The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Testing Facebook's censorship engine
Day 3
Has the Facebook censorship engine finally caught up with Facebook's censorship ambitions? My day 2 post, when it first went up, resolved to a deep link on Infowars about US unemployment reaching a 50-year low. When I reposted it with public access, though, the link resolved to a "Page Not Found" message—on Infowars.com.
I thought maybe Facebook engineers had finally got their censorship engine up and running, but first I checked to see if Infowars had dropped the story. Nope, it still seems to be on the Infowars site, here: https://www.infowars.com/jobs-surge-unemployment-falls-to-…/
But if this is the result of the censorship engine, it's still coughing and backfiring. More likely, the answer to this mystery lies in the details of ad tracking URLs. When the link went up, Facebook rewrote it to include a prefix: "fbclid=IwAR1P6by_S5-lBYmb6vbkhnLVohyIFZfgLqvFegLwIYfUApVNzI5CxogVp-s". I assume that the purpose of the prefix was to make sure Facebook could identify everyone who clicked on the link as they left Facebook's site. But for whatever reason, the prefix stopped working and stopped delivering people to the deeplinked story. The link still went to Infowars, but that site didn't recognize the prefix and therefore said that it couldn't find the page, once again dropping Facebook readers on the Infowars landing page, where they are exposed to the Full Alex Jones Paranoia Package—probably not what Facebook engineers intended.
I'm thinking maybe there's a new IT law in all this mess, something like: "Censorship is hard. Leave it to the Chinese."
To get the Volokh Conspiracy Daily e-mail, please sign up here.
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. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
“censorship”
You Keep Using That Word, I Do Not Think It Means What You Think It Means
What do you think it means? Are you one of those false pedants who think only governments can censor?
Unfortunately, the word has taken on a number of negative connotations over the years, making it highly preferable to use other terms as an alternative whenever possible. That being said, Facebook should certainly assist law enforcement agencies nationwide by suppressing, banning, and blocking any form of inappropriately deadpan “parody” that might otherwise appear on the company’s platform. See the documentation of our nation’s leading criminal “satire” case at:
https://raphaelgolbtrial.wordpress.com/
Need a dictionary regexp?
If facebook is responding to pressure from legislators who threaten investigstions, or changes to laws to remove legal protections or “break up” companies, unless they, wink, do something to silence some postings to make the legislators happy, then yes, it is government censorship.
Facebook can engage in censorship only if they are appointed Imperial Censor by the Roman Empire?
[…] from Law https://reason.com/2019/05/05/testing-facebooks-censorship-engine/ […]
[…] on May 5, 2019 by Benjamin Alexander De […]