Re: Facebook...perhaps not entirely "right on".
 

Ok here's your chance ,give us an example of government interference ,denial of freedom of speech ,censorship of the media ,all those things that you constantly accuse the police ,governments ,big corporations of doing and i will discuss them with you in a adult fashion .
I'll start with the current Facebook issue .I do not think it is any more than Facebook cleaning house ,my reasoning behind this is that pages such as the BNP and EDL are still up ,if the government realy wanted to influence politics then they would shut those down

---------- Post added at 15:15 ---------- Previous post was at 15:11 ----------


yes you did ,quite clearly


so you think the government has a hand in this ,please state why you think this is so

Re: Facebook...perhaps not entirely "right on".
 

Martyh, I think you should read again what I actually wrote. I honestly don't know if it is or isn't related to the government - this is why there was a question mark at the end of my post, admittedly I should have worded it better to avoid giving that impression. At the same time, I'm saying that I wouldn't put it passed them either, if history is anything to go by.
However, these account deletions certainly have fallen right in line with what the government would like to see happen, and that I think is suspect and worthy of closer inspection - but it could be nothing other than the product of a rather fortunate coincidence, instead of another sign of social engineering in an increasingly Orwellian society.

The BNP is a democratically elected body, if the government where to be seen to be waging a stealth war upon their democratic right to exist, then there would be trouble, more trouble that it'd be worth. The EDL is another big name group - but neither (or even together) is a significant threat. The big threat right now is from the likes of the anti-cuts brigade. Big cuts are being made with questionable public support (a potential powder keg), and the sum total of these groups is a force to be reckoned with, very capable of fanning the flames of public dissent. They're a thorn in the side of the government's current economic strategy, a thorn that the government (i'm sure) would like to see disappear off the radar completely. So in my view, though we might not have found the smoking gun, we have found a motive.

Just because I can't see it (especially as I know little about facebook and how it conducts its affairs), doesn't mean it isn't so - this was why I was asking the question.

I don't have sufficient facts to draw such an absolute conclusion. I have suspicions, that's all. I'd be interested to hear if anyone of you with all your legal knowlege, knows of any low-key methods the government could employ to put pressure on facebook to remove certain accounts?
I'm not sure what they could do, or what could the Obama administration do? Tax breaks? Risk of being branded as an accessory to whatever activities are planned on facebook? Or perhaps its simply that facebook is finding these political associations tiresome and wants them off their site for reasons having nothing to do with government censorship.

Re: Facebook...perhaps not entirely "right on".
 

Facebook simply cannot be bothered with managing these groups and trying to ensure that people understand that their presence does not indicate some sort of approval. It's too much of a headache and, unlike Google, this content is hosted by their servers. They are providing the platform for them and as a company they would rather not.

Google has this trouble but it's easier to them get people to understand that a link to a page in their search results does not amount to a endorsement for it's content.

Re: Facebook...perhaps not entirely "right on".
 

Maybe you need to choose your words a bit more carefully ,your post did give the impression that you think the government instigated this ,but anyhoo i'm not going to argue semantics



That is my take on it .Facebook takes it revenue from advertising and having perceived political allegiances could negatively affect that revenue.
Face book was set up as a social network site for people to share their lives not as a political sounding board for extremists and activists which appears to be the way it's going ,not that i use facebook much either that is just my perception .

Re: Facebook...perhaps not entirely "right on".
 

It appears facebook are issuing instructions to the owners of those sites affected on how to reactive them but this will take "a couple of days".

Re: Facebook...perhaps not entirely "right on".
 

I can accept that, it does sound perfectly plausible imo. My initial impression was that the timing was a bit suspect, but by that same token it could be that perhaps facebook alone has been waiting for a convenient time to rid it's association with these groups - that is if they are in fact permanenly deleting these accounts. I'm finding it rather difficult to come to any definitive conclusion based on what we know so far, especially considering Mr A's post above about issuing instructions on how to reactivate the accounts. If this is true, then that appears to contradict both hypotheses on why the accounts were deleted/deactivated. For all I can gather, it could well have just been a mistake and we've all read far too deeply into it !

---------- Post added at 16:57 ---------- Previous post was at 16:43 ----------

It'll be interesting to see whether or not the hundreds if not thousands of comments and network contacts are also restored if and when the groups/accounts are restored.

Re: Facebook...perhaps not entirely "right on".
 

I find i am like that after taking my tramadol :)

Re: Facebook...perhaps not entirely "right on".
 

I'll remember to make allowances :)

Re: Facebook...perhaps not entirely "right on".
 

I believe Facebook will only act on pages if they have certan keywords, or they get an number of reports against it.