top of page

Why Did Facebook Ban Mentioning Linux?

Writer's picture: Robert ForsythRobert Forsyth

Recently, Facebook (now Meta) made headlines for banning mentions of Linux[1], including DistroWatch—“a website dedicated to discussing, reviewing, and keeping up to date with open-source operating systems” [2]. This sparked widespread speculation about their motives—clue: it’s not “cybersecurity threats”. Given that Facebook generated $134 billion in revenue last year—largely from user data and advertising—it’s hard to believe this was a simple mistake. With so much money at stake, every decision is likely scrutinised in board meetings, analysed with AI, graphs, charts, and designed to maximise shareholder value. So, why would Facebook target Linux?


This is where I have to say I have a Facebook page that discusses open-source software I use, especially Linux, which may be affected by this. So the following is likely biased, but I hope it comes across as balanced and well-rounded!


The Threat of Decentralisation


One compelling theory is that Facebook feels threatened by the open-source ethos, which Linux embodies. Open-source projects often champion decentralisation and user autonomy—values that directly conflict with Facebook’s centralised, profit-driven business model. By discouraging discussions about Linux, Facebook could be attempting to steer users away from alternative ecosystems that prioritise transparency and user control over profit.


This fear of decentralisation isn’t unfounded. Platforms like Bluesky and Mastodon, which are built on open-source principles, offer users more control over their data and interactions. Unlike Facebook’s proprietary algorithms, which are designed to maximise engagement and ad revenue. Open-source platforms allow users to inspect the code and ensure there’s no malicious intent. For a company like Facebook, which thrives on keeping users within its walled garden, the rise of such alternatives could pose a significant threat.


The Hypocrisy of FBOSS


What makes this situation even more ironic is Facebook’s own reliance on open-source software. FBOSS (Facebook Open Switch Software), for example, is based on Ubuntu, a Linux distribution. If Facebook truly believes that Linux is associated with “malicious software,” as their ban suggests, then they are effectively accusing themselves of creating harmful tools. This contradiction raises serious questions about their motives.


A Broader Pattern of Control


Facebook’s actions fit into a broader pattern of behaviour among social media giants, particularly in the U.S., where centralised control is the norm—I’m looking at you, X[3]. By discouraging discussions about Linux and open-source alternatives, Facebook may be trying to maintain its dominance in the tech ecosystem[4]. After all, open-source platforms empower users to take control of their digital lives—something that directly undermines Facebook’s business model of telling you how to behave, what to buy, and/or who to vote for through targeted adverts that prioritise engagement rather than truth[5].


Thoughts For Consideration


It’s no secret that open source communities often critique corporate practices on monetisation and content freedom. Social media companies may suppress conversations that suggest alternate ways of communicating for that reason, or even de-prioritise non-commercial content that open source advocates try and promote. I know I haven't seen a single post about Bluesky or Mastodon even though I have accounts on both.


Conclusion


While we may never know the full story behind Facebook’s “temporary” decision to ban mentions of Linux, the implications are clear. In a world where tech giants profit from our personal information, behavioural patterns, and even our emotional reactions—turning every click, like, and search into targeted adverts—open-source platforms offer a much-needed alternative. By suppressing discussions about Linux, Facebook may be trying to protect its profit—but in doing so, it’s also highlighting the importance of decentralisation and regaining user autonomy. As customers/consumers, we should be asking ourselves: do we want to remain trapped in a virtual world where no one sees the same information, or do we want to explore ecosystems that prioritise honesty and transparency over profit? Who knows, we might start finding real connections again!


Links




6 views0 comments

Recent Posts

See All

Commentaires


  • Facebook
  • Instagram

Join our mailing list

Thanks for submitting!

© 2024 - not that anyone reads this!

bottom of page