HN Gopher Feed (2017-11-27) - page 1 of 10 ___________________________________________________________________
Romanian Facebook users see their protests-related content reviewed
and blocked
314 points by paganel
http://www.business-review.eu/news/certain-facebook-users-in-rom...___________________________________________________________________
mrtksn - 38 minutes ago
It's probably just an algorithm misfiring.I don't like the
censorship approach to combat miss information, I think the problem
is digitising social interactions without including the social
safeguard dynamics.What I mean is, the problem is not the malicious
information but the lack of accountability for those who introduce
the fake information. In a real life, if someone starts a false
rumour, although the virility can still happen, when the rumour
gets debunked it usually brings punishment to the person who
started it.On the social media, there's no accountability as
creating an account and run it programatically is much easier than
growing an adult and interact with it in multiple social circles.
photonios - 1 hours ago
Couldn't it be that the Romanian government (or someone who has an
interest in this matter) is mass reporting these posts and users?If
I wanted to make someone shut up on Facebook; I'd write a bot that
uses hundreds of fake Facebook accounts to report certain users.
This would cause Facebook's automated systems to temporarily
disable posting rights till they've had a chance to review the user
in question. Eventually, Facebook's review teams would review the
user and lift the block. But, usually there's a delay between
reporting a user and Facebook 's review teams looking into it.
Which is enough to shut up a user for a couple of hours.
maephisto - 54 minutes ago
That's most likely the case. There's even no need for bots or
automated ways, the ruling party has a lot of followers which are
know to follow orders. Plus, there's been plenty of times when
they bought votes and people support.
[deleted]
gergdgdfg - 59 minutes ago
you can sort of tell that facebook is a company of no principles
from its adulatory attitude towards Chinese government and its
censorship policies.
ccozan - 1 hours ago
Proof that any technology has a double use. Once is good to filter
spam/fake news, but in this case the fast spreading of the news is
crucial for rallying people to a cause.
cat199 - 58 minutes ago
and isn't it surprising that anything that is anti-EU is
'spam/fake news' and that anything that is pro-EU is 'crucial for
rallying people to a cause'..
simion314 - 29 minutes ago
FYI this protests are not related at all with EU, this is not
the first time when large protests happen with laws that favor
the corrupts are attempted to be passed, laws like allowing
people condemned for corruption to be able to become prime
minster, changing the corruption laws so specific people can
escape justice. Again nothing related with EU, migration or
whatever you are imagining
jotm - 44 minutes ago
How the fuck did you come up with that one...
maephisto - 39 minutes ago
Oh, MAGA is strong in this one.
flexie - 59 minutes ago
I chose to believe that this is a side-effect of facebook trying to
combat fake news with some lame algorithms and an understaffed
department of reviewers, not facebook actively trying to please the
Romanian authorities.But even so, this shows how utterly unprepared
facebook is for its role as a de facto news business. A bunch of
engineers thinking they are smarter than they actually are
unwillingly facilitate the election of Trump, Brexit, genocide in
Myanmar, and apparently the suppression of opposition in Romania.
And who knows what.At the end of the day, relying on a social
network run by a bunch of college kids, with absolutely no
editorial board, no knowledge of any of the news they show, no
local presence anywhere, no income except what they generate on
advertisement, and worst of all, an incentive and an ability to
show every individual exactly the news he wants to read in order to
keep his eyeballs for another add, is a really bad for
civilization.But that's what we have.
NumberCruncher - 48 minutes ago
Zuckerberg's Switchblade: Make it look like a side-effect of
trying to combat fake news.
wolco - 43 minutes ago
Or are they playing along to change the story around how much
less time people are using facebook but still checking in and how
users are counted. It feels like content generation has slowed
and most people are only absorbing.Change the headline.
rdtsc - 1 hours ago
I was joking before and said that it is inevitable that Facebook,
Google and Twitter will eventually sell SaaS (Silencing as a
Service).But maybe it wasn't a joke after all...It is simply too
tempting to not do it. They have information which the Stasis and
KGBs of the past would kill for.One thing Romanian government
should be careful with is not listening to protesters. That is at
least one country where they have learned to not piss off the
people. In 1989 they rose up, caught and killed their corrupt
dictator. All in the matter of days.Nobody forgot that. In early
2017 I remember they passed some decree to weaken some corruption
laws. People came out to protest and within days decision was
reversed. It was quick and short. Everyone wiped hands on pants and
went home.https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/04/world/europe/romania-
prot...Occupy and anti-Trump protestors should study and learn how
that works. You see to have effective peaceful protests, there has
to be a credible threat of extreme and overwhelming violence that
will follow unless the government listens. Government should be
afraid of the people.The interesting development is that with
Facebook and large centralized social media companies, the strategy
seems to silence and prevent these protests from forming to begin
with.
thedevil - 1 hours ago
> Occupy and anti-Trump protestors should study and learn how
that works. You see to have effective peaceful protests, there
has to be a credible threat of extreme and overwhelming violence
that will follow unless the government listens. Government should
be afraid of the people.Please don't encourage violence.The anti-
Trumpers aren't fighting corruption, they're fighting democracy
and their fellow citizens.Note that I'm anti-Trump myself - I
voted against him and find him to be an embarrassment. But
that's no justification for putting on masks and beating up
random people. Nor is it an excuse for encouraging others to do
the same.
mschuster91 - 57 minutes ago
> But that's no justification for putting on masks and beating
up random people. Nor is it an excuse for encouraging others to
do the same.The problem is, until those in powers are not
afraid that their bodies will literally be dragged through the
streets, they have no incentive to not do anything they need to
stay in power. And the more authoritarian the rule of those in
power is, the greater the desire of those not in power to pay
back what they received - which means that the means those in
power use to stay in power grow ever more brutal. Not nice, but
that's the way it is.Please also remember the inherent violence
in the capitalist system - the richness of the rich is
guaranteed by the threat of the police to arrest and the
"justice" system to lock you up in case you dare to take
something away from the rich.I personally won't throw bricks at
banks but I also will not distance myself from those who feel
that this is an appropriate course of action.
aaron-lebo - 55 minutes ago
When the revolution comes for your head, too, you might have
a different view on that, and history has shown that to
happen time and time again.
wolco - 49 minutes ago
Violence? Drag his body down the street? Attacking innocent
people until everyone does what you say? Those groups get
labelled terrorist.That is the difference between a first
world country and a second or third. Some people may hate
trump but they also know in a few years people will have the
option of voting for someone else.When you change leaders by
dragging them down a street you get the types of leaders who
will drag you down the street if need be.
eecc - 37 minutes ago
Nope, the difference between first, second and third world
is whether a country aligns to the USA block, the USSR bloc
or remain unaligned and pretend to stay out of the Cold War
stand-off. That Third World Non-aligned countries tended to
be piss-poor, plundered failed states, and theaters for
proxy wars between USA and USSR helped the confusion that
the classification is of economic development. It?s not
[deleted]
throwaway613834 - 32 minutes ago
> Violence? [...] That is the difference between a first
world country and a second or third."Third-world" doesn't
mean what you think it means. Switzerland is a third-world
country.
pmontra - 7 minutes ago
I upvoted you for historical merit but the meaning of
words change. Third world means poor countries now.
throwaway613834 - 5 minutes ago
> Third world means poor countries now.A citation would
be nice. Also, what countries would be second-world with
that definition?
labster - 6 minutes ago
None of that Cold War pedantry. Language has evolved in
the decades since the fall of the USSR. Switzerland is a
first world country on the developed-developing-
underdeveloped economic axis that most people mean now.
mc32 - 10 minutes ago
In parlance 3rd world didn't just mean non aligned as it
did in political circles, for the hoi polloi it just
meant underdeveloped economy --whether that was misuse of
the term is irrelevant because that's how most people
used it when a politically bipolar world existed.
bjelkeman-again - 10 minutes ago
Interesting. I have never met anyone in Europe that uses
the term that way, but apparently it was used that way in
some contexts.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_World
throwaway613834 - 1 minutes ago
Thanks for the citation!
mschuster91 - 40 minutes ago
> Some people may hate trump but they also know in a few
years people will have the option of voting for someone
else.This is the thing where I am not sure of, and this is
the problem. You remember "Lock her up"? Who can guarantee
that Trump is not going to follow through on this promise?
Who can guarantee that Trump will not again cooperate with
the Russians in order to get reelected? Or for what its
worth who can guarantee that Trump won't pardon himself (or
fire Mueller) when the fire of the Mueller investigations
grows too hot - and then, who can guarantee that the
Republicans will grow the spine to impeach him?The
perspective of a possibility of change in three years is
growing slimmer and slimmer by the day, with each moderate
Republican getting replaced by an alt-righter. And you
better hope no other Supreme Court justice dies or retires
as long as Trump is in power - because then nothing that
challenges gerrymandering will pass the SC.
katastic - 12 minutes ago
>You remember "Lock her up"? Who can guarantee that Trump
is not going to follow through on this promise?1) He
hasn't in over a year of office.2) He can't do anything
that overrides the judicial and legislative branches.
Which is why ALL of his major plans go no where. No
Muslim ban. No reproductive rights changes. Nothing.3) If
she commits crimes, why should she be above jail time?
Shouldn't everyone who major commits crimes be in jail?
Trump, Hillary, what's the difference? A crime is a crime
--regardless of whether you like that candidate.And back
to #2. That is why your worldview is both insane, and
dangerous. Even when you have a "Bad president" the rest
of the country keeps ticking along fine because the other
branches are designed from the ground up to prevent
dictators of all types.So you basically just want to burn
the country to the ground because "your candidate" didn't
win. And that's a horrific reason to plunge a country
into chaos. You're basically arguing to plunge the
country into the very chaos you claim we're already
in.Dragging bodies through the streets? Burning down
buildings, and neighborhoods? Smoke bombs? Throwing
bottles of piss at veterans? Does that sound like
something that brings freedom and liberty and peace? Does
utopia come from evil? And how in the world can you be
sure "your vision" of utopia is going to be the one that
comes when you pull a revolution? You think when you
destabilize the most powerful country in the world, that
nobody else in the world is going to try and swoop into
that power vacuum?Only if you've been drinking the
coolaid.So let me end with a quote from Bill Clinton:
They need to be for something specific and not just
against something because if you?re just against
something, somebody else will fill the vacuum
you create.?
thedevil - 47 minutes ago
The people in power have to fear losing elections. The
system was specifically designed so the masses can force
change without violence.Supporting terrorism to override that
system is awful, regardless of how you feel about capitalism.
mschuster91 - 36 minutes ago
> The system was specifically designed so the masses can
force change without violence.Point is, you need masses.
Masses that are interested in politics, and actually have
the time to be interested in politics! If I would have to
work two (or more) jobs to get by certainly politics were
solid bottom of my priority list. Democracy needs an
electorate that is interested in democracy or it will get
owned by a minority who is, and then dismantled.
logiclion - 45 minutes ago
Sure, hate the rich, it doesn't prove you have compassion for
the poor. What you are stating as a threat is really the
'protection' of private property. Something that a poor
person has access to as well, and in fact the utilization of
such could allow them to come out of poverty.As far as your
remarks on power, I hope you also understand it isn't a
replacement for a hierarchy built on competence. Something
that the Capitalist system seems to reward as
well...interesting...
[deleted]
drb91 - 57 minutes ago
The idea that democracy already failed and americans are
already serving oligarchs is more common than you might
think.It?s certainly difficult to see how anti-trump people are
anti-democracy: the mechanism with which trump won is
distinctly NOT democratic.To some extent, democracy (and a
republic to a far greater extent) only works because of fear of
violence. This was discussed heavily in the early days of the
republic (well, both the us and rome).
wolco - 46 minutes ago
But then it didn't fail because the version that was
implemented started off with oligarchs we have been slowly
moving in the right direction
eecc - 34 minutes ago
That?s what they teach in the classrooms you faithfully
attended. Gotta love the raptured eyes of the pupils, so
alike those wondering about the virtues of Stalinism...
logiclion - 20 minutes ago
Ah yes, The Gulag Archipelago
drb91 - 28 minutes ago
Ehh, you win some you lose some. If you look throughout
history, our rights and needs are constantly defended. You
could look at that as progress, or you could look at it as
a constant rebuffing of powerful forces trying to change
the direction of the country. It?s a matter of perspective.
Personally i?ve found judging social progress to be a
rather fruitless task in a general sense; only when we try
to solve specific problems are there clear cut victories
and losses.
[deleted]
mtgx - 11 minutes ago
But the threat of violence is what seems to
work:https://www.vox.com/2015/4/30/8518681/protests-riots-
workMany Americans like to whine about their gun rights because
they need the guns to fight an oppressive government! But it
seems the U.S. government has gotten away with quite a lot
lately in terms of how corrupt they've become and the fact that
so many Americans own guns doesn't seem to have deterred them
too much.In fact, every protest seems to be met with
increasingly more violence from the government. Something tells
me they aren't too scared at all about people's guns. I can
only imagine how they will act when they start allowing police
departments to launch drones against protesters in the future
(taser-armed, pepper spray-armed, whatever).
frandroid - 1 hours ago
Facebook and Twitter routinely censor on behalf of repressive
governments. But the joke is on Facebook and Twitter, as it is
them which pay this price as the cost of doing business in these
countries.
aaron-lebo - 58 minutes ago
Occupy and anti-Trump protestors should study and learn how that
works. You see to have effective peaceful protests, there has to
be a credible threat of extreme and overwhelming violence that
will follow unless the government listens. Government should be
afraid of the people.Those groups cannot begin to challenge the
government with violence. What you are suggesting is much more
likely to end up in an orgy of bloodshed with innocent people
being the victims. It's time we evolve.
norswap - 2 minutes ago
The OP's position is naive. So is yours.
simlevesque - 56 minutes ago
The parent was clearly refering to the early 2017 protests, not
those of 1989. It's as if you did not read one of his
paragraphs, the one just before what you quoted.
[deleted]
cdubzzz - 51 minutes ago
OP said: ?Nobody forgot that. (the 1989 protest)?.Thus the
implication seems quite clear - rise up and murder a leader
if you want to be heard (then and now).
5ilv3r - 25 minutes ago
The US has no problem doing that as a service for other
countries...
jotm - 46 minutes ago
Evolve to what? The government isn't afraid, so why would they
do anything for people?People were literally bombed for wanting
better worker's rights a century ago, apparently it's time for
that again?
aaron-lebo - 35 minutes ago
Get in government, dedicate yourself to public service.
Violence is the lazy and cowardly way out. You can't beat
your opponent so you beat them up.When I say evolve, we're
not the apes in 2001 anymore are
we?https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=strWmj-vZ88
thriftwy - 24 minutes ago
Bad news.We still are and we're getting worse these days.
jdironman - 23 minutes ago
The only problem is that immediate and imminate
repercussion has more immediate effects. Governments should
be held accoubtable just as people are. If you knew I could
steal 1 billion dollars and that somewhere along the line a
kid is gonna grow up, go to high school, go to college,
become a judge eventually and then try me for my crime
after any number of years then I cant help but wonder how
many would not go ahead and do it. Just based on the fact
that they could be dead before they are even held
accountable. However, if you knew you would be caught and
challenged in less than a week I think that number would
drop significantly.
[deleted]
throwaway613834 - 18 minutes ago
> Get in government, dedicate yourself to public
service.Notwithstanding the conclusion, the argument is a
bit na?ve. It's not like we have third party candidates
winning left and right. There are established players who
crush outside competition, regardless of the quality of the
candidates. And there's no guarantee that even if you have
any influence, you'll see the benefit in your lifetime. The
idea that every problem can be solved peacefully isn't a
bad one, but it's just something you have to accept in
faith, not something you can ground in truth. Pretending
that simply being dedicated to a good cause is all it takes
to fix a problem entirely misses why people are proposing
other paths in the first place.
trhway - 14 minutes ago
>Get in government, dedicate yourself to public
service.playing by the rules of the game one can play
varying game sessions, yet the chess will stay chess and Go
will stay Go. Rules define the game. The set of available
scenarios under given rules either covers the target
outcome or not. In case of the latter the rules change is
needed, and the given rules may not allow for the necessary
rules change.>Violence is the lazy and cowardly way out.if
only somebody of that group of lazy cowards applied for the
Colonies tea tax collector position 244 years ago... though
even if a one applied and was accepted, then what? I'd be
really interested to learn your thoughts on that matter.
vkou - 1 hours ago
> Occupy and anti-Trump protestors should study and learn how
that works. You see to have effective peaceful protests, there
has to be a credible threat of extreme and overwhelming violence
that will follow unless the government listens. Government should
be afraid of the people.This is why the Civil Rights movement was
successful (To a point). On the one hand, you had MLK preaching
peace, and on the other hand, you had folks like Malcolm X, and
the Black Panthers, who made it very clear that they will defend
their rights.White America was scared to death of the latter - to
the point where they made concessions to the former.Likewise with
Ghandi in India. The British didn't leave because he made them
feel bad - they left because if a revolt took place, they knew
wouldn't be able to repress it.
TaylorAlexander - 35 minutes ago
I?d love for those downvoting you to join in on the debate. I?m
less familiar with Ghandi but what you say about Malcom X and
MLK is consistent with what I know about the situation.
eecc - 31 minutes ago
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/10003400-the-net-delusio...
bad_user - 25 minutes ago
I'm a Romanian and I can confirm that posts and accounts have been
blocked, probably because of being reported by the other side.On
the other hand, folks, this is a little reminder that censorship is
a doubly edged knife ;-) So next time you call for censoring "fake
news", think again, because it's not you who will benefit from it.A
couple of years back I was enthusiastic about the rise of social
media for informing and coordinating citizens to fight injustice.
Now that I'm older and wiser, I can tell you that no evolution or
revolution can happen because of Facebook, only regression.
Facebook is poison.
johndevor - 25 minutes ago
I think Blockstack.org may help with this problem.
danra - 23 minutes ago
It's probably just Facebook's AI thinking that protesting against
the government is dangerously close to suicide, and so protecting
its users accordingly.
simion314 - 15 minutes ago
Your comment is bad, even for a bad sub-reddit standard, the joke
is not funny and the only danger after such protests this days is
that the prime minster will have to resign if the protests are
not handled correctly.
freedomben - 1 hours ago
This is exactly why I think it's dangerous to have a company like
Facebook censor people, even in the name of "fake news." It's
within their right to do so on their platform, but I don't think
they should. You'll never get it 100% right, and real/legitimate
people will end up silenced because of it. I wouldn't want that on
my conscience.
megous - 52 minutes ago
Centralization is the real issue here. If people were sending
emails to each other, this could not have happened.Some would
perhaps end up in spam, but if you're receiving the "same"
message from multiple people, the information itself would
eventually came through.
tudorconstantin - 1 hours ago
As a Romanian what seems to happen is that a large group of
supporters of the ruling party were coordinated in reporting the
protests-related posts. I think facebook could easily implement an
algorithm to detect reporting rings and actually suspending their
member's accounts. Just like reddit is doing with the upvoting
rings.
cat199 - 1 hours ago
and what precisely is the difference between a 'reporting ring'
and an 'activist group', algorithmically?
tankenmate - 52 minutes ago
The ring is just an indicator of coordination. Coordiniation of
what is left up to the humans.
creaghpatr - 42 minutes ago
Reporting rings are pretty common on Facebook
mtgx - 7 minutes ago
> algorithm to detect reporting ringsHow the hell is this not a
thing already at Facebook? Are you freaking serious, Facebook?
And you want to impress us with your lame "AI"?!Reddit has had
ring voting protection for years, and it only has 1/10 of
Facebook's userbase.I sure hope Facebook isn't planning on
developing a self-driving car software platform.
paganel - 1 hours ago
This happened as this related article
(http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/11/07/facebook-cant-cope-with-...)
was on the front page of HN yesterday.
funkythingss - 14 minutes ago
congratulations. This is what you get if you let governments like
Germany, US... work with Facebook to combat "online harassment",
"offensive content" or insert-phobia-here. It all seems like a nice
idea, but it always backfires.
officemonkey - 1 hours ago
Facebook should really think about whether they want to piss off
Romanians protesting. Christmas is coming.
paulddraper - 1 hours ago
Sorry, but I don't get the reference. Is Santa Claus Romanian?
paganel - 1 hours ago
It's about this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trial_of_Nicolae_and_Elena_Cea...
, i.e. we "trialed" and subsequently executed the Ceausescu
couple on Christmas Day 1989.
nes350 - 1 hours ago
They executed Nicolae Ceau?escu on December 25th.
joe_hills - 1 hours ago
A previous Romanian protest led to a show-trial on December 25,
1989. The sentence was execution.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trial_of_Nicolae_and_Elena_Cea...
[deleted]
pawelk - 1 hours ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicolae_Ceau%C8%99escu#DeathI
think that, coincidentally, Nicolae would be Romanian for
Claus?
merraksh - 1 hours ago
Ceausescu was killed on Dec 25 1989, after widespread protests.
znpy - 1 hours ago
I am not surprised.