> Appeals to authority are bad in general.

I'm appealing to the evidence, which also happens to be what the authorities say. Given that you have neither evidence nor authority in this discussion about whether Facebook's actions were accidental, your claims remain unconvincing on either count.

> I have never claimed that. Not once.

> Let's make it clear: I'm not denying that Meta engaged in "interference".

You are right, I mistakenly confused you for the other poster I replied to, who started this thread by claiming Facebook's actions were all accidental. I'm sorry.

> In 2022 the supreme court engaged in a blatantly unconstitutional censorship and political persecution campaign against Bolsonaro and the Brazilian right wing.

Was that before or after Bolsonaro attempted to overthrow the government with a coup/putsch [0][1]? Most people are not free speech absolutists in all cases, and incitement to insurrection is a common and commonly accepted exception to free speech worldwide.

0 – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022%E2%80%932023_Brazilian_co...

1 – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/8_January_Bras%C3%ADlia_attack...

You actually can! I think it hasn't been common due to the precedent it would set.

You're repeated these claims, but they are not convincing with regards to this matter:

On the one hand, we have the entire court system of an entire country;

On the other hand, we have you. And Facebook.

Sorry, but you and Facebook are less trustworthy, less authoritative, and Facebook at least has shown themselves to be more partisan, too.

If this was actually an accident as you're claiming, then Facebook should be able to apologize, and explain exactly what happened, and what part of their "algorithm" caused it to disproportionately target mainstream left-wing politicians and political movements, and how they plan to fix it and make things right, and how people can verify that they have done so. Have they done any of that?

Also, taking the word of the attacker that their crime wasn't that bad, or was an accident, without evidence, is pretty silly behavior, especially when it's facebook, with their long history of malfeasance and deception.

> this stuff is so political it's basically impossible to debate on facts.

It really isn't. Courts deal with the facts in political situations all the time. Here, they looked at the facts and made their decision. You can disagree, but it's not like you're "debating" a court ruling in doing so. The excuses you're tossing out were already tried and ruled dishonest by the courts, all the way up to the supreme court.

Also, your note about Facebook being fined for refusing to block right-wing hate speech and disinformation is actually counting against your claim that the courts are biased and Facebook is not. What happened to the blocks happening across the board irrespective of politics? Right-wing hate speech and disinformation is allowed, but innocuous left-wing mainstream political movements and politicians get blocked right before an election? That illustrates the exact opposite of what you claim. We're gonna need evidence to believe your and Facebook's unconvincing claims of an "accident" here.

0 — https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=50137079

a) oops, they accidentally blocked ONLY left-wing political candidates and causes right before an election, ever since the US started having a right-wing president with a track record of interfering in elections on behalf of right-wing causes, totally a coincidence, people, or

b) yet another example in a facebook's history of blocking left-wing political candidates and causes, right before an election, ever since the US started having a right-wing president with a track record of interfering in elections on behalf of right-wing causes

Obviously Facebook does not have the benefit of the doubt, given their long history of malfeasance, deception, and nontransparency, so A is a pretty strong claim, and thus we can go with B until you have strong evidence otherwise. I don't think anyone here on HN can say "I trust facebook to be honest and transparent, to admit, explain, and atone for their malfeasance without prompting, and to always make choices that best reflect the will of the people" with a straight face these days. In fact, we still don't even have transparency into the very incidents we're discussing (likely due to deception and malfeasance, if we're going based off past behavior and proper Bayesian priors).

Indeed, if it was actually an accident, then that means that after Facebook's Lula scandal, they had the opportunity to stop this sort of thing from happening, and made the choice not to do so. That was their choice, making it no longer an accident in this case. There's no escaping accountability for that choice.

Back to our earlier request: can you give some examples from the last couple years, of Facebook blocking major right-wing candidates or major right-wing mainstream political movements, immediately before an election? If it was just an accident, and these accidents happen all the time without respect for politics, we should expect to see an equal number of blocks applied to both sides in the same situation. Do we? I don't think so.

The article makes it pretty clear: Left-wing political figures blocked from posting to facebook for several hours (not 90 minutes) right when the event occurred. Can't get much clearer than that. Then enough furor erupted to unblock them, or the event ended and then they were unblocked.

It fits with their track record, e.g. blocking/hampering Brazilian left-wing candidate communications for weeks until a court ordered them to stop. If you have a theory about both these things being an accident (while the corresponding right-wing causes were all conveniently given a pass), we're gonna need more evidence from you to back that theory.

Only it doesn't. We don't see right-wing politicians being blocked on Facebook. No Bolsonaro blocking. Only left-wing political causes. Can you give some examples from the last couple years, of Facebook blocking right-wing candidates or right-wing mainstream political movements, immediate before an election?

> Humans only ever get involved after the fact (in this case after 90 minutes).

Several hours, not 90 minutes, but even then, that doesn't excuse it -- the human intervention should come before blocking of political causes. Moreover, this doesn't seem coincidental, given the above point of how infrequently and selectively it happens.

> The only reason this is newsworthy is

...because people find it newsworthy. Simple as that. Sorry if you personally prefer that it not be reported, personally I'd prefer that it didn't happen.

what do you think you're adding by repeating what the article said? you emphasize 90 minutes as if that makes it okay (obviously it does not).

also, the other example you cited of Facebook disproportionately blocking left-wing political causes lasted for several weeks[0], not several hours.

0: https://novaramedia.com/2026/09/28/facebook-blocks-lulas-cam...

Even if fab capacity deals are canceled due to overleverage or funky accounting, I am gambling that the capacity will find a new buyer. Maybe by making DDR5 I can get as a consumer.

It looks like this article author thinks similarly.

Answer: you probably would, but Amazon engages in illegal, coercive price fixing to drive up the prices on those other sites by $50.

Right – those things aren't great. What's so amusing or outrageous about pointing that out?

> Nobody is planning to ration electricity suppies.

Did the link say they were? Maybe I missed it.

Now, is it connected to the internet? Ha ha ha, no.

It's also worth considering, if masked secret police weren't kidnapping* and killing people in the streets, including citizens, then state governments wouldn't be trying to identify them as suspects in a crime and hold them accountable for their crimes (or "dox" them as you so hyperbolously put it).

Rodrigo Duterte is currently being held for trial in international court for doing with his security forces what donald is currently doing with his, both perpetrators claiming it's all in the name of law and order, fighting crime, etc. Food for thought.

* Yes, kidnapping: countless court rulings have found that ICE did not have any legal basis to arrest, detain, or attack the bystanders who were arrested, detained, and/or attacked. ICE's criminal court cases have mostly fallen apart or been dropped due to this.

Almost as if people aren't willing to put in more work to respond to dismissive, insulting comments than the original poster put into them. Do better, and peoples' responses to you will trend towards better.

By all means, say what you want, keep tossing out shallow dismissals and insults. Exercise your free speech! But it won't do much to change the fact that most Americans do not want police to have this power, so you'll have to do a better job convincing us than you do tossing out insults, condescension, and lofty dismissals.

And best of luck with your community organizing!

If we're going with "free speech absolutism" outside the law, one notable "free speech absolutist" has drawn the line at sharing publicly-available info on a billionaire's private jet's comings and goings.

Abducting and killing people in the streets, immigrants and US citizens alike.

> no a serious idea

> a simplistic model

> how children see the world

> stunts for attention

Your reply is mostly insults and shallow dismissals, so I don't see any reason to meaningfully respond to those parts. I'll check back later to see if you've edited insults out and substance in.

As for your separate ideas of community organization: good on you for spearheading that. The world could use more yous doing that, too. If there are any specific asks you have of the community to help you there, HN is full of capable folks.

In exactly equal measure: I don't want cops setting up surveillance networks any more than I want HN'ers doing it (less so, actually). So this post, bringing attention to that issue, is good, imo.

As long as random joe dropout with a badge from boss hogg can do it, and vc-backed visionary mr misanthrope can do it, so can the rest of the people. Cops and corps are only special to the degree that We The People want them to be. And speaking for the plurality of We The People [0]: we do not want them to be special in this way.

0 – https://www.reuters.com/world/us/who-likes-flock-ai-cameras-...