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?
Just like they were censoring conservative news stories.
http://gizmodo.com/former-facebook-workers-we-routinely-suppressed-conser-1775461006
No accident...the party line.
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?
they can do no wrong?
Of course. The exact same phenomena occurred when we learned about their biased grooming of their news feed. All of the sudden corporate sovereignty was paramount! Never had so much love for Facebook appeared among the cubical trolls of Slashdot.
Maw! Fire up the karma burner!
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.
I always said the same about TV and radio companies, but various Statists from FCC and FEC down to Slashdot cowards always disagreed.
Good to see some turnaround in public opinion towards liberty. Except, oh, wait, TV, radio, and even web-sites may not be able to do what they want... Even texting in support of a candidate may be illegal.
Unless, obviously, the candidate is from the Party of Government. For a few decades we had something called Fairness Doctrine, which allowed FCC to enforce "fairness". Libertarians fought it, but at least, with it on the books, one could formally complain against "unfair" coverage. Not any more — with only 7% of journalists being Republicans, the game is played with only one set of goal-posts...
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
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.
Only big business and congress
But sir, you repeat yourself.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
It's even giving me pause how deep the roots of Amazon and Facebook go in the internet, the only thing that surprises me now isn't how long ads for something I've looked at follow me, but that they don't stop after I've finally bought it.
One bizarre thing I've notice is a lot of links on Facebook to Uber-Conservative sites are redirecting to sites that my anti-virus is blocking in the last few days. I thought it was just my paranoia over some wonky adds served up on the sites, but now I'm not so sure. Seems like with all of the programming chops they have, it would be trivial to insert some malicious adverts into sites they disagree with philosophically.
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
When did Republicans do it? For that matter when did Facebook or Twitter, remove information that made Republicans look bad?
Computers are compromised all the time, and published docs on Wikileaks all the time. IF you start punishing Wikileaks now, you're just saying THIS time is too far, and all those other times ... not so much.
That is kind of the whole point of Wikileaks, and has been. So, unless this is your latest protest in a long line of protests against Wikileaks, you're just a closet shill. I would protest against Wikileaks, except this time, the far left which has been feeding off Wikileaks for years, has finally been Leaked as being exactly what I always thought they were. That, and very few on the left cared about those being hacked and released to Wikileaks before Friday, so turn about is fair play IMHO. Karma is a bitch.
And for the record, I am a Libertarian. Karma is a bitch unless you stand on principles even when they don't work in your favor. My only joy in this is that the Press cannot hide this shit from view, and we're all seeing exactly how the 5th estate has been carrying Clinton's baggage around. It is also kind of fun watching the cognitive dissonance from Hillary Supporters trying to defend the indefensible. I expect the silence from normal DNC trolls to last only a short while (next time Trump inserts foot into mouth)
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
And then it just continues in plain sight?
Yes, actually, it does. You've seen multiple examples of this surrounding Hillary Clinton and her operatives in the DNC in the last days and weeks. With Clinton, you've seen it for years. Are you actually surprised?
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.