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

Ooops! Seems like Mark isn't happy with every type of free speech.

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

This has been happening a long time, with groups such as the hacktivist group ANONYMOUS & Wikileaks.

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

Good.

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

You might think that but what of this countries right to free speech which btw a lot of people have died to protect.

Would you like us to be like some foreign countries and rewrite history every day depending on who is in power. ???

I might not like those groups but they do have the right of free speech and by removing there pages just gives them publicity for free

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

There is NO right to free speech on facebook or any other 3rd party website. Facebook is private property and as such they can decide what speech to allow or not. If people want free speech online they will need to setup their own website on their own server.

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

Well 38 Degrees is still up..So not every activist group has been a target.

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

Exactly ,people also forget that Facebook is a money making corporation not a public service ,it is only there to make money ,why would they allow anti capitalist activists to further their cause on that site .

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

Is there any evidence Facebook has done anything to these groups?

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

No idea as i chose not to read there sites, I just looked at Mr A's link

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

So it's possible this is all a case of people with an agenda jumping to conclusions?

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

Could be as lets be truthful one sees agendas in the press everyday depending which side of the divide your on.:)

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

A later edition of the story to Mr A's
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology...ctivists-pages

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

So at this point is appears that yes those pages were suspended but so were others. Some will shout "conspiracy!!", others will say "nothing to see here".

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

Agreed

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

Indeed ,all the activist pages need to remember that they are breaking Facebooks T&C's so don't have an argument really ,and as has been mentioned it is a privately owned site and as such can shut down what they like and have whatever content they like within the law ,as indeed this site can

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

Nothing to see here, Mr Angry :)

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

Unfortunately such is life Russ.

---------- Post added at 10:10 ---------- Previous post was at 10:08 ----------

There's an understatement if ever I saw one.

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

Glad you're taking it well ;)

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

interesting take from the activists point of view

http://ukcanticuts.wordpress.com/201...es-are-closed/

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

I might be considered to be "taking it well" were I of a differing opinion on the matter than you.

However, you are, not unusually, under the misguided impression that I have a stated position on a matter when in actual fact all I have done in this particular instance is link to a news story.

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

Yes, with the opinion of 'Seems like Mark isn't happy with every type of free speech.' to go with it.

doesn't matter now. at least we now know Mark perhaps is happy with every type of free speech. apart from racism, I hope.

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

who's mark?

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

Zuckerberg.

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

scrap that he's the founder :dunce:

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

I don't know.

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

Gary, is English really your first language?

"Seems like" is not a conventional statement of ones opinion. It is an observational statement / prefix. It only becomes a statement of considered opinion when you make it personal - for example "Seems to me like....".

I suggest you take some time out, get some fizzy pop and sandwiches together and go out and play with your friends in the sunshine* - it's a much better form of exercise than your usual jumping to conclusions.



*Don't forget to tell a responsible adult where you are going, who you'll be with, and what time you'll be back.

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

Thanks for the tip ;)

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

:LOL:

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

fizzy drink makes him hyper active so he's not allowed it

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

I don't think he's had much sleep :D

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

Good old Graundian.

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

"Fon't forget" - Oh dear.

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

How do you know that, You stalking him :)

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

I can't see why facebook would have any grievance with these groups, I'd have thought surely the government has a hand somewhere in all this?

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

well of course you don't :rolleyes:
you have to look at what facebook is for ,what it was created for ,it was not intended as a platform for extremist groups or activist groups

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

Russ was correct then. ;)

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

facebook does seem to be very heavy handed

Facebook shoots first, ignores questions later; account lock-out attack works (Update X)

http://arstechnica.com/business/news...tack-works.ars

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

can you blame them given all the bad publicity they get when some idiot or a group of idiots abuse the site

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

Well you would, wouldn't you.

And if Facebook has decided to 'censor' certain accounts, what of it? It is a privately owned and operated website. The only way to exercise free speech on the internet is to set up your own website. Twas ever thus, and quite rightly so.

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

I could tell you first hand accounts of things the police and goverment have gotten up to in the past, things that would make this look like a walk in the park. When you post things like that Chris, all it tells me is that appear to have a rather limited understanding of how this world really works.

Facebook doesn't have a grievance with all those groups, for instance what does facebook have against anti-cuts? (I'm well aware of the T&C, that isn't reason enough imo)
You just continue living in your rose tinted little fantasy world, enjoy it whilst it lasts. I'm not judging, I'd love to live in a world where there isn't police corruption or brutality, the government never spies on its citizens, and they never utilise the timing of current events to bury bad news, such as censoring of freedom of speech whilst the public is distracted by the Royal Wedding. I'd love to be like you and martyh and believe everything the government and police spoon feed to the public, but I can't seem to do that without switching my brain off. I'll work on it, any tips?

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

Ah, the old conflation of "not living in a paranoid fantasy world" and "switching one's brain off".

If only life were so simple....

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

Think outside of the box. I tried it once and everything was great :)

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

Can't be bothered with the pettiness today Hugh, I really can't.
There's a difference between accusing the government of a conspiracy, and applying a critical eye to everything we're told. I'm in the latter category, its a shame you continue to conflate (your favorite word?) the two.

This is the problem with CF, pettiness. My first post was intended to just put the idea out there that this issue wasn't strictly limited to facebook (though it may well be). I was hoping for an intelligent, perhaps informative reply - rather than a smug "Well, you wouldn't would you..."
It would be a nice day indeed when CF members would stop with the cheap points scoring and concentrate on intelligent discussion.
Who am I fooling, this is CF - nevermind, as you were, man battlestations :D

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

You and other conspiracy theorists have equated Facebook cleaning house ,closing or suspending accounts that break T&C's with governmental control ,spying and denial of freedom and speech .
Facebook closes 1,000's of accounts every day why aren't you up in arms over them ,shouting government censorship .
If you look at the details over 90% of the accounts affected have broken the T&C's by having the profile pages set up wrong ,they are using personal profiles to represent their organisation meaning they are open to public view and in clear violation of the T&C's
If you are going through life seeing conspiracy everywhere you turn then it must be a pretty awfull life you have .I am in no doubt that the government play a few dirty tricks and coppers occasionally go over the top but i do not see conspiracy in everything that happens .Sometimes Facebook closing accounts and claiming they break the T&C's is just that nothing more

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

I haven't said any of those things martyh, if you would stop trying so hard to pigeon hole me these discussions would go much smoother. I was suggesting that perhaps there's more to this than we're being told, I never stated it was so. There is a difference, a big one.

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.