6 ms·
I agree, overzealousness sounds like the most likely reason for this. > Starting on January 19, 2025 Facebook's internal policy makers decided that Linux is ma
by jdxcode 2y ago
I agree, overzealousness sounds like the most likely reason for this.
> Starting on January 19, 2025 Facebook's internal policy makers decided that Linux is malware and labelled groups associated with Linux as being "cybersecurity threats".
The author gives no evidence to back up on this claim.
- paulnpace 2y ago> The author gives no evidence to back up on this claim. How can one provide evidence that something is not being displayed on a website? Isn't this, like, a formal fallacy, or something? > We've been hearing all week from readers who say they can no longer post about Linux on Facebook or share links to DistroWatch. Some people have reported their accounts have been locked or limited for posting about Linux.
- fau 2y agoYou've implied it's impossible to give such evidence and then you've immediately proved yourself wrong by giving it. But anyway, they're not asking for evidence that something isn't being displayed. They're asking for evidence that 'Starting on January 19, 2025 Facebook's internal policy makers decided that Linux is malware and labelled groups associated with Linux as being "cybersecurity threats"'.
- lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 2y ago> I agree, overzealousness sounds like the most likely reason for this. Who was overzealous if not one or more internal policy makers?
- bagels 2y agoMachine learning algorithms? Someone hacked Facebook to block Linux? So, there are other options besides overzealous policy makers.
- lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 2y agoThat sounds like a distinction without a difference. It doesn’t seem to meaningfully refute the point; it’s just hung up on the semantics of “policy-maker”. Who cares that the policy-maker is an algorithm?