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."

Comments

Facebook is in the tank for the DNC

[HexaByte]

Facebook is in the tank for the DNC and Hillary. Just look at who all the big-wigs their support with their contribution dollars.

Because money

[mveloso]

Clinton is the corporate candidate this cycle. Why would corporations want to harm the candidate that's fighting for them?

Re:Because money

[phantomfive]

Clinton is the corporate candidate this cycle.

That's the most concise explanation of why Trump will win that I've seen yet. It also explains why a Sanders voter would willingly switch to become a Trump voter, even though they are different in many ways.

Re:Because money

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, they think that a temporary block provides enough of a pause to stop things from going full viral before a response can be issued. Viral transfer of information can't continue if the links don't work. While the Streisand Effect is bad, viral transfer is WORSE, because it is associated with real people (your friends / family) and you are more likely to re-post the information. The Streisand Effect may make people generally aware that someone has done something bad but specific links from your friends / family's facebook pages have a much higher impact than reading about it on slashdot the next day when after denial and false narratives have been spun.

The entire Clinton playbook is based on denying the truth, spinning an alternate/false narrative, misdirecting attention to something else and trying to move on. The formula has worked incredibly well because blind supporters a) believe the denial, b) can use the false narrative in conversation and c) the topic passes before supporters run out of stamina on defending the topic.

Blocking the viral spread allows time to deny and generate the false narratives, before the Streisand Effect can take hold. Plus, Facebook has the ultimate excuse they use EVERY TIME - "spam filter" or "careless employee" or "automatic script" etc. What facebook using Hillary lover is not going to believe the story?

Re:Because money

[phantomfive]

Because they have terrible critical thinking skills and fall for dumb conspiracy theories?

I don't know about their critical thinking, but there was a real conspiracy here, the evidence is right there on Wikileaks......

Re:Because money

[phantomfive]

How can you not consider superdelegates to be corruption? What exactly do you consider to be corruption?

Re:Because money

[ganjadude]

corrupt by design is still corrupt

The fix is in

[onyxruby]

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.

Re: The fix is in

[Mr D from 63]

Bernie supporters got swindled out of 220+ million dollars to see Bernie be a shill for Hillary.

So if someone named Bernie "made off" with your money, should you be A. mad at Bernie, B. mad at yourself for letting yourself getting swindled, C. mad at the system, OR D. all of the above Just curious...

or E. mad at the Russians (This choice was paid for by the Clinton Campaign)

The truth

[penguinoid]

"our anti-spam systems briefly flagged links to these documents as unsafe."

The truth has a long tradition of being considered dangerous.

Re:Ok, so what?

[onyxruby]

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?

Sometime a delay is helpful

[drnb]

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.

Welcome to Libertarianism

[mi]

They are a private company. They can filter, block, promote any speech that they want.

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...

Sanders voters will be good little Democrats

[drnb]

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.

Re:Sanders voters will be good little Democrats

[lgw]

Bernie told the BernieBots today that they need to vote for Hillary. He got booed by his audience. They really don't like Hillary, though I can't see them voting Trump.

Re:Same as with all other Democrat institutions

[Bartles]

When did Republicans do it? For that matter when did Facebook or Twitter, remove information that made Republicans look bad?