An incorrect story is posted, and quickly rises up the homepage.
Hacker News commenters wave their torches and pitchforks.
Somewhere between a couple hours and a couple days later, a correction is posted.
The correction never attracts the same amount of attention, and multiple people inevitably post comments saying something to the effect of 'just because this time proved to be factually inaccurate doesn't mean our rage isn't justified, since this could conceivably happen in the future.'
In the past, I would say that most people on the site were successful doers, either working on startups or in tech. The focus was almost exclusively tech, with very little politics. But over the last few years it really feels like the tone has shifted in the anti-business, especially anti-big-business, direction. There are also a lot more commenters who seem to feel disenfranchized in the current system. And there are a lot of folks who seem to have a pretty pessimistic outlook and are ready to believe and upvote stories that confirm it. Not sure if these things are related or if it's just different groups of folks who have happened to become attracted to the site around the same time.
That doesn't mean the site is going down the tube, but it definitely has a different character than back in the old days.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4565969
One of my favorite HN comments from that thread: "If I could short FB I would do so immediately. The fallout from this is going to be immense and long-term."
As far as I see there wasn't anything actually incorrect about the story. At worst it was implied that it was a deliberate move and the rest seems correct including that tor users are actually blocked. Maybe if people understood critical thinking as actually thinking instead of being critical this wouldn't be a problem to begin with.
It doesn't seem in their best interest as a company to allow Tor connections...but other than that, what ethical obligations do they have to allow anonymous connections? FB already has a policy more-or-less mandating real identities...so for them, this is kind of a non-issue, right? By using FB, you're already identifying yourself and agreeing to implicitly under the TOS.
So does that mean activists are screwed? Well...I'm interested in the use-cases for activists using FB...I mean, if you're in a situation where you fear the authorities tracking you down...then you hopefully have better sense than to conduct business under your social identity. If you're managing a FB account from a fake identity and fear the authorities tracking your IP...then maybe do your work from a public wifi? Facebook isn't your biggest enemy here...the enemy is, ostensibly, the government...and the secondary enemy is you (or your collaborators) attracting attention to yourself inadvertently, whether you're using Tor or not.
I guess the tl:dr of my question is: if you must conduct sensitive work, why do it on Facebook, a network that is committed to sharing things in public?
Facebook is in the business of social networking, not activism.
The number of users using Tor compared to the general population is bound to be so low that they either shouldn't care enough to bother blocking it or if they did for some reason, really wouldn't put a dent in their daily actives.
Activists very well could be screwed, but that's really not Facebook's concern. Their no pseudonym policy makes perfect sense. Whether or not you like it or would use services that enforce it is an entirely separate issue. I feel like I don't have to explain this but I will anyway. Using a real name helps them help you find people you know (or at least whose name you know). That's the whole point. To start implementing policies conducive to anonymity defeats the entire purpose of Facebook.
I understand why Facebook is such a great tool for activists and dissidents and why a social network built especially for those people would not be ideal. That said, at the end of the day Facebook has no obligation to support such people. The fact that it's such a great tool for activists is just a side effect of the app's main purpose and use by the general population. I'd even go so far as to say that if they blocked Tor purposely in the future no one would really have any right to be outraged. I mean, you can certainly and understandably be outraged, but you really can't say Facebook has wronged you as being a tool for activists isn't really their mission. Complaining that Facebook wants to collect info to show you ads is like complaining that the coffee shop requires that you give them money to be served. Tracking is the way you pay to use Facebook and I doubt they'd ever implement paid accounts to get rid of the tracking and ads.
I'm sure there are some who work at Facebook who feel a moral obligation to support those activities but at the end of the day its a business and it isn't a business founded upon principles that fall in line with those of activists. If Mozilla created a social network, maybe then we could say the company has a moral obligation to encourage anonymity where people wanted but that kind of philosophy is just not in Facebook's DNA.
if you must conduct sensitive work, why do it on Facebook, a network that is committed to sharing things in public?
why do you have such a low ethical standard for companies? i realise it's fairly common in the usa, but what's the motivation? is it just that you get your opinions from the same companies, and so eat what you are fed? is this what you want from your world?
do you simply feel you have no choice, and are stating a "hard reality"? something as complex as a society's expectations of ethics is so complex that it can (and will) respond to public opinion. by posting something like the above you're not just stating what you think is fact, but advocating it. there's no separation between those two roles when your trapped inside a system with feedback...
Your distinction between "social networking" and "activism" at its core is a distinction between privileged users who are allowed to speak their mind however they please (seeing that the gracious host considers it to be 'profitable' and 'acceptable') and oppressed users whose speech, unfortunately, falls under the "activism" category, and as such should go seek alternative methods of spreading their vile thoughts.
Only a man of privilege can make such a distinction and keep a straight face.
I'd like to see you make the same claim as a citizen living under an oppressive regime.
Many countries might block large, uncensored social websites (like Facebook). Tools like Tor can help circumvent such practices.
> tl;dr: Why use Tor + FB?
Fair point, there may only be some arcane use cases for the combo, but the dilemma becomes far more stark at: "How out-of-line would it be for users of the internet writ large to aggressively block IP addresses associated with malicious activity?"
There was a call to "name and shame" DDOS participants a few months back, with the argument that every operator has the obligation to keep their "systems in trim."
http://bsdly.blogspot.ca/2012/12/ddos-bots-are-people-or-man...
I was enamored with the idea. AV blacklists code, why not source? The AV industry has learned (for the most part) that sharing malware samples is for the good of everyone. But victims tend to stay silent about the IPs that participated in a DDOS, or worse, launched targeted intrusions.
Why not build a list of pariah IPs and refuse to talk to them until they get their act together?
Turns out that puts radical constraints on some useful projects, like Tor. Bot farmers might accidentally DDOS not only their target, but all of Tor if exit nodes were quickly blacklisted. Possibly worse, a government could intentionally spew noisy malicious activity through the network to get the endpoints shut down with deniability.
Is it possible for a Tor exit node to "keep their system in trim?" Preventing its use as a gateway for malicious activity?
You could make a crippled Tor that only allows a certain limited set of services, but that's not really Tor anymore.
Anyone have a way to address: a) policing malware by IP addresses while b) allowing deniability of communication that's better than just giving up on one priority or the other?
Those two are not the same. Even if they want to know your name, it doesn't follow that they automatically should get to know where you are (i.e. your IP).
If you are an activist you probably want the information shared with the public. You just might not be as keen for your identity to be shared with the people who find your activism inconvenient.
You might as well replace "facebook" with "the Internet".
Besides, the goal of advertising on Facebook is to provide suggestions to people that are actually valuable. It’s good for people to get discounts on products they like, or information about new things to do in their area. It’s good for businesses to make sure their ads are shown to people who might actually care about the product/service/event in question. Making money is just a happy side effect of creating actual value.
>evil organisation trying to take over your life and destroy your liberties
This is a false dichotomy. I'm not sure why you think that it's impossible for Facebook to be both of these things.
For those who are still somewhat paranoid, consider getting paid proxies for a much more reliable service while still maintaining IP anonymity.
Suppose an oppressive regime wants to block its people from anonymously accessing a service: Facebook, Google+, Twitter, etc. They have traditionally been locked in an arms race of sorts with Tor developers: the regime will identify Tor relays and filter connections to them; Tor developers step up with bridges. The regime uses DPI to attempt to identify Tor connections, and Tor developers put out Obfsproxy. And so on, and so on.
Now it's clear to everybody that their best option is not to prevent outbound connections to Tor, it's to prevent inbound connections from Tor on the services they don't want their people to use anonymously. All they have to do is ensure they inflict maximum abuse on the targeted service from Tor, and in this way give that service the incentive to cut off the users most in need.
I'm not suggesting abuse on the Tor network comes largely from intentional government 'territory denial'. However, it's frightening that there is such an easy way for them to deny the services which are in practice essential to the universal free exercise of speech on the Web.