Talk:Censorship by Facebook

2023 Canadian wildfires
A discussion about the excerpt from the 2023 Canadian wildfires article has been started on User talk:Crescent77. Renerpho (talk) 09:37, 31 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Would you object to moving the entire discussion here? If you do then feel free to revert my latest edit. Renerpho (talk) 09:39, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
 * @Renerpho No worries, I have no objections to that, no worries XTheBedrockX (talk) 14:02, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Uncalled-for removal at Censorship by Facebook
@Crescent77 Facebook/Meta blocking local news stories about wildfires in Canada from being posted, does, in fact, fall under the scope of censorship. Me adding it after editing the hatnote link on 2023 Canadian wildfires is not actually a good reason for removing the excerpt outright from the Censorship by Facebook page. XTheBedrockX (talk) 23:33, 30 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Hi, thanks for your work on Wikipedia. Since you're here on my talk page, we could discuss how some of your edits, including the collection surrounding the one mentioned above, have the appearance of political WP:Spam. If you'd like to discuss whether Meta's actions related to the 2023 Canadian Wildfires are indeed censorship and worthy of inclusion in "Censorship by Facebook", and if they indeed are, how that should be included, let's discuss that on the talk page there. Crescent77 (talk) 23:45, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
 * If what I just described doesn't look or sound like censorship of climate change-related news to you, then I don't know what else to say. I don't think this is an unreasonable opinion to draw, and me having an opinion on that and adding that information to a relevant article does not automatically make that WP:SPAM. XTheBedrockX (talk) 23:54, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
 * If you do wish to have a discussion on the inclusion of the material in the article, please do so on the article talk page. Crescent77 (talk) 04:37, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
 * First of all, I would argue that it is not "censorship" in a stricter sense, as it was not a targeted restriction of objectionable information; it was a business decision, related to a newly passed law, that removed access through their portal to all news organizations (as vaguely defined by said law), regardless of content.
 * But since the lede of this article does indeed indicate a broader scope of focus, I won't belabor that point, other than to say that your original choice of "Facebook content management controversies" seems to be the more encyclopedic wording for the situation; I'm not sure why you didn't continue on that vein, and material related to the Online News Act and the 2023 Wildfires there.
 * I do take issue with you including it under "Climate change" related censorship, because, as I discussed above, it involved the blocking of all material from all news organizations, regardless of topic. To rectify, I put the excerpt in its own section, hoping that the community will expand upon it, as the effects of the Online News Act extend far beyond the Wildfires. I hope you find this acceptable. Crescent77 (talk) 01:59, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I have partially reverted Crescent77's edit. The template has a purpose, and this specific edit to the Censorship by Facebook article is exactly it. I haven't looked at other edits by XTheBedrockX, but there is no reason to insist that this discussion can only be had on the article talk page. Renerpho (talk) 09:32, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

US political censorship
Can we discuss censorship of US politics? The disagreeable little domain name Maggots.com is censored by FB. I was discussing it as an option to purchase for discussing black soldier flies and was surprised to see it blocked by FB. It is characture of both parties candidates as anthropomorphised maggots. It is not a plesant site but it does engage in protected political speech. That protected speech is being directly censored by FB and I believe that is an important enough to warrant discussion. DavesPlanet (talk) 15:45, 5 March 2024 (UTC)