Facebook: Australia content ban, SWP removal and related news

[savoloysam]

I have run out of people to block on Facebook. Times are hard.

 

[moochedit]

Not bad for a small branch

I meant fb had reversed it. I can see several swp pages on fb now. editor can relax

 

[The39thStep]

If only Facebook could ban my sister from posting streams of faux expertise on subjects she knows very little of of and life affirming inspirational feel good memes sprinkled with things that never really happened.

 

[moochedit]

If only Facebook could ban my sister from posting streams of faux expertise on subjects she knows very little of of and life affirming inspirational feel good memes sprinkled with things that never really happened.

You can "unfollow" her so she doesn't appear in your news feed. She won't know you've done it and you still show as a "friend".

 

[gosub]

I think you're having a laugh seeing a conjunction between biden's inauguration and the swp being hoofed off fb

I'm not so sure, though given the Jan 6th thing was organised on facebook - so they shut down Parler ... Whatever is going on Big Tech is acting in concert and is very ban happy. That said just checked the Electoral Commission register and SWP aren't on it, which surprizes me (though not sure if its relevant. Would like to hear the justification.
Banning a sitting President from twitter changed dynamics and there is some recalibration going on

 

[moochedit]

That said just checked the Electoral Commission register and SWP aren't on it, which surprizes me (though not sure if its relevant.

I may be out of date with this but i don't think the SWP runs candidates under their own name in elections (they have run candidates as part of "socialist allience" and "respect" in the past). Hence no need to be on the register.

They are back on fb now anyway.

 

[Dogsauce]

why the fuck is anyone on it

Loads of stuff that has fuck all to do with politics, my feed is filled with stuff on Portuguese trains, a particularly good guitar group, a couple of old community groups I was once involved with, stupid stuff from wisecracking mates. It’s pretty benign.

Politics-wise I get the occasional post sponsored by the Tories, usually some rabble-rousing attack on Marvin Rees (sometimes disguised as a ‘survey’) about cycle lanes or whatever other culture war shit they’re desperately trying to jump on. It amuses me that they’re wasting their money targeting me.

 

[klang]

Just in case anyone in SWP head office is thinking of instructing your members to come here instead: NO.

imagine the christmas banner we'd get....

 

[hitmouse]

Does Nick Clegg still work for Facebook?

In December 2010, at the height of the student fees protests after the coalition government comes to power, a Socialist Worker Student Society member comes up with a VERY hurtful chant about Nick Clegg. Deeply wounded, Clegg vows to take his vengeance, but as a master strategist, he knows better than to act in the heat of the moment, understanding that revenge is a dish best served cold. He sits back and begins to plan out the long game.

 

[JuanTwoThree]

imagine the christmas banner we'd get....

 

[ska invita]

IIRC I read that about a year ago within a week Twitter accounts for
Anarchist Festival
Sisters Not Cisters
London Radical Bookfair
Alliance of Radical Bookseller
...all got kicked off. From what I gather they restarted their accounts from scratch.

A couple of friends of mine lost their personal accounts for absolutely nothing rule-breaking.

It seems all it takes is some targeted reporting of accounts and they're taken down.

Considering how wealthy these tech company giants are it amazes how they appear to be run a on a shoe string, with minimum staff and moderation.
The task of monitoring Twitter sounds like hell on earth, and it seems to me at present to be left mainly to some crude AI to do much of it.

Trying to contact someone at Facebook or Twitter is IME impossible. Even getting an automated email response felt like a success.
I see even in the articles in hte OP it says " Twitter didn’t immediately return an email. "

Trump got booted off actively BY Twitter management. It is not clear these cases in the OP are by Twitter, or by malicious reporting. If its the first that's a big step. I expect its most likely the second.

One solution is for these companies to invest in moderation and for us to hope they do a good job. The other is to leave to alternatives, but these are natural monopolies really, and scale is everything. Fucked up situation.

 

[NoXion]

They are back on fb now anyway.

So it's the exact same bullshit that's been happening to left wing pages on Facebook since before even Trump. Get arbitrarily suspended for no reason, with the decision being reversed later. Often this all happens with absolutely no communication happening between FB and the people being fucked about like this. I know that when videos on YouTube are temporarily suspended, it has the effect of damaging monetisation income for the uploader. But what's the fucking point of this shit?

Remember that Trump only started facing consequences for his online behaviour after that coup attempt happened. So this idea that Twitter finally bringing the hammer down once they realised they wouldn't face significant backlash for doing so, somehow represents a new era of liberal authoritarianism is just junk. Trump got a ridiculously easy ride.

I saw some very online leftists maundering about how social media like Twitter are being subject to "enclosure", which I find to be a pretty damning misuse of a term with significant historical import. Twitter and Facebook are not and were never at any point publicly owned or otherwise held in common. If you want to argue that big social media websites should be collectively owned and managed, then fine, make that argument, personally I think it's a good one. But don't misuse already-defined terms in an attempt to give your argument the gloss of historical authenticity.

 

[brogdale]

So it's the exact same bullshit that's been happening to left wing pages on Facebook since before even Trump. Get arbitrarily suspended for no reason, with the decision being reversed later. Often this all happens with absolutely no communication happening between FB and the people being fucked about like this. I know that when videos on YouTube are temporarily suspended, it has the effect of damaging monetisation income for the uploader. But what's the fucking point of this shit?

Remember that Trump only started facing consequences for his online behaviour after that coup attempt happened. So this idea that Twitter finally bringing the hammer down once they realised they wouldn't face significant backlash for doing so, somehow represents a new era of liberal authoritarianism is just junk. Trump got a ridiculously easy ride.

I saw some very online leftists maundering about how social media like Twitter are being subject to "enclosure", which I find to be a pretty damning misuse of a term with significant historical import. Twitter and Facebook are not and were never at any point publicly owned or otherwise held in common. If you want to argue that big social media websites should be collectively owned and managed, then fine, make that argument, personally I think it's a good one. But don't misuse already-defined terms in an attempt to give your argument the gloss of historical authenticity.

Exactly; 'commons', my arse.
Platforms are privately owned/controlled enterprises accumulating wealth from 'consumer' as (unpaid) producer models.

 

[ska invita]

Twitter and Facebook are not and were never at any point publicly owned or otherwise held in common. If you want to argue that big social media websites should be collectively owned and managed, then fine, make that argument, personally I think it's a good one.

This is the thing though, they started as niche concerns and have become global communication platforms
You can definitely argue that it is a right to access them, so prevalent have they become, that to not be on them wold be an infringement of liberties.

As they're international its hard to see how they can be nationalised?
Nor does the idea of the state being in control of them fill me with any confidence. China is an extreme case, but a worrying one.

In theory you'd hope there could be some kind of open source/horizontal way of managing such sites but the moderation problem seems unsolvable other than by spending a lot of money

 

[tommers]

In theory you'd hope there could be some kind of open source/horizontal way of managing such sites

What does this mean?

 

[ska invita]

What does this mean?

in practice i dont know what it means
it would be nice if the community could moderate itself somehow is what i meant
like wikipedia

 

[brogdale]

This is the thing though, they started as niche concerns and have become global communication platforms
You can definitely argue that it is a right to access them...

That's the bit I struggle with; are you suggesting access to corporate social media platforms is some sort of human right? To all?

 

[NoXion]

That's the bit I struggle with; are you suggesting access to corporate social media platforms is some sort of human right? To all?

Innit. People need to re-learn the lost art of creating and managing email lists, if they truly want their own communication channel that is 100% under their control.

 

[mauvais]

There could in theory be mainstream services that were at least as independent as the Internet infrastructure itself, i.e. anyone could commission a node and join in. It won't ever happen because the interest in doing so is massively outweighed by having someone else do it.

 

[nogojones]

If only Facebook could ban my sister from posting streams of faux expertise on subjects she knows very little of of and life affirming inspirational feel good memes sprinkled with things that never really happened.

Which branch is she in?

 

[ska invita]

That's the bit I struggle with; are you suggesting access to corporate social media platforms is some sort of human right? To all?

A case can be made for that, not by me, but by someone who has had training in debating, yes.
There's definitely an argument that can be made that a communication platform which is now so ubiquitous, which is free to sign up to, which governments use to make public announcements etc, has taken on a new social function.

The word "Commons" is a stretch, but I understand the sentiment.

 

[gosub]

Innit. People need to re-learn the lost art of creating and managing email lists, if they truly want their own communication channel that is 100% under their control.

except due to the hollowing out of journalism, would be completely off radar of main stream media

 

[Crispy]

There could in theory be mainstream services that were at least as independent as the Internet infrastructure itself, i.e. anyone could commission a node and join in. It won't ever happen because the interest in doing so is massively outweighed by having someone else do it.

email and usenet are exactly that; decentralised common protocols that anyone can host or join.
There have been attempts at similar approaches for social media eg. Mastodon, but of course there's no critical mass, and no commercial incentive for any of the big boys to use such an open system. It would have to be enforced from above.

 

[ska invita]

email and usenet are exactly that; decentralised common protocols that anyone can host or join.
There have been attempts at similar approaches for social media eg. Mastodon, but of course there's no critical mass, and no commercial incentive for any of the big boys to use such an open system.

But what happens if everyone got on mastadon and started to maliciously report each others posts, the far right start spamming it etc etc.
Supposedly Twitter has 330 million active users for example
Facebook nearly 3 billion

 

[mauvais]

Email is a legacy mess that noone has ever managed to properly reform, only apply sticking plasters to, so not an enormously good model. The public web - HTTP(S), DNS, domain registration - is a better one as it has actually moved along with the times, but it's actual underlying nature is again legacy and a fresh start would no doubt look very different and much more private.

 

[hitmouse]

Curiouser and curiouser, they went after the WSWS/SEP as well: Facebook purges left-wing pages and individuals

At least a half dozen leading members of the Socialist Equality Party had their Facebook accounts permanently disabled. This included the public account of Genevieve Leigh, the national secretary of the International Youth and Students for Social Equality, and the personal account of Niles Niemuth, the US managing editor of the World Socialist Web Site. In 2016, Niemuth was the Socialist Equality Party’s candidate for US Vice President.

Facebook also disabled the London Bus Drivers Rank-and-File Committee Facebook page, which was set up with the support of the Socialist Equality Party (UK) to organize opposition among bus drivers.

I'm honestly struggling to imagine what chain of events could lead to someone going "oh, this trot front group attempting to recruit London bus drivers, got to make sure we get them as well."

 

[littlebabyjesus]

except due to the hollowing out of journalism, would be completely off radar of main stream media

This is the problem. Twitter has become the primary source for much news gathering yet it is a privately owned monopoly.

 

[Idris2002]

Sheffield swp is still on fb and says they have reversed the decision.

"0600 hours. Radio Pilsen announced that it was "the last free radio station in Czechoslovakia".

 

[butchersapron]

I expect the profis updating his facebook as organiser argument (BECAUSE LENIN SAID SO) as we speak.

 

[Crispy]

But what happens if everyone got on mastadon

I wasn't really advocating for that, but the idea of a transition from the open "commons" of Usenet to the "enclosed" world of forums and social media does make some sense.