Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Censorship Facebook Communications Democrats Network Networking Social Networks Software The Internet News Politics Technology

Facebook Admits Blocking WikiLeaks' DNC Email Links, But Won't Say Why (thenextweb.com) 270

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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Facebook Admits Blocking WikiLeaks' DNC Email Links, But Won't Say Why

Comments Filter:
  • by HexaByte ( 817350 ) on Monday July 25, 2016 @03:44PM (#52577871)
    Facebook is in the tank for the DNC and Hillary. Just look at who all the big-wigs their support with their contribution dollars.
    • The idiots should have left well enough alone. There was no way they could prevent people from hearing about it, anyway.

  • The illegal / immoral / ethically questionable activity will continue until someone catches it.

  • Because money (Score:5, Insightful)

    by mveloso ( 325617 ) on Monday July 25, 2016 @03:44PM (#52577879)

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

    • by mveloso ( 325617 )

      As an aside, this may be the first election where corporations donate more money to the Democrats than to the Republicans.

      That's outside of the money they've already "donated" to the Clintons.

      • Re: (Score:2, Troll)

        by Bartles ( 1198017 )

        Bullshit, that will never happen. You do realize that Unions are corporations?

        • by Mashiki ( 184564 )

          Not necessarily. They can be, but many unions especially the smaller ones still operate as not-for-profits. Larger ones like Teamsters, Unifor, Pipefitters, etc., you bet.

          • Yes. Not for profit. Not for profit what?

            • by Zak3056 ( 69287 )

              Yes. Not for profit. Not for profit what?

              This is my main problem with people who complain about the Citizens United decision--none of them ever seem to stop to think about what a "corporation" is, they just yell "four legs good, two legs bad" and talk about "corporate personhood," ignoring the real problems with the idea that people acting in concert (i.e. "corporate entities") should not have the same rights as people acting independently.

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

      So your theory is that FB understands nothing about social networks and has never heard of the Streisand Effect.

      The link was blocked for a short period and then unblocked, this is perfectly consistent with an anti-spam system, that's a narrative that makes sense.

      Simply blocking the link to suppress the news, that's not a narrative that makes sense. It draws attention to the censorship which looks bad on FB and throws more attention on the docs themselves.

      • by drnb ( 2434720 ) on Monday July 25, 2016 @04:36PM (#52578259)

        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.

        • 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.

          And you think obvious censorship is how they would choose to do it?

          If FB wanted to suppress the news they'd just suppress it in the news feeds, essentially what they were accused of doing with some conservative stories.

          It wouldn't be blocked or obviously censored, it just wouldn't show up in news feeds as often as it should, it would be very effective and really hard to detect.

          Obvious censoring with a crude block makes no sense.

      • Re:Because money (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 25, 2016 @04:50PM (#52578369)

        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?

      • by khallow ( 566160 )

        So your theory is that FB understands nothing about social networks and has never heard of the Streisand Effect.

        And I'd say the current story is supporting evidence for the claim that FB just might not understand social networks as much as it should.

    • Re:Because money (Score:4, Insightful)

      by phantomfive ( 622387 ) on Monday July 25, 2016 @04:30PM (#52578221) Journal

      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.

      • by drnb ( 2434720 ) on Monday July 25, 2016 @04:43PM (#52578303)

        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.

      • by amiga3D ( 567632 )

        Trump isn't going to win. Sanders voters will bitch and moan and then vote for Hilliary. Maybe as many as 10 percent will either vote for Trump or more likely just stay home. Hilliary was always going to be the Democratic nominee. It was decided well before the primary ever kicked off. Sanders wasted a lot of time and money and he never had a chance. The entire party machine was out to get him from the start. The Republicans fucked up and let Trump get on a roll and then the fact they had a field of

        • Trump isn't going to win.

          Why not? He's getting ahead in the polls.

          • by amiga3D ( 567632 )

            Because 95 percent of the media is going to actively campaign for Hilliary. All the corporations that usually donate to Republican candidates are going to donate to Hilliary. Every talk show is going to pillory him. Thousands of Hollyweird stars are going to bad mouth him constantly. The Republican elite are at best going to give only the most lukewarm support they think they can get away with. All that and he'll probably still manage to get within 3-5 percent of Hilliary but it wont be enough.

            • I'm not sure that will be enough to turn it against Trump.
            • by Mashiki ( 184564 )

              I own property in a very heavy democrat leaning area in Florida(Hillsborough and Polk Counties), I was just down there doing some prep work for the storm season and to leave keys with one of my friends down there in case they need to board up the house. Everywhere I went those democrats that I know, the areas that were democrats it's Trump. Even the die hard supporters after finding out about the leaks have swung Trump. They believe that neither the DNC or Clinton have their interests at heart and believ

            • by mvdwege ( 243851 )

              Because 95 percent of the media is going to actively campaign for Hilliary.

              Well, yes, because when the choice is between a technocrat and a lying, cheating, insane weasel, that's a no-brainer.

        • Trump isn't going to win.

          I don't know about that. Recently the elite everywhere have been getting their asses handed to them by the voters regardless of whether or not the voters are voting for/against their own self-interest. Exhibit A: Brexit.

      • When it happens. As it stands today I fully expect the exit polls to show Trump with a double digit lead and yet somehow Hillary wins. It _just_ happened that way with Sanders, so you have to expect as much. I am actually quite amazed that the DNC is not a full out riot based on the leaked emails. The corruption was obvious enough when Hillary won 6 out of 6 coin tosses and exit polls flipped in almost every race. Now there is proof as to a more broad corruption and collusion.
    • by guises ( 2423402 )
      You know... I was just going to dismiss that, like all the rest of the election bullshit, but Trump is unstable enough that I wonder if that could be true. Could Hillary be getting money from otherwise Republican donors, just for the sake of having some predictability?
      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward

        Are you kidding me? Clinton is getting money from tons of "Republicans". I use the term loosely because they are only really affiliated with the party that gives them favors. The consensus is you can't trust Trump to give you favors because... he doesn't NEED YOU the way the Clinton's need donors. It is almost somewhat ironic that one of the Clinton's assets is that they rely on a stream of donations to make a living. Its like a symbiotic relationship - everyone knows the Clinton's will follow through wi

  • The party line (Score:2, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward

    Just like they were censoring conservative news stories.

    http://gizmodo.com/former-facebook-workers-we-routinely-suppressed-conser-1775461006

    No accident...the party line.

  • The fix is in (Score:5, Insightful)

    by onyxruby ( 118189 ) <onyxrubyNO@SPAMcomcast.net> on Monday July 25, 2016 @03:52PM (#52577921)

    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... [gallup.com]

    Wake up sheeple.

    • Only big business and congress

      But sir, you repeat yourself.

    • by HiThere ( 15173 )

      It was already clear at the time of the Democrat candidate debates that the "fix was in". Anyone who didn't realize it was just not paying attention. It was (and is) less clear that the Democrats have done more to "fix" the election than have the Republicans, though they have both been clearly seen to be doing it.

  • The truth (Score:5, Insightful)

    by penguinoid ( 724646 ) on Monday July 25, 2016 @03:54PM (#52577949) Homepage Journal

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

    The truth has a long tradition of being considered dangerous.

  • They like the DNC PRO H1B stance

    • by afgam28 ( 48611 )

      To be fair, a dump of "19,252 emails and 8,034 attachments" almost certainly does contain some amount of malware.

  • Because Diversity!

    Oh, and because they want the convention to FeelTheBern.

    Or is it FeelTheBurn?

  • People are offen using FB and other services. They are so easy to use. And all your friends are there, but it is not the free Inernrt you are using. It a walked garden, protected by FB and their personal interest. They control what you see every day.

Error in operator: add beer

Working...