Slashdot Mirror
Facebook Admits Blocking WikiLeaks' DNC Email Links, But Won't Say Why (thenextweb.com)
An anonymous reader writes: Facebook has admitted it blocked links to WikiLeaks' DNC email dump, but the company has yet to explain why. WikiLeaks has responded to the censorship via Twitter, writing: "For those facing censorship on Facebook etc when trying to post links directly to WikiLeaks #DNCLeak try using archive.is." When SwiftOnSecurity tweeted, "Facebook has an automated system for detecting spam/malicious links, that sometimes have false positives. /cc," Facebook's Chief Security Officer Alex Stamos replied with, "It's been fixed." As for why there was a problem in the first place, we don't know. Nate Swanner from The Next Web writes, "It's possible its algorithm incorrectly identified them as malicious, but it's another negative mark on the company's record nonetheless. WikiLeaks is a known entity, not some torrent dumping ground. The WikiLeaks link issue has reportedly been fixed, which is great -- but also not really the point. The fact links to the archive was blocked at all suggests there's a very tight reign on what's allowed on Facebook across the board, and that's a problem." A Facebook representative provided a statement to Gizmodo: "Like other services, our anti-spam systems briefly flagged links to these documents as unsafe. We quickly corrected this error on Saturday evening."
Facebook is in the tank for the DNC and Hillary. Just look at who all the big-wigs their support with their contribution dollars.
HexaByte - he's a square and a half!
Clinton is the corporate candidate this cycle. Why would corporations want to harm the candidate that's fighting for them?
When will people wake up and realize the fix is in? You know those ties between the media and the Democrats that the right complained about for years? Have you realized yet that the question about using facebook to prevent a Trump presidency wasn't rhetorical?
Bernie's supporters have started to wake up and realize that they are just as excluded as the right. The only difference now is that things are being exposed in plain text for the world to see. Only big business and congress have worse credibility ratings that the media.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/159...
Wake up sheeple.
Being blatantly partisan would harm their business (by insulting their Republican and Independent user base). As a public company, they have a fiscal duty to not place personal political beliefs above the interests of the company (or a shareholder lawsuit might ensue).
If there is a "Filter out any negative Hillary Clinton news until we get enough pressure to release it" filter, then they are setting themselves up for trouble.
"our anti-spam systems briefly flagged links to these documents as unsafe."
The truth has a long tradition of being considered dangerous.
Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
Just curious, did you defend Microsoft as a private Monopoly? Do you realize that Facebook has over 1 billion people on their platform and that they effectively have a monopoly on social media? Do you think it's okay for a monopoly to abuse their position to promote a particular ideology? Would you feel the same way if they promoted right wing content instead?
So your theory is that FB understands nothing about social networks and has never heard of the Streisand Effect.
Slow the story for a few days and it doesn't disrupt the news coverage of the Democratic Convention in Philadelphia. The goal is not necessarily to bury the info, sometime a delay is helpful.
It also explains why a Sanders voter would willingly switch to become a Trump voter
Bernie will cave in and endorse Hillary so he is not ostracized in Congress and given no committee appointments and otherwise made irrelevant.
Bernie voters will largely be good little Democrats loyal to the party and vote for Hillary. And they wonder why they are ignored. When a voter is loyal to a party they are irrelevant, the party already has their vote and need not appease them.
Bernie voters enjoy the few symbolic lines you get in a meaningless party platform that no one ever honors, symbolic lines just like every other forgotten group got in previous party platforms.
When did Republicans do it? For that matter when did Facebook or Twitter, remove information that made Republicans look bad?
A shill for the Dem, Lib. Progressives. They can not win unless the voters are uninformed and do not know the facts. That is why the teachers unions only teach lies. they need to keep the masses uninformed esp. African Americans. Ade Lincoln was a republican!! The old south slave owners pre civil war war were dems The post civil war leaders who passed the segregation laws were dems, old slave owners who wanted to control African Americans The last member of congress who was a member of the KKK was a dem. Senator Strom Thurmond Truth is freedom, From Stroms wiki page In opposition to the Civil Rights Act of 1957, he conducted the longest filibuster ever by a lone senator, at 24 hours and 18 minutes in length, nonstop. In the 1960s, he opposed the civil rights legislation of 1964 and 1965 to end segregation and enforce the constitutional rights of African-American citizens, including suffrage. He always insisted he had never been a racist, but was opposed to excessive federal authority. He attributed the movement to Communist agitators.[5] In 1948, Thurmond said: all the laws of Washington and all the bayonets of the Army cannot force the Negro into our homes, into our schools, our churches and our places of recreation and amusement.[5] The dem party is using welfare and the lies of oppression to control what why once owned. Why any African American would be a dem is beyond me.