One more thing about the Infowars link ban

Maybe the most interesting thing, actually

|The Volokh Conspiracy |

I don't want to bury the lede here.

Probably the most interesting thing about this test is what hasn't happened. I haven't been suspended or warned by Facebook about linking to Infowars, and while Facebook has broken some of the links to Infowars, it has done so in a fashion so haphazard and incompetent that I doubt the breakage was intentional.

Does this mean that Alex Jones is overhyping the Facebook "link ban"? Nah, that would make him a conspiracy-mongering paranoid … oh. Never mind.

NEXT: Testing Facebook's censorship engine

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. It’s baffling to me why no one has expanded the open-source Bittorrent user communications coding to tunnel in all the social networks in a single, but unlike Bittorrent itself, graphically expanded interface. No one can prohibit anyone’s participation and each individual can block whatever they don’t want. Problem solved.

    1. Look into Minds.

    2. It’s only “baffling” if you think this is a technological problem, and not a social one.

  2. Just because the somebody who’s conspiring against you isn’t all that competent about it, doesn’t mean they aren’t conspiring against you.

    I suspect what’s going on here is that FB has factions. They’re all in agreement about who the enemy is, but they disagree about what to do to the enemy. So the action against their enemies isn’t well coordinated.

    Yet.

  3. Stewart Baker uses a blog that engages in partisan censorship to fault another another site for censorship.

    Perhaps that hypocrisy is a step up from his customarily authoritarian right-wing contributions to American debate.

    Carry on, faux libertarians. So far and so long as your betters permit, anyway.

    1. Interesting how the Rev equates a blog with a site in demonstrating hypocrisy. He conveniently ignores the fact that the two are completely different: one being a place to post your opinions and allow comments as you see fit; one being a website that is granted immunity from liability under the common carrier model.

      1. Annoying. I was editing that to say “protection from liability” when my screen jumped and I posted it instead.

      2. Rev isnt a threat to having an actual intelligent comment. I think he is here mostly to let Bernard and Sarcastro think they offer up intelligent replies.

  4. Curious if anyone has tried to replicated the experimental link posts to see how consistently facebook is applying its rules…
    ^e.g. there is always the chance that it is slow rolling out its rules with A/B tests and or flighting to see what works best.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.