cross-posted from: https://beehaw.org/post/18210719
Facebook is banning posts that mention various Linux-related topics, sites, or groups. Some users may also see their accounts locked or limited when posting Linux topics. Major open-source operating system news, reviews, and discussion site DistroWatch is at the center of the controversy, as it seems to be the first to have noticed that Facebook’s Community Standards had blackballed it.
[…]
DistroWatch says that the Facebook ban took effect on January 19. Readers have reported difficulty posting links to the site on this social media platform. Moreover, some have told DistroWatch that their Facebook accounts have been locked or limited after sharing posts mentioning Linux topics.
If you’re wondering if there might be something specific to DistroWatch.com, something on the site that the owners/operators perhaps don’t even know about, for example, then it seems pretty safe to rule out such a possibility. Reports show that “multiple groups associated with Linux and Linux discussions have either been shut down or had many of their posts removed.” However, we tested a few other Facebook posts with mentions of Linux, and they didn’t get blocked immediately.
[…]
Addition to include the DistroWatch link: https://distrowatch.com/weekly-mobile.php?issue=20250127#sitenews
Did not expect “Linux users” to be this early in the stanzas of “First they came for the […]”
I mean, Linux literally runs the world, so if this is the best he can do, not even my bunny slippers are gonna be spooked.
I assume Facebook runs on Linux, as does the rest of the internet?
I wish Linux distros use a license that prevents this nonsense.
(I know including ethics in a license is a bad idea, but still…)
“Linux for me, not for thee”
They need the serfs to be hapless surveillance targets, not power users with technological agency.
My conspiracy theory: Meta has an AI that scans articles/the internet for threats and then adjusts the filters for Facebook. The AI just read the story that some Games companies are blocking Linux clients, because they see them as unsafe. The AI just copied what it read.
I agree. It’s like Occam’s Razor, but with stupidity instead of simplicity: the most stupid reason is the most likely.
Macco’s Razor. The stupidest possible explanation is probably the right answer.
Hanlon’s razor: Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity (or incompetence).
This works for individuals, but when it comes to corporations, you really have to ask, why not both?
Schrodinger’s Razor:
The answer is both really smart and really stupid, but you won’t know which until you look at the source.
I wonder if microsoft asked them to do this, either way this is something that shouldnt be ignored. Its basically direct attack and their endgoal might be to make regular people hate or fear linux. That in turn could be used to influence laws and try to ban or limit linux to corporate use only. Computers have become so integral part of society that by controlling the operating system you control the people.
I don’t think it was Microsoft, in the past few years they’ve been being a little chill towards Linux.
As for being an attack, even if they wanted to, they couldn’t get rid of Linux. Even the US government can’t tell people to stop using it. I mean, they can tell people to stop, but there’s no practical way for them to enforce such a law. Most distros out there also distribute via torrent, so even if you took down the websites for all the distros, you couldn’t stop the distribution of the ISOs. Not to mention, if they outlawed or restricted Linux, I can’t think of anything that would absolutely make the Linux users become very rebellious. Imagine the majority of the hackers, white, gray, and black hat, all of a sudden becoming very angry with the US government. It would be absolute chaos.
Not to mention, there are corporations like Valve and Ubuntu that have invested millions into Linux. I don’t believe for a second they would just lay down and not fight the government outlawing something that has become very lucrative for them.
it shouldnt be allowed to go there because it might not be reversable by then. I wish I was just paranoid but way the world is going makes this very plausible.
By the time things like that become evident its like trying to stop a boulder that has been gaining momentum for a while, which is why I wish people were more active about doing something instead of waiting until there is clear evidence that something should be done. This kind of wasnt a direct reply to content of your comment, sorry
