Facebook Criticized For Temporarily Blocking Entire Domain 'Dreamwidth.org' (dreamwidth.org) 41
Dreamwidth is an online journal service based on the LiveJournal codebase, according to Wikipedia — "a code fork of the original service, set up by ex-LiveJournal staff Denise Paolucci and Mark Smith, born out of a desire for a new community based on open access, transparency, freedom and respect."
"I discovered, about an hour ago, that all of my posts on Facebook which were links to Dreamwidth had vanished. Suddenly gone as if they'd never existed," complained Dreamwidth user Andrew Ducker on Sunday morning.
Though that afternoon he posted "All working fine now," thousands had already seen his original post (quoted below): I checked with Denise (one of the owners of Dreamwidth) to find out if she knew about it, and discovered that Facebook have stuck Dreamwidth on a block list...
This is unbelievably frustrating. And the kind of centralised, autocratic, opaque decision making which I loathe. Tens of thousands of active users, unable to share blog posts with Facebook (which, let's face it, is where most of my friends go for their socialising)...
"This may be an overzealous spam filter at work," Slashdot reader JoshuaZ had argued. But even before Facebook adjusted their filtering, Dreamwidth co-owner Mark Smith was calling it "definitely a bit of a /shrug moment... 'Facebook gonna Facebook' I think is approximately how we feel about this...
"We do not have any goals around growth, we don't advertise, and we ultimately don't care that much what the other platforms do. Our goal is to give people a stable home where they don't have to worry about their data being sold, their writing being monetized..."
"I discovered, about an hour ago, that all of my posts on Facebook which were links to Dreamwidth had vanished. Suddenly gone as if they'd never existed," complained Dreamwidth user Andrew Ducker on Sunday morning.
Though that afternoon he posted "All working fine now," thousands had already seen his original post (quoted below): I checked with Denise (one of the owners of Dreamwidth) to find out if she knew about it, and discovered that Facebook have stuck Dreamwidth on a block list...
This is unbelievably frustrating. And the kind of centralised, autocratic, opaque decision making which I loathe. Tens of thousands of active users, unable to share blog posts with Facebook (which, let's face it, is where most of my friends go for their socialising)...
"This may be an overzealous spam filter at work," Slashdot reader JoshuaZ had argued. But even before Facebook adjusted their filtering, Dreamwidth co-owner Mark Smith was calling it "definitely a bit of a /shrug moment... 'Facebook gonna Facebook' I think is approximately how we feel about this...
"We do not have any goals around growth, we don't advertise, and we ultimately don't care that much what the other platforms do. Our goal is to give people a stable home where they don't have to worry about their data being sold, their writing being monetized..."
Dreamwidth? (Score:1)
Sounds like Facebook responded to a claim of fat shaming.
Re: Dreamwidth? (Score:3)
They were founded in 2008. They've been around since George W Bush was president.
Re: (Score:2)
"We do not have any goals around growsth, and we ultimately don't care that much what the other platforms do."
This phrasing does sound like they might have encountered fat shaming trigger word algorithms.
Censorship is not by formal governments (Score:2)
Censorship is not by formal governments, it's by the megacorporations that we get censorship - then they request their censorship later on to end up in law if they find it necessary.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
"Facebook, 'Dreamwidth' What are these things?"
Exactly! Some spammer got blocked by error or not, who cares?
Happens a thousand times a day.
Re: (Score:2)
Censorship by corporations is directly due to government threats of cracking down on whatever trigger of the day happens to be at the top of news medias buffet. Whether it's the people's wish or not is TBD.
freedom and respect are mutually exclusive (Score:5, Insightful)
open access, transparency, freedom and respect
You see, that's the mistake almost every idealistic "open and free Internet" pioneer have made, and are still making today.
As far as humans are involved, you cannot have both freedom and respect, for the exact same reason you cannot have a pile of dry hay and a lighted match. Even if 99% of people are good, decent human beings who simply want a place for the free and dynamic exchange of ideas, there has always been and always will be the odd sociopathic troll who, given the freedom to do so, will always throw the match into the hay because he "just wants to watch the world burn".
Moderation, however minimal, is still not freedom, but is the only way to obtain respect. Therefore, the two (freedom and respect) are mutually exclusive. So in the end, it always comes down to this: Choose your pain.
Re: freedom and respect are mutually exclusive (Score:2)
Thatâ(TM)s indeed what promoters of censorship would like you to think. Itâ(TM)s a misguided and misinformed notion of respect you have; respect means to allow one to exercise ones freedom and not to get offended when one does. Being offended at what others believe is disrespectful in the highest degree.
Re: (Score:2)
Misguided and misinformed notion according to who ? You ?
Maybe, since you're personnaly incapable, or unwilling, to show respect to others, you simply decide to redefine what "respect" actually means.
Simply expressing a dissenting or unpopular opinion or belief has never been what was meant by "disrespect".
Re: (Score:1)
That's exactly what I said, parent implied that expressing certain opinions or facts is disrespectful. Respect is literally defined as: due regard for the feelings, wishes, rights, or traditions of others. Being offended at what other people say or belief is by extension disrespectful.
Re: (Score:1)
Your logical fallacy assumes that freedom and restraint are also mutually exclusive, which they are NOT.
Re: (Score:1)
Freedom and restraint are not mutually exclusive on an individual level, but at the level of hundreds, or thousands of people, history clearly shows that they indeed are.
Name one, just one completely unmoderated forum that hasn't turned into a chaotic cesspool of trolls.
Re: (Score:2)
Freedom and respect are indeed mutually exclusive, but only because of a third factor called assholes. If there were no assholes, freedom and respect would co-exist just fine.
Sadly nothing can be done about assholes, they will always be with us.
Re: (Score:1)
I believe that the respect to which he are referring is that "they don't have to worry about their data being sold, their writing being monetized"
Re: (Score:1)
That's only true for one narrow definition of respect. It can mean respecting their humanity and basic rights, e.g. not doxing them.
Re: (Score:2)
Moderation, however minimal, is still not freedom, but is the only way to obtain respect.
That's a pretty narrow definition of "freedom." I think nudists have been trying to espouse this one since .... what? the 1950s? ... and still, nobody is buying it. "You cannot have both clothes and freedom ... as long as I am forced to wear clothes in public, I live under tyranny."
One of the dangers (Score:2)
Re: One of the dangers (Score:1)
The less layers/people there are, the better.
I would not want to depend on a long chain of services where one link breaks, the whole chain fails.
No links at all on Instagram (Score:2)
That being said, Instagram (also Facebook), allows zero links outside of their own domain.
Re: (Score:2)
They seem to have done okay out of it in the end. I had never heard of them until now...
Link farm... (Score:3)
Looks just like another link farm to me.
Re: (Score:1)
Let's face it, most of your "friends" suck. (Score:3, Insightful)
Another example of the tragedy of the commons (Score:5, Insightful)
Social media is a new way for one person, or a small group, to reach millions of others. This previously required a lot of money, or at least the backing of those with a lot of money.
Now almost anyone can be not only heard, but amplified. This would be a wonderful thing if nobody abused that privilege. Thus, the tragedy of the commons. The monkey mind has great difficulty seeing beyond its own immediate desires, or considering long term consequences, or the effect upon others (which inevitably affects all of us).
Has anyone heard of Dreamwidth before this? (Score:2)
I certainly hadn't ever heard of them. So Streisand effect.
Re: (Score:2)
I had, but I was still a LiveJournal user when the split happened.
Better to be cautious (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Than possibly having some conservative thoughts be seen by the masses.
We're discussing the heir of livejournal here and the reason for the block is currently unknown, I think you can save your victimization to another thread.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Better to be cautious (Score:1)
Must keep badthink away. It's damaging to the political narritive of the time.
Now back up (Score:3)
Facebook (Score:3)
Slow......news......day..... (Score:2)
Really, this is news? One website blocks another for a couple of hours? Slow news Sunday! What's next, "Facebook employees use other sites than Facebook! Some employees even use porn websites from their home machines in their own time!".
Changed your mind in middle of submission? (Score:2)
The headline says "block" but before they even finished writing the submission, it had already changed to facebook merely ceasing to link to that website; nobody had blocked anything.
"Joe Schmoe was brutally murdered today. When asked how it had impacted his day, he only said he hopes it never happens again."