I am on the book of faces, but its always good to remember that we are the product being consumedâŚ
B-but I thought it was censorship only if it was enforced by a government, right?
walled gardens that someone else owns and operates are a dangerous place to live.
And yet you keep posting to Facebook and trusting it to connect you to people you like.
Facebook has long blocked links to fbpurity.com â a browser extension that removes cruft and generally gives you much better control of your Facebook experience. Sometimes it claims that FBpurity is spam, sometimes malware, etc.
A Facebook that isnât just a complete timeline of statuses and shares from all the people youâre following in chronological order (minus what youâve filtered out yourself) is broken and not fit for purpose.
So itâs been useless for years.
$. 1234!
mxtoolbox is a tool we subscribe to at work to help us investigate whether companies are sending spam. I just checked tsu.co on their Blacklist check and theyâre not on any of the 102 blacklists MXtoolbox uses. Which means it looks like itâs just FB.
You mean Facebook isnât a benevolent overlord?
crosses fingers
câmon streisand effect
It is markedly more creepy because facebook is the sinister juggernaut poster boy for privatized walled-garden surveillance dystopias(so anything it does both has relatively broad impact; and it is in a great position to do even things that markedly degrade customer experience because what are they going to do; quit?); but this looks like an absolutely standard manifestation of a problem that can only really be held in check by competition rather than policy:
If you offer a convenient mechanism for putting URLs in other peoplesâ faces and have a ânever excise or blockâ policy; you will be letting assorted social engineering attacks, drive-by exploits, and who knows what else run riot(facebook is certainly evil, and often surprisingly hamfisted; but itâd be hard to argue that they donât have, or couldnât trivially acquire, security research resources that make them a much better judge of a given site or linkâs safety than most of their users). Unless you specifically are offering a venue where those who think that they are up to it swim with the sharks at their own risk; itâs pretty hard to argue with proposals that undeniably do protect users; but also require building capabilities that can be easily enough used to block more or less anything just by modifying the ruleset.
Of course, once you do break the ânever excise or blockâ rule; you may have a honeymoon period where that power is genuinely in the hands of benevolent technocrats carefully firewalled from the business side and charged with upholding a commitment to network epidemiology with the highest standards of professional judgement and avoidance of conflict of interest; but it probably wonât last. Once making clearly-good modifications is an option, it wonât be long before all the other neat uses of censorship capabilities come knocking, often bearing a variety of compelling financial incentives.
The trouble is that facebook, given its dominance, almost certainly does have more to gain from shoving competitors into the memory hole than it has to lose from possibly alienating users who notice this happening and decide to leave. If this were some petty tyrantâs two-bit little message board; the problem would be self correcting: information dominance would be effectively impossible, and driving off the users would be pretty easy; but itâs not clear that facebook runs the same risks.
(edit: not that it necessarily matters, since the core problem is that facebook has the power to get away with it; not that their âonly block bad thingsâ policy could somehow be written to be better; but the distant-second secondary issue is that a lot of things youâd classify as âfacebook competitorsâ are, by any reasonable definition, indeed dangerous, user-hostile, privacy-compromising, etc. thatâs why they are classified as similar enough to facebook to be competition. It is, of course, the case that facebook is unlikely to block itself on these grounds; but even if their block-policy were, actually, still in the hands of benevolent technocrats, a fair few of facebookâs competitors in the poxed hell-world of âsocialâ could be quite honestly classified as dangerous enough to block on comparatively neutral technical grounds; so even a blocklist that the business side isnât explicitly allowed to influence would likely have an anticompetitive effect.)
Workinâ just fiiiiine⌠I am now Ratsman there, because RatMan was taken. Hopefully not by some miscreant. 
I tried sharing this story on Facebook, but they censored it.
This is happening with all sorts of posts. I cross post from my self hosted Known site and those posts are never seen by anyone but me. Facebook just doesnât surface them for people that Iâm connected to. Itâs not just outright censorship thatâs the problemâŚitâs the algorithm downgrading anything non-native to unknown degrees.
Remember Boyâs & Girlâs: Itâs failbookâs house and as such you are just a free loading guest.
Got it?
/lol
If you edit it to read âtee ess you dot cee oh (no em!)â that still works just fine, and youâre stickinâ it to the man in a totally childish fashion. I did and I giggled, I admit it, and I havenât even partaken of any cumin yet this evening. Yeah sometimes I am still twelve, deal with it. 
Aaaaaaaand Streisand effect.
oh no, our parents will be so disappointed! 
poor facebook foggiesâŚguess theyâll have to put down their laptops and go back to watching fox news.
Wow crazy. Iâve tweeted your article and posted the link to my tweet on FB just in case your account gets censored. Iâd recommend that everyone does this to make sure the word gets out.
but why does facebook want to streisand tsu?
or how did tsu secure the streisand-ing force of the mighty fb?
