well (<a href="https://twitter.com/AbigailShrier/status/1382774842986954753" rel="nofollow">https://twitter.com/AbigailShrier/status/1382774842986954753</a>):<p>> So Facebook is now effectively opening your mail and reading the contents for ideologically objectionable material.<p>> Anyone worried?
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.