Chat Control Is Already Live on Facebook Messenger
Key topics
Today I woke up to the following message: “You can’t send messages for 3 days. Something you sent in a chat went against our Community Standards.” This was followed by a button linking to those standards. And yes, all my chats are locked.
So I’ve been put in “time out.” An American corporation has decided I’m not allowed to speak to my friend for 3 days (our only way to communicate—a mistake in hindsight).
And before you ask: what did I say? Most of the conversation was entirely banal. But at one point I was asked about the most memorable things from my time in politics. Among other things, I mentioned a quiet rumor about a ch#ild pros#####on ring (see, I’m self-censoring! I’m a good and obedient citizen!) in a bar frequented by the local political elite. That was last night. And no, my friend did not report me.
People believe private chats to be, well, private. They also believe that Facebook Messenger is encrypted. Neither is true.
Except that when I tell people about this, the most common response is not surprise or anger, but a kind of weary acceptance - as if the problem isn’t the censorship, but my failure to follow the rules.
I was part of the politically active youth a decade ago, fighting for free speech, net neutrality, against censorship, and against corporate power taking over and corrupting what we saw as a beautiful force for good: the internet. It seems we failed. The well-paid IT jobs turned out to be too sweet to pass up.
I guess we still have Signal. For now.
The author was unexpectedly blocked from sending messages on Facebook Messenger for 3 days due to a potentially innocuous comment, sparking a discussion about the platform's content moderation and the implications of 'Chat Control' on user privacy.
Snapshot generated from the HN discussion
Discussion Activity
Active discussionFirst comment
36m
Peak period
20
0-12h
Avg / period
7.3
Based on 22 loaded comments
Key moments
- 01Story posted
Sep 24, 2025 at 5:31 AM EDT
4 months ago
Step 01 - 02First comment
Sep 24, 2025 at 6:07 AM EDT
36m after posting
Step 02 - 03Peak activity
20 comments in 0-12h
Hottest window of the conversation
Step 03 - 04Latest activity
Oct 2, 2025 at 6:00 AM EDT
3 months ago
Step 04
Generating AI Summary...
Analyzing up to 500 comments to identify key contributors and discussion patterns
Want the full context?
Jump to the original sources
Read the primary article or dive into the live Hacker News thread when you're ready.
> People believe private chats to be, well, private.
You have to choose an app that seems private enough. Signal is one of the few, because it can be audited easily.
> as if the problem isn’t the censorship, but my failure to follow the rules.
The problem I see is that you disagree with how Meta handles Messenger, but still use it. Chat Control or not, there is no law preventing Meta from reading your messages for moderation.
> I guess we still have Signal. For now.
Yes, and that's a good thing.
Source? Last time I checked it was a non-profit. But that's not the point. The point is that the Signal app is open source, so you can check what it does.
Matrix is inferior to Signal.
[0] https://softwaremill.com/can-you-self-host-the-signal-server...
The EU proposition of Chat Control is the proposition to make it mandatory. Facebook has already been performing it voluntarily (as I've discovered today).
> The problem I see is that you disagree with how Meta handles Messenger, but still use it. Chat Control or not, there is no law preventing Meta from reading your messages for moderation.
Meta isn't just some random company who's decisions don't have wide and far reaching societal effects.
Moderation of private 1v1 chats only make sense in case of harassment - i.e. when one side complains. In all other cases, except with a courts decree based on legitimate suspicion of wrongdoing, it's absurd.
> Yes, and that's a good thing.
For now.
So what? There is no law saying that messages should always be e2ee, period. If you want such a law, you need to convince politicians to think about it. But that is orthogonal to Chat Control.
Legally it will never truly happen. Any platform saying they have E2EE is outright lying. Lavabit was an example of what happens when a large platform makes lawful intercept impossible. People keep telling me that Proton and Signal are E2EE and I will always offer them a tropical island for sale on the dark side of the moon, heavily discounted. Moxie of all people should know better.
You'd have to explain what you mean here. If you mean that it's impossible to have encryption that is resistant to someone putting a gun on your face and asking for the password, then... well duh.
Signal is an open source mobile app that I can audit and compile myself. How is it "obviously not E2EE"?
Either you have not, or it was wrong. It's not clear because there were a bunch of mixed up things (JavaScript has nothing to do with Signal, so I assume you were talking about the Proton web pages, and I would agree there).
> I don't play the contrarian game so you will have to do your own research.
That's not how it works: you say Signal is not E2EE, you prove it. I am convinced that it is, so from my point of view, you don't understand how it works. The only way I can help you understand is if you explain what you believe is wrong there. Google won't tell me that.
Facebook's real product isn't connecting people; it's redefining what human connection means. They proved emotional states transfer via algorithmic contagion¹, then industrialized it.
Graph Search could find anyone based on intimate details, but felt too predatory. So they embedded the same targeting into every interaction; News Feed, Groups, PYMK-recommendations. Same data harvesting, and behavioral influence with an invisible delivery. The brilliance was introducing Groups. It felt like organic community building, and it keeps enough people on Facebook for them to sell ads.
Two generations now think algorithmic feeds and sharing memes counts as socializing. Why predict and connect when you can nudge and influence?
He weaponized culture at scale.
¹ https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1320040111
Do people really believe this?