Anti-Porn Facebook Page is Deleted, Then Restored 145
Speaking of Facebook pages being unjustly shut down, on Monday the anti-porn Facebook page http://www.facebook.com/PornHarms/, run by the non-profit Morality in Media, was abruptly disabled by Facebook. The page had 35,000 "likes" at the time the plug was pulled. Morality in Media CEO Patrick Trueman, who also ran the Facebook page, says he never received any warning from Facebook before the page was removed.
Some time on Wednesday, the page was restored. I had emailed a contact at Facebook to ask why the page was shut down, and he replied later to say that it had been deleted in error and the page had been restored. (He didn't say whether the page was on track to being restored anyway, or whether it would have remained down indefinitely if I hadn't pinged him.)
Facebook did not respond to inquiries as to why the page was removed, but as Evgeny Morozov
has
pointed out
regarding political pages (and as many other users have heard from people's
anecdotal experiences having pages pulled without explanation), it's common for pages on Facebook and YouTube
to get removed that were almost certainly not violating those sites' Terms of Service.
If enough users decide to file "abuse complaints" simultaneously against a piece of content
on Facebook or YouTube, this has a good chance of getting the content removed, whether the complaints were legitimate or were simply part of an organized campaign of filing
false complaints.
Meanwhile, I correspond with dozens of people every week on Facebook (usually people who use my
proxy sites to get on
Facebook at school or work), and about once a week I get an automated message from
Facebook that says, "You have been
sending harassing messages to other users," and goes on to sternly list the types of messages
that violate
Facebook's TOS. (Only twice has this resulted in my account actually getting
locked, and it was unlocked after I bugged my friend at Facebook about it.)
I figure that these are either the result of users clicking "Report this message" accidentally,
or parents hacking into their kids' accounts, reading their messages, and then trying to
get the account shut down of the person
who was talking their kid about proxy sites.
In either case, I assume it's not
the result of an "organized campaign," but perhaps your account gets locked if you're unlucky
enough that two or three people file complaints within
the same short time frame.
So I have no reason to doubt Mr. Trueman's claim that the PornHarms Facebook page never contained any content that violated Facebook's TOS. He says the page mostly contained links to academic research supposedly demonstrating the harmful effects of pornography, and that while the target audience was adult academics, there was nothing in the content that most parents would consider inappropriate for underage viewers. There was certainly no actual pornography on the page, not even in censored form with the fun parts blurred out (although I didn't check every single academic paper linked from the site to see if any of them might have used pixellated/censored porn for illustrative purposes). Trueman also says that they prevented third-party users from posting on the PornHarms page directly, and regularly monitored the page's content to remove any "inappropriate" comments that users had written in response to the officially authorized posts. (Of course, even if the page admins hadn't done this, inappropriate comments should be the basis for penalizing the user who posted them, not the Facebook page that they were posted on, but it was a moot point in this case.)
Because of the word "Pornography" in the title of the page, it's also of course possible that a human at Facebook actually did review the complaints, but thought the word "pornography" meant the page was a porn-trading hub, without looking to closely at it. (It's also possible that the word triggered an automated filter at Facebook. Obviously, there is no filter pre-emptively preventing pages with words like "pornography" in the title from being created, since otherwise the page never could have existed in the first place. But it's possible that an automated algorithm does something like the following: If a page receives X complains within time period Y, and the page contains certain keywords in the title or the content, then shut down the page automatically.)
Previously I'd suggested an algorithm that Facebook could use to stop users from coordinating phony complaints in order to shut a page down. The gist was: If a page receives a sufficient number of complaints, have the page reviewed by a random sample (chosen by Facebook) of Facebook users who had signed up to review abuse cases in situations such as these. If enough of those users vote that the page was violating the TOS, the page gets shut down, but if not, then it stays up. What makes this algorithm difficult to abuse, is that in order for a "coordinated mob" to swing the vote of the jury, they would have to comprise a majority (or a significant minority) of the entire set of users that the randomly-selected jury could have been chosen from -- a difficult task if thousands of people have signed up as content reviewers. I offered a $100 prize to be split between readers who submitted the best suggested improvements or criticisms of the idea; their ideas were summarized in a follow-up article. A couple of readers commented that there was no point in debating the idea since I don't work for Facebook and have no influence there; they have a point, but the idea has to start somewhere. If engineers at Facebook are looking for a way to fix the problem, one thing that can be said about this suggestion is that it was posted to a large audience of smart people, and several readers suggested very clever improvements, while nobody found any obviously fatal flaws in it.
It seems pretty likely that a process like that for reviewing abuse complaints, would have saved the Pornography Harms page from being yanked from Facebook. Anybody who seriously reviewed the page's contents for more than twenty seconds would have understood the page's real purpose and seen that it was not actually distributing pornography or otherwise violating the Facebook TOS. In my experiences posting surveys on sites like Mechanical Turk, where you can pay users a penny apiece for filling out surveys or performing other tasks, I've gotten the impression that people will take such tasks seriously, even for zero (or virtually zero) pay, if they find them interesting. In the case of the Facebook "jurors" who are voting on whether a page violated the TOS, you're talking about users who voluntarily signed up to be jurors, after all -- not underpaid workers grinding through as many tasks as they can squeeze into their working hours.
Finally, it would be easy to point out the irony of a pro-censorship group being censored (and some people did, on the mailing lists where I saw this news announced), but I don't think that's really fair to Morality in Media, since even MIM doesn't oppose people's right to express their opinions in favor of pornography. Likewise, MIM presumably supports the use of Internet blocking programs in schools, even though their Facebook page (as well as the companion website PornHarms.com) would probably be blocked by default by most Internet blockers because of the word "porn" in the URL -- but even that is not as richly ironic as it would seem. Neither Morality in Media, nor almost anyone else, is in favor of political sites about pornography being blocked because of the word "porn" in the address; presumably they'd just want the error corrected by the blocking company, and if a left-wing site on the opposite side of the debate happened to be blocked because of the word "porn" in the URL, I have no reason to think that Morality in Media would be opposed to correcting that error and unblocking that site as well. So this really isn't a case of them being given "a taste of their own medicine."
No, the real irony in this particular case -- at least, if I did have a role in getting their Facebook page restored -- is that not only would I support their right to express their view (duh), I would support students' right to bypass their school's Internet blocker to view the page from school if they had to, and I would even support the right of under-18-year-olds to view the page even if their parents were specifically trying to block them from it. I highly doubt that even anyone at Morality in Media would go that far.
Without porn (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Without porn (Score:4, Informative)
Without porn, what is the point of the Internet?
Slashdot.
Re:Without porn (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Gos is too busy maintaining the Linux kernel.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
True, but porn loses some of its appeal without the taboo, so I say kudos to the anti-porn crowd, and thanks for making my solo sexy-times that much more exciting.
Re: (Score:2)
Now is that pron or is that pron (free porn), in your case should porn be entitled to copyright protection or as it fails 'To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts' should it be sans copyright protection. Really when is enough porn, sufficient 'pron' to go around.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Without porn (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Who said it's a guy?
The normal economics of supply-and-demand don't apply to pussy. If they did, pussy would be a nearly worthless commodity since: a) women are 52% of the population and b) each woman's pussy is instantly replenished after use. Therefore women unconsciously and consciously conspire to implement a model of artificial scarcity to increase the market value of pussy, what they can get in exchange for it. It is similar to copyright but the mechanisms are different.
Each individual woman pretends to be disinterest
Re: (Score:2)
So what you're saying is that women are smarter investors than men?
The normal economics of supply-and-demand don't apply to pussy. If they did, pussy would be a nearly worthless commodity since: a) women are 52% of the population and b) each woman's pussy is instantly replenished after use.
Saying that is like saying that it makes no sense for Lamborghinis or Rolls-Royces to be sold for hundreds of thousands when you can buy a Tata Nano for $2000. Different qualities and capabilities have different prices. Some are free, some come in very expensive bundles.
Re: (Score:2)
If by "smarter investor" you mean "more manipulative and deceptive" then ok. By that standard Bernie Madoff was one of the smartest investors who ever lived. How many people lost their savings to his Ponzi schemes again? Difference is we live in a materialist culture so if you do this with someone's money you rightly get locked up for it. If you do this with someone's emotions and loyalties you get away with it, as many women do.
Artificial scarcity is used every day is markets; it's not illegal in any way.
Again with the materialism.
Says the guy who applied economics of supply-and-demand to pussy...
Re: (Score:2)
And as we all know, politicians determine moral/ethical right and wrong when they make laws. If they change the law then naturally they also change the workings of the universe (morality) and the nature of ethics. Please. Is that your most solid position?
So you compared it to Maddoff and Ponzi schemes - illegal practices - by chance?
And whether it's wrong or not is subjective anyway.
Take a gander at this page. You are coming from the fourth level of understanding -- "IT IS WRITTEN, THEREFORE I WILL NOT QUESTION". I am coming from the sixth. Therefore to me "it is legal" is not the same as "it is the best and most honorable thing I can do". Try this argument on someone less mature, less of a free thinker, it will be more successful that way. As it stands now saying "but they haven't made it illegal as of today" is a truly weak argument, just clutching at straws from a desperate position of unwillingness to admit the other person isn't your enemy and might have a point.
Sorry, but no, I don't follow the law as my moral code. But as I said, I also don't apply my moral code to others.
I observe that this is so, then I argue _against_ it mostly on the grounds that it's manipulative and selfish. I think you're too smart to fail to notice that. I also think you're too smart not to realize that you would only have a point if I was in favor of the status quo, but I actually said the very opposite. But you don't like what I say so I must be wrong, somehow, even if you have to fail to read what I plainly said to make that happen. Anything you dislike must be TEH EVILZ because it's all about you and your ego.
That last phrase is nice. Projecting much? I called no one "evil", you did (women).
For that lack of objectivity, and the willingness to embrace objective fact only when it says what you want to hear, for that women are notorious. That's the real reason you are not taken as seriously as men in the business world. Business is all about facts and figures, the bottom line, so it's one of the few places this doesn't work out for you.
Now I'm a woman? Wow, man, you're better than any plastic surgeon. Sorry, wrong again, I'm a man and have been one since I was born.
Re: (Score:2)
I've used the Internet since ~96 and I dont look at porn, on or off the net. Your point?
Telling that you are so ashamed that you post as AC.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't give them ideas!
Perfectly natural... (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
a thick "network cyst, preventing packets from spreading further into the network" is growing around locations like China and Iran.
What the hell are you talking about? Citation, please? Or did you just make that up because it sounded cool?
Re: (Score:2)
I think he's alluding to the Great Firewall of China and whatever is in place for Iran.
[John]
Re: (Score:2)
And the one(s) around Saudi Arabia, UAE, Qatar, probably being formed around Australia (from what I hear on, ummm, SlashDot ; well maybe not so credible then).
My thought (Score:2)
Re:My thought (Score:5, Informative)
Not necessarily. It's happened before that a group maliciously reports a page [zdnet.com] to get Facebook to take it down. From the article:
But we weren't anti-porn, and conservatives on the page "Porn Harms" rallied their page members to report us to get the page taken down. It worked. On the "Porn Harms" page, they openly celebrated and discussed their successful bogus takedown of our page [ourpornourselves.org].
(Note: I have no idea if that link from the article is work safe, and I'm not about to try it and find out. But I figured I'd leave it in anyway.)
...Wait a minute. "Porn Harms." Why does that sound familiar?
I expect that in this case, their page was in fact maliciously removed - as a response to their getting an actual porn page pulled.
Re: (Score:1)
You linked to Violet Blue. Fail.
Re: (Score:2)
Now the situation is clear as mud, anti-porn group cyberbullying a pro-porn group.
Re: (Score:3)
It wasn't a mistake and Facebook should have stuck to their guns and refused to reinstate the page. If you go to their website it's basically just man bashing. This is currently the to story on the front page Porn & Trafficking [pornharms.com] This is little better than those stupid bitchs who proclaim all men to be rape supporters even those where there is no rational reason to draw such a correlation.
Re: (Score:2)
So what if you, I, and a million others disagree with them? What right do you have to abuse Facebook's complaint system through mob action to censor them?
If you don't want to be censored, if you object to being censored, you AUTOMATICALLY lose all rights to censor others, EVEN IF those others are advocating censorship.
Re: (Score:2)
Stupid, stupid, stupid, not any more, stupid, epic stupid, stupid.
I could write a precise rebuttal of the points, but I'm not going to do that unless I know they will read it - and the page doesn't allow comments.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
To your first question, yes. The rule plays no favourites and chooses no sides. Ethics cannot be selectively blind and rights are either universal or non-existant. This is one time where there is no middle path.
To the second question, rights are universal or non-existant. If PornHarms did indeed engage in bogus complaints to effect a takedown, then they are equally guilty or equally innocent. You can pick whichever you like. What they can't be is more guilty or less guilty.
You say "live by the sword, die by
Re: (Score:2)
If you require a rule imposed by others in order to be ethical, civilization might as well give up and go home. A society that cannot function without having others think on their behalf isn't a society worth having. And if no individual can tell what is right from wrong without a TOS telling them, then we're all legally insane with nobody left to run the asylum. I give humans a bit more credit than that.
And, sure, Facebook is the final arbiter of what takes place on Facebook... ...except when you're the on
Re: (Score:3)
It wasn't a mistake and Facebook should have stuck to their guns and refused to reinstate the page. If you go to their website it's basically just man bashing. This is currently the to story on the front page Porn & Trafficking [pornharms.com] This is little better than those stupid bitchs who proclaim all men to be rape supporters even those where there is no rational reason to draw such a correlation.
To some people, the feeling of being a victim is very precious to them. It is and has been a core part of their identity for so long that they will not give it up easily. A victim is always in relation to some "other" or some system, so It's yet another reason why a true individual is so hard to find. Of course this is strongly encouraged in politics, since broken people will cry out for someone to save them and won't scrutinize too heavily the motives and characters of those who answer that call.
Eventua
Re: (Score:2)
Eventually this mentality demands a broader and broader definition of who the "oppressors" are.
-- crush all humen --
Why would you expend all the effort and expense to do all of that? As it stands now, all you'd have to do is leave them to their own devices.
Okay, I give up (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Okay, I give up (Score:4, Insightful)
New Slashdot policy: you are no longer required to read stories that don't interest you.
Really. Just skip over them. The Slashdot Goon Squad will *not* come to your house and smash your computers.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
It hurts the SNR
Impossible, like colder than absolute zero or faster than light. It takes whole new branches of number theory to come up with a conceptual representation of a worse SNR than now.
It's Slashdot. It's always been this way. People submit worthless articles, counterproductive articles, pointless articles, slashvertising articles, articles which perceptibly reduce the collective IQ of the universe.... which editors (don't) improve...
It's a slightly more interesting take on what would otherwise b
Re:Okay, I give up (Score:4, Funny)
It's Slashdot. It's always been this way. People submit worthless articles, counterproductive articles, pointless articles, slashvertising articles, articles which perceptibly reduce the collective IQ of the universe.... which editors (don't) improve...
... and people complain about this... Don't forget the complaining part!!! It's an integral part of the traditions in Slashdot history... As is complaining about all the complaints when people should know better because this is Slashdot after all... ;)
Re: (Score:2)
You're right. You're absolutely right. It's all a part of the never-ending glory of the Circle of Slashlife.
Thank you and bless you for reminding me of that. <sniff>. I'm tearing up a little. It's all just so beautiful.
Re: (Score:1)
It's Slashdot. It's always been this way. People submit worthless articles, counterproductive articles, pointless articles, slashvertising articles, articles which perceptibly reduce the collective IQ of the universe.... which editors (don't) improve...
... and people complain about this... Don't forget the complaining part!!! It's an integral part of the traditions in Slashdot history... As is complaining about all the complaints when people should know better because this is Slashdot after all... ;)
... and people complaining about the complaints about the complaints ...
... and people complaining about the complaints about the complaints about the complaints ...
... and people complaining about the complaints about the complaints about the complaints about the complaints ...
Re: (Score:2)
Just give it up man, it's people complaining all the way down!
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
If you don't like the SNR, my first question would be whether you're voting on the Firehose. My second question would be why not.
After that, I'll give up and go into a sulk on behalf of the Slashdot editors, contributors and advocators.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Damn, Rob. I was just about to go over there. You're spoiling the fun!
Ok, can we at least ask the Patron Saint of the Internet (there is one) to place a curse on K5?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't mind Roblimo's postings. I just wish he did it a little differently.
Roblimo, please post your thoughts as journal entries and then submit a link to said journal entry with a short summary of your topic. This way we can decide if we want to read your article.
Of course no harm - no foul, the front page does make a short synopsis. However it does make me question if Roblimo wrote the article responding to Bennett Haselton's post, or posting the article for Bennet. Linking to Robimo's or Bennett's jou
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:I'm pretty sure I'm not alone in this one.. (Score:5, Insightful)
So in other words, your morality is superior and that enables you to silence disagreeable groups, because it's in our best interest (or at least what you consider to be so). Nice one, there. You're not so different from them. Not so different at all. Do you know what a "heel realization" is?
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."
-- Evelyn Beatrice Hall (1906)
Re: (Score:3)
Well, I think he is saying silencing groups the specifically want to silence other as a whole.
So it's a bit more tricky.
It's different hen someone saying their shouldn't be porn, or don't watch porn.
It's a group that want to actively shut down other speech; which is deferent then voicing an opinion about something.
Re: (Score:2)
Does it matter? If freedom is considered a fundamental right, it must include the freedom to advocate views you don't like. Yes, even if those views advocate not allowing you your freedom. Further, if a right of one person is removed through the abuse (not use) of another right of others, then it is the abusers who are in the wrong, no matter what that one person was saying or claiming.
It is the failure to recognize this that has been at the heart of all abuses of power. Many evil dictators are no better th
Re: (Score:3)
If you go over to their site, they've got a clearly misandrous agenda and the correlations they draw in order to rationalize the hatred of men are absolutely stunning. This isn't about rationally stating a legitimate view this is about bashing men as much as possible.
Re: (Score:2)
I was unaware that the right to express an opinion said anything about being rational or legitimate. Either they - and you - have a right to express opinions or they - and therefore you - do not.
Which would you prefer? To censor them is to say that you aren't entitled to a single opinion that isn't peer-reviewed, and that you are open to censorship if you happen to be passionate about a subject. To reject censorship of them, regardless, is to say that you reject utterly the notion that anyone has the right
Re: (Score:2)
So we should be tolerant of other people's intolerance as well?
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, we should let intolerant people exercise their freedom of speech. We are free to have the better arguments.
We should not tolerate when they are actually bringing in laws to restrict our freedom, that's where it stops.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Ironic that you quote that, given that this is one of those groups that not only disapprove of what some people say, but would actively seek to prevent them from being able to say it.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm a Christian, and I agree with you. Morality varies from culture to culture. To the wolves in sheep's clothing like Pat Robertson or Newt Gingrich, "morality" has to do with other people not living like they'd want them to -- being gay, for instance. My view (as the bible states), immorality is exactly what Robertson and Gingrich (and Tipper Gore) are doing -- being judgemental, unforgoiving, greedy. To the Bhudist Thais, swatting a fly is immoral.
I don't think these right wingers would like me to push
Re: (Score:2)
To the Bhudist Thais, swatting a fly is immoral.
What if it's the fly on Gingrich's trousers, and you're swatting it with a baseball bat?
Re: (Score:3)
Absolutely correct. This is the true American Taliban. Even the Westboro Baptist Church is superior to these people, as even they are able to appreciate that free speech protects everyone.
Morality? (Score:1, Insightful)
What do morals have to do with porn? What could possibly be immoral about displaying one's body, no matter the context? I could understand a claim of indecency, but it's not as if everyone who participates in the creation of porn is exploited. To most, it's simply a job.
Re: (Score:3)
It really sounds as though you dont believe that there is such a thing as morality. That being the case, isnt it rather odd to turn around and deny the immorality of something?
Re: (Score:2)
Possibly i was reading things into the post that werent there.
Re: (Score:2)
The line I've been told is that women in porn aren't there because they want to display themselves, it's because they've no other choices, and are doing it for low pay, in bad conditions, and usually being abused during it. Therefore, it's immoral to support an industry based upon exploitation of human beings.
Keep in mind though, that was told to me by my Christian mother when I was a young teenager, so the validity is suspect.
Re: (Score:2)
Depends. I have talked with several actresses. on the whole they wan't to be there and worked hard.
These where American porn actresses.
And yes, sometimes the situation you mom mentions is true, BUT it's true of many industries, How many people in canning plants are there because that have no choice? bad pay, bad conditions, and often abused.
Porn has, and will always exist. The logical and kind thing to do is acknowledge it, regulate it, and give protections and avenues for the actors.
The greatest scare to t
Re: (Score:2)
Therefore, it's immoral to support an industry based upon exploitation of human beings.
Does this mean I have to forswear fast food? It's sooooo tasty! Even if the employees are completely unfulfilled and exploited shamefully.
TBH, I have a hard time thinking of even one field of endeavor that involves labor-for-pay that isn't exploitative to some objective degree, and I'm not even a Marxist. What's the old joke? "Capitalism is where Man exploits Man, while Socialism is the other way around."
Re: (Score:2)
To be honest that argument holds a lot more water when it comes to prostitution than pornography. Some people do enjoy having other people see them engaging in sexual activity. And porn is a much less harmful means than doing it in public with people who may or may not want to see it.
Re: (Score:3)
You could say the same about many industries. How many coal miners are there because they want to mine coal? It's because they have no other choices, are doing it for low pay, in bad conditions, and could even lose their lives. Therefore it's immoral to support an industry based on exploitation of human beings.
This isn't an argument against porn. It's an argument in favor of eliminating poverty and providing meaningful worker protections in all industries. I would very much agree with that form of the
Facebook Algorithms (Score:2)
How come they got theirs back? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
The thing is that the "Morality" page is like a whack-a-mole. If Facebook enforces a takedown, the organization will start up another page and do the exact same thing.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, it seems to me that if some assholes are in favor of censorship, then they should have no problem with having their Facebook group deleted. What's that? Freedom of speech should only apply to speech they approve of? Fucking hypocrites.
And don't start about "freedom of speech doesn't apply to companies"; I'm all in favor of Facebook censoring anyone and everything. So let them delete the pro-porn group. Then, let's petition Facebook to permanently delete this anti-porn group. And the christian group.
TL; (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
^ FTFY.
Imho, TFS: gtfo FB.
-TTFN
thats the summary? (Score:2)
tl;dr
Parents Television Council (Score:5, Insightful)
"Complaint mobs" are exactly the kind of tactic supposedly christian moralizers use to keep free expression off the airwaves. For instance, the Parents Television Council is responsible for 99% of FCC complaints [arstechnica.com].
As far as I'm concerned, it's time the pro-censorship crowd gets a taste of their own medicine.
Re: (Score:2)
--insert "Yo dawg...." joke here--
Re:Parents Television Council (Score:4, Insightful)
Sure. Let them live by their own rules for a while and see how they like it. They argue that offensive subjects should be censored. I find censorship more offensive than anything that's ever been censored. Exposing children to pro-censorship beliefs is vastly more harmful than exposing them to pornography. Therefore, by their own argument their website should be taken down.
This is why free speech has to protect even the most offensive garbage you can imagine. No matter who you are, someone is going to find your speech offensive.
Re: (Score:2)
their website should be taken down
free speech has to protect even the most offensive garbage you can imagine.
Still confused as to what you're advocating :p
Re: (Score:3)
Really? It's not so hard to understand. When the bully gets his ass handed to him, it's ok to cheer. Bullying is wrong, but turnabout is fair play.
Similarly, censorship is wrong, and it's OK to demonstrate that to the pro-censorship crowd by making them suffer the consequences of censorship.
Is that clear enough for you?
Re: (Score:2)
The FCC did enact a rule discounting special interest group complaints, which had an interesting side effect of well, moving them onto bigger and better things.
Like Apple's App Store started seeing huge increases in the number of app complaints [arstechnica.com] for porn apps after a PTC campaign [parentstv.org]. And after that, they started targeting other marketplaces [arstechnica.com] as well.
Religion is, again, to blame for this. We should exercise the right of freedom of religion to also be freedom FROM religion.
Re: (Score:2)
Live by the *bleep*, die by the *bleep*... if you know what I mean. ;)
Is there a point in there? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I would argue they should manual check it before taking it down. Sometime silencing a group for a short period is enough to do harm.
OTOH, sine this group abused facebook to their own agenda, I don't think they should have been put back.
Re: (Score:2)
Some Free speach issues (Score:2)
" (Of course, even if the page admins hadn't done this, inappropriate comments should be the basis for penalizing the user who posted them, not the Facebook page that they were posted on, but it was a moot point in this case.) "
The speaker seems to think that opinions should be punished and someone is the arbitor of appropriate.
"Anybody who seriously reviewed the page's contents for more than twenty seconds would have understood the page's real purpose and seen that it was not actually distributing pornogra
OK, and? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Well, I know "ssh" only in lower case.
I don't know about BBSSH, though.
Re: (Score:2)
But regardless of either of the above - the actual product name is BBSSH, with all caps. I understand their rule against all caps, but it's annoying when they give the option to submit an exception request..
the Facebook Effect (Score:2)
I am curious as to the popularity of social networks, is it as most of us lead disconnected urban lives, where most of the people we run into through out the day are strangers, Facebook serves as a substitute for the kind of community we used to live in.
Porn Harms! (Score:2)
They're right you know.
My arms are getting really sore.
Re: (Score:2)
You have no right to tell them what is right or wrong to delete.
I'm never good at this--is it irony when someone thinks they have a right to tell people they don't have a right to tell other people to do or not do stuff, or when someone makes it their business to tell someone else, whom presumably they don't know, that something else is none of their business?
Re: (Score:2)
You have no right to tell them what is right or wrong to delete.
I'm never good at this--is it irony when someone thinks they have a right to tell people they don't have a right to tell other people to do or not do stuff, or when someone makes it their business to tell someone else, whom presumably they don't know, that something else is none of their business?
That depends on whether you interpret it as a statement of fact or an imperative. Irony would only apply in the latter case.
Re: (Score:2)
Facebook can do whatever the fuck they want. Ultimately, it is their site, so why would you get your panties in a bunch over what was deleted?
If facebook "censors" you, it is really of no consequence. Just take your ball and go home if you don't like it. This is not like the government censoring you, or anything of the sort.
Stop whining over what Facebook or twitter deletes or "censors". Its really none of our business. You have no right to tell them what is right or wrong to delete.
I partly agree with the parent. It's reasonable for Facebook to control the algorithms and decisions that affect what content may appear on their site.
On the other hand, various governments may not entirely share this view due to issues around privacy, users' rights to control "their" information, and possibly other concerns.
Re: (Score:3)
The trouble is when a "non-governmental entity" grows so large that it becomes a de facto "governmental" body, or filter on what people receive.
Left-wingers and right-wingers like to complain they are being "censored out" from various forms of media. Right-wingers started Faux News specifically because they believed they were not being given a fair shake by the likes of NBC, CBS, etc - and they weren't completely incorrect, though as Stephen Colbert loves to say, "reality has a liberal bias." Left-wingers c
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The trouble is when a "non-governmental entity" grows so large that it becomes a de facto "governmental" body, or filter on what people receive.
Which, ironically, is an effect that anti-porn groups often make use of to censor pornography. Obviously they're less happy when it happens to them.... (Though to be honest most of the Facebook anti-porn groups are probably in repeated violation of their rules on harassment anyway.)
Re: (Score:2)
or leftism starts from a deeper analysis of problems, which doesn't fit into "quick fix" emotional echo-chamber sound-bites.
wheee! i can make up spurious insulting explanations too!
Re: (Score:3)
WTF is anti-porn?
Walking in on your grandmother in the shower.