HN

Comments (404)

• Menu

  bhouston
  It got less media play but the founder of the Hind Foundation (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hind_Rajab_Foundation) that is going after IDF soldiers for war crimes that happened in Gaza got his Instagram account taking down at the same time, but it wasn't restored:https://www.instagram.com/Aboujahjah/They also removed the account of slain Palestinian journalists, this time including Pulitzer winning Al Jazeera's Anas Al-Sharif - although it seems it is back now: https://www.youtube.com/post/Ugkx0kN5mUZDFsw7OgRiY3ElLx9DgjM...It seems that there are repeated waves of account deletions affecting those not in power and only if you raise a huge stink is it undone but only on a per-account basis. And each of these waves slowly erodes those voices. It sort of feels like a strategy.
• Menu

  fullshark
  That's why I organized my protest on mastodon. No one showed up but my subscribers told me how awesome it was that I organized it.
• Menu

  vlyan
  I can't help but recall the joyous cheers during the deplatforming era. "Freedom of speech doesn't apply to companies" is a particularly vivid memory.
• Menu

  slibhb
  This is a real problem but it doesn't seem to have anything to do with Zuckerberg or Meta in particular. The article admits it's unlikely that this hour-long ban was a top-down decision. People get banned with no recourse on all the big platforms.But yes, a solution is for people to host their own content/sites. Or "protocols not platforms"
• bottle_roket
  I used to deride people complaining about the acts of a private company whose users freely and willfully engage with that company’s services, especially claims about “free speech” when the company owner also has the free speech claim to make whatever policies they see fit for their privately owned business.Now I think it’s pretty clear that the main limiter of speech is not the government but rather a handful of private companies, so the first amendment is no longer adequate to protecting speech. We need to pass laws about opening these platforms once they reach a certain size. Will we get more neo-nazi profiles? Sure, but that’s the trade off for having a platform for positive revolutionaries and journalists and I think the trade off is worth it.
• Menu

  metabagel
  I don't use Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, or TikTok. I feel like people at least need to go on strike once in a while. Stop using those shitty services for a few days or a week so the landlords will make them slightly less shitty.
• Menu

  10111001
  > But there is a better solution: build tools that are open, decentralized, and user controlled. And then actually use them instead of just giving more power to Mark Zuckerberg to shut down a protest organization’s account in the middle of one of its big protests.The problem with that is people are "lazy": they're typically not going to expend extra effort that's not needed to solve the problem in front of them. It's pervasive, and it's one of the big reasons "friction" reducing technology can be really problematic: it turns necessary behaviors into issues of self-discipline (e.g. exercise becomes forcing yourself to haul yourself to the gym regularly in your spare time, instead just walking everywhere because you have to in order to go about your day).So, IMHO, if you want people to use "open, decentralized, and user controlled" tools in 2026, you have to ban the centralized alternatives. Otherwise you're yelling at clouds, as most people will default to the lowest friction alternative they have access to.
• Aunche
  This is a solution looking for a problem. Right now, Meta products are the most efficient way for people to organize a protest, even when it's not reliable, so that's what people will use. If it's no longer a reliable way to organize, people will naturally move to something else without much convincing like they do in places like Hong Kong. It's good to have a backup, but it does not make sense to expect them to avoid the largest social media platforms.
• Menu

  NewJazz
  Unfortunately the truth is, way too.many people use Facebook and Instagram way too much, and oftentimes you need to cast a wide net so you can reach people where they are.
• fusslo
  I started reading (listening to) Careless People: A Cautionary Tale of Power, Greed, and Lost Idealism by Sarah Wynn-Williams.It was really strange. The author seemed to be shocked at (then) Facebook's culture of not getting involved in politics. The author was a part of the effort to convince zuck to be more politically involved. Getting him to meet with heads of state, starting with a junta responsible for atrocities.In full disclaimer, I didn't finish the book. But it was shocking to me what the author was admitting to. It's like the scene in The Big Short where Steve Carell asks "Why are they confessing?" to which the answer was "They're not; they're bragging"
• tashian
  If Facebook is really a "utility" then it should not arbitrarily pull the plug on accounts with no recourse. Other utilities have due process for cutting off access: written notice with a clear reason, a chance to dispute, etc. That's because utilities are regulated.What Facebook has is an opaque process run by AI with no way for most people to appeal.
• WarmWash
  For the record, the account was suspended because it tripped an automated rate limiter. They then had to get in touch with a human to restore the account.That's pretty boring, platform agnostic, and not particularly inciteful though I suppose.
• laurex
  People are convinced that the only way to get attention is by participating in the technofeudal social networks. The problem is that "attention" is not that useful for making change. Until we realize that more intimacy and some level of friction is a feature when it comes to actual power building and organizing, we're going to keep seeing both the lack of control over access to the social networks as well as the continual 'people share and nothing happens' effects of using ad-driven platforms for organizing.
• Menu

  hx8
  The term "platform" implies a level of neutrality that doesn't exist in modern social media. The algorithm is making heavy decisions about what messages to amplify and which messages to suppress, on top of the possibility of a human putting their thumb on the scale.This isn't a new problem. We've always had a few gatekeepers that steer the public narrative. This is a problem that the internet provides a clear opportunity to help solve, but has seemed to fall short. It's a clear blow to all of us techo-optimists.
• Menu

  delichon
  It's a good sign when people have to resort to protesting a one hour suspension of one social media account to get worked up about corporate tyranny.
• karim79
  Techdirt changed my life and a fun fact for those not in the know, is that the Streisand effect was coined by Mike Masnick[0]:[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect
• Menu

  jmclnx
  >And then actually use themThat is the main issue. I am on mastodon but following someone on another instance of mastodon is not easy for "regular people". Until that is solved people will stick to items like twitter and meta.AFAIK, most people on Bluesky are on the "main" instance, so that tends to end up being a centralized community which can suffer from the same issues.
• pfdietz
  It makes me feel good about not using his services.
• anon
  undefined
• lopsotronic
  These systems were ALL originally conceived as surveillance and propaganda tools, with a hitherto-unknown-and-probably-unknowable amount of Cold War Leftover/GWoT black money poured into them to get them scaled before their (sometimes extremely hinky) IPOs. Some of the old security state staff even stayed on. In-Q-Tel. LifeLog. Regina Dugan. Douglas Gage, Jim Breyer, Howard Cox. Thiel and Palantir.They're not deviating from their mission; they're returning to their Dark Enlightenment roots.You could say the same about techbro culture as a whole - it comes from the missile men culture of the 1950s-1960s, which was . . . pretty cozy . . with some personalities of the Old European Right. To this day you still hear "well we weren't able to get to orbit without the god-given aid of Glorious Aryan Rocketmen". When the truth is a little more venal, more like the various departments of the armed forces couldn't keep their daggers out of each others' backs. But the seemingly-hippy-ish libertarian culture of the Valley was a veneer on some very dark crap.ANYWAY. The same technologists have also given us the tools to create true open communications, it's just we haven't been living under the barrel of the gun for long enough yet. I suspect all the tricks will be coming out before too long.
• Menu

  snickerbockers
  >Unfortunately, most of the “solutions” to this problem that people are suggesting are some form of “force Mark Zuckerberg to be better and not shut off the account we like.” But that’s no way to build a better world. It is, also, the exact same response that MAGA folks had when Donald Trump was banned from social media in the wake of the January 6th insurrection. Their response was to try to force platforms to host the content of people MAGA supported. That cannot be a workable solution, because as political fortunes shift, forcing platforms to host the worst people’s accounts is unworkable for basically everyone.The bit about "the worst people's accounts" just sounds like a refutation of everything else in the article. The problem was always that it was up to interpretation who "the worst people" are.IDK why so many people want to die on this hill of not forcing social media companies to extend free-speech rights to their userbase. Facebook didn't accidentally wind up in this position where their TOS can effectively censor entire political movements on the Zuck's whim. They spent decades purposefully angling for this by acquiring competitors and encouraging people to use their platform for any and all communication. They own the audience.>But there is a better solution: build tools that are open, decentralized, and user controlled. And then actually use them instead of just giving more power to Mark Zuckerberg to shut down a protest organization’s account in the middle of one of its big protests.Not happening LOL. The decentralized platforms have been there for 10-20 years, hardly anybody uses them.Back when the shoe was on the other foot, the right tried to make *several* alternative platforms and there was widespread collusion amongst all levels of infrastructure providers to push them off the internet. The same will happen to any platform which seeks to effect political change and attains enough critical mass that it could plausibly do so.
• Menu

  laweijfmvo
  > Or, it could just be that Meta’s automated systems suck. “Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity”. I don't think people acknowledge how often shit like this happens.
• Menu

  jimt1234
  Friendly PSA, hopefully unnecessary: If you attend one of these 'No Kings' gatherings, or any similar gathering, please coordinate with your friends/associates beforehand and leave your phone at home. Or, turn-off your phone or, at the very least, disable all the radios (airplane mode). Also, try to cover your face - Covid mask or big hat and sunglasses, and don't wear any identifying clothing, like the name of your employer. All that might sound paranoid - that's what all my friends tell me. That might be true, but I'm confident DHS also attends these gatherings to collect data. And that data is used to create named lists, the ones you don't wanna be on.
• option
  also, of course, no one should use or let their loved ones use meta’s Muse.even OAI and Ant are better options
• noobrtoobr
  Bsky and HN manipulate social network effects too with their discourse controlsNone of the faceless legal corporate entities should be trusted; many explicitly argued against common carrier to preserve power over discourse that benefits themGot suspended on Bsky for pointing out they too rely on data centers; free speech is not possible online.Not even talking about toxic political speech, just physical fucking truth that might impact the bottom line for a small team of tech bros.There will be no doubting the genius of the SV PhD crowd never mind they too, a minority of the global population, are temporary and deluded self selecting meat suits with no ability to ensure the future cares about their effort; it's all so clearly just selfish lazinessAm raising my kids to be prepared to denigrate and marginalize Millennials as Millennials hit their glazed over elder phase so my kids generation can be free of the same thought policing and social conservatism
• api
  They're not even renting. It's free. There's no obligation, no contract other than a EULA, no guarantees at all.
• anon
  undefined
• varispeed
  I think people in the West have little experience living under totalitarian regime.Typical ways of overcoming censorship is creating own lingo, so that it goes past censors or distribution of physical leaflets, underground press and organising resistance offline.
• zer0zzz
  When people want moderation they cry at Zuck, when people get moderated they cry at Zuck. When people are given free and open systems they cry that it’s icky and weird.
• ChrisArchitect
  Related:Meta Takes Down No Kings Instagram During Protest Dayhttps://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=50136881
• Menu

  sublinear
  Oof 500...Kind of hurts/helps the point, but yeah generally, you should run your own website? Is this the return of the old web?
• Menu

  anonym29
  If you really want to be in charge of your digital life and rights, you need to get off the proprietary plantation. Facebook/Meta, Microsoft, Google/Alphabet, Apple, Discord, TikTok, Twitter/X, Reddit - all of it.You don't need to do this all at once, you shouldn't let "perfect" be the enemy of "progress" - every single proprietary platform you migrate away from is a win: you gain more freedom and more ownership over your digital life every time you do it.Decentralized platforms, federated platforms, self-hostable platforms are where you want to be. Think bluesky, signal (warning: bluesky and signal are still effectively centralized), fediverse, matrix, nostr, peertube, briar, simplex, mastodon, lemmy, loops, stoat, zulip, xmpp, irc, pixelfed, Mail-in-a-Box, nextcloud, cryptpad, linux, lineageos, grapheneos, etc.
• micromacrofoot
  surely this will finally get people off facebook right? right?!
• Menu

  martythemaniak
  The media is mostly MAGA owned. Here's a short list:- TikTok is controlled by Larry Ellison- CBS news is controlled by Ellison's son- The Ellisons will soon own CNN as well- Twitter is controlled by Musk- Facebook, Instagram and Threads are under Zuck- WaPo and Amazon Prime by Bezos- Old time favourites like Fox and WSJ owned by MurdochThe owners of this media are also very explicitly involved in pro-Trump editorial content. In short, the playing field is wildly lopsided and unreliable and no tech (decentralized social media, lol) solution will work. Ultimately people will have to elect politicians to explicitly break up and clamp down on this hive of scum and villainy, but people aren't there yet, mentally. Such a solution seems wildly inappropriate today, but my guess is that another 10 years of the last two years will change a lot of minds.
• jmyeet
  The fascinating thing about the obvious skew in social and traditional media, such as towards the genocide in Gaza, is that US companies are acting like megaphones for the state. They're doing exactly what China hawks accuse the CCP of doing.I know as someone who expresses views contrary to the State Department position online on various platforms and sites that I get held to a much higher standard. Throttling, shadow banning, comments and content being put in review, suppression, accusations of violating ToS for doing something as inocuous as describing someone's argument as "utter nonsense" and so on. All while the establishment view can post with impunity. I get held to a much higher standard.If you want to see how the state treats anyone who protests, look no further than Renee Good and Alex Pretti, murdered in broad daylight by untrained Brownshirts under the color of law. The First Amendment is becoming increasingly theoretical.
• tonymet
  It’s funny how political parties either endorse or reject Zuckerberg (he doesn’t like “Zuck”) depending on the season. In 2020 when he was shilling for Biden, and censoring conservatives (and anti lockdown movements , coincidentally), the left loved him . Now, he’s featuring Hitler reels on IG, and apparently censoring No Kings (?), the Right seems to have warmed to him, and the left scorns him.To his credit, he’s an adaptable Machiavellian .
• mnmnmn
  [dead]
• jmspamerton
  [dead]
• 9494959559
  [dead]
• Menu

  010ED67913
  can't even take this shit seriously anymore. for years when the left controlled twitter they ruled with an iron fist. twitter, meta (then FB), instagram, youtube, would somehow "completely randomly" come to the same conclusions to deplatform people all at once. even now, britain arrests people for wrong think social media posts. people like james damore lost his job for saying the most innocuous milk toast shit you could imagine. and everyone was fine with it, so long as they were the ones calling the shots.all the bullshitting about complaining about centralization, third party this and that, freedom of speech, can't take that shit seriously. somehow they uniquely find only violations of these from people in the "other" side of the aisle. it's just so exhausting and obviously bad faith engagement. and the right isn't really any better, they do the same thing, just flipped. i think it's about time we mostly just admit: libertarians are fools (that used to be me LOL), and nobody in western culture genuinely cares about "free speech". everything they support is free speech, everything they dislike is "hate speech" (notice how the narrative changed). it's all so obvious to anyone who zooms out and looks at the larger trends. just get over it and embrace authoritarianism. just be honest about who you are.
• Menu

  xhkkffbf
  How many people complaining about this were cheering when FB deplatformed Donald Trump?
• Menu

  dayyan
  Trump Derangement Syndrome
• Menu

  miohtama
  Left wing politicians wanted Internet moderation.We got Internet moderation.Watch out what you wish for.
• Menu

  jesuswasjew
  no kings is the biggest limited hangout session, bigger than blm.
• fschuett
  "Kings" as such aren't the problem as much as "CEOs" as such are any problem. There are good kings who cared about their country and bad kings who didn't. Before Henry VIII there were rules in place to restrict the obedience to kings only as long as the kings obey the rules. In 1570, Pope Pius V then told people that the English government is a lost cause and they were free to disobey Queen Elizabeth I (he actually commanded them to disobey, talk about anarchism!).Then later in history you had Robbespierre who campaigned on "democracy" and "we must overthrow the monarchy, then things will be great" ... only to installed himself as a dictator, because only he knew the true morality that people should obide by ("terror is a virtue"). No kings... and then what? No CEOs... and then what? Then we just get a different king / CEO / whatever. Their true shackles are in the people themselves, in their own behaviour, in whom they give attention to. Don't give attention to Facebook and Zuck will have no power.
• Menu

  throwawayfifo
  Oh how the tables have turned! "It's a private platform, they can ban whomever they want" leftists chanted ad nauseam! "I never thought leopards would eat MY face," sobs leftist who voted for the Leopards Eating People's Faces Party.