Facebook is a social media platform.
What this means, by definition, is that it is a cyberspace meeting place for human beings to discuss, explore and share.
It is perfectly proper and reasonable for Facebook to set “Community Standards” in this regard. It is perfectly proper for Facebook to impose a sanction if those “Community Standards” are violated.
What this means, by definition, is that it is a cyberspace meeting place for human beings to discuss, explore and share.
It is perfectly proper and reasonable for Facebook to set “Community Standards” in this regard. It is perfectly proper for Facebook to impose a sanction if those “Community Standards” are violated.
What is improper, arbitrary and capricious is blocking a user for an arbitrary period while the alleged breach of a “Community Standard” is being adjudicated.
Certainly the allegedly offensive video clip that is the subject of the alleged breach can be taken down while the adjudication process is in progress.
But why block the member during this process??
Certainly the allegedly offensive video clip that is the subject of the alleged breach can be taken down while the adjudication process is in progress.
But why block the member during this process??
In this case the video clip was an authentic recording of sadistic violence and brutality inflicted on human beings in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. It was a visual and audio report of the truth of brutality by man on man.
I have gone through the Community Standards and, as a highly experienced Advocate, cannot see in what way they have been breached.
The video clip was to draw attention to the fact that similar brutality was being perpetrated in Zimbabwe and needed to be condemned and stopped.
How this can be considered a violation of anything is incomprehensible.
I have gone through the Community Standards and, as a highly experienced Advocate, cannot see in what way they have been breached.
The video clip was to draw attention to the fact that similar brutality was being perpetrated in Zimbabwe and needed to be condemned and stopped.
How this can be considered a violation of anything is incomprehensible.
Apparently it was considered a violation of “Community Standards” because of how visually graphic such brutality actually was.
So it is apparent that the “Community Standards” insist that truth must be censored if it is visually powerful.
So perpetrators are to be exempt from exposure on Facebook if what they do is really bad.????
Please note that in so many other instances what Facebook does is to “cover up” the video clip with a warning that it is visually disturbing. Excellent!!
Now, why not in this case??
In this case, the posting of a “disturbing” video clip led to me being blocked for 24 hours.
Why?
Why could the clip not have been simply covered with the warning about its contents?
Why the 24-hour block?
So perpetrators are to be exempt from exposure on Facebook if what they do is really bad.????
Please note that in so many other instances what Facebook does is to “cover up” the video clip with a warning that it is visually disturbing. Excellent!!
Now, why not in this case??
In this case, the posting of a “disturbing” video clip led to me being blocked for 24 hours.
Why?
Why could the clip not have been simply covered with the warning about its contents?
Why the 24-hour block?
Most importantly, why the block while my representations on the matter, on an express invitation by Facebook to make such representation, was being considered?
Such action is mindboggling.
It is equivalent to a Court imposing punishment on an accused while it is deciding whether or not the punishment is merited.
Such action is mindboggling.
It is equivalent to a Court imposing punishment on an accused while it is deciding whether or not the punishment is merited.
Such an operational culture and mode is highly objectionable.
It smacks of arrogance and hypocrisy. It is hypocritical to posture that an accused person might be found innocent after his/her representations have been considered while still imposing a punishment.
It smacks of arrogance and hypocrisy. It is hypocritical to posture that an accused person might be found innocent after his/her representations have been considered while still imposing a punishment.
So why is Facebook doing this?
It is another example of the arrogance and hypocrisy of big business.
Ultimately Facebook cares tuppence about how it treats individual members … provided the majority are kept on board and profit is served.
It is another example of the arrogance and hypocrisy of big business.
Ultimately Facebook cares tuppence about how it treats individual members … provided the majority are kept on board and profit is served.
So it is part of the Facebook business model that anything that might offend other members must be suppressed even if an individual member is treated with arbitrary contempt.
The individual member can lump it or like it as long as the equilibrium regarding keeping the majority on board the profit train is not disturbed.
The individual member can lump it or like it as long as the equilibrium regarding keeping the majority on board the profit train is not disturbed.
The whole world saw this culture betrayed when Mark Zuckerberg gave evidence to Congress. It was obvious that Facebook had been aware of Russian trolling to interfere in the USA elections and did precious little about it.
The reason for doing precious little about this was the same as we are seeing here. Acting in a principled manner might have prejudiced the extent to which Facebook was being used and ultimately this would have been prejudicial to the generation of profit.
It is a highly unprincipled stance.
The reason for doing precious little about this was the same as we are seeing here. Acting in a principled manner might have prejudiced the extent to which Facebook was being used and ultimately this would have been prejudicial to the generation of profit.
It is a highly unprincipled stance.
So to as regards the matter at hand here.
In effect what Facebook is saying is that, even if 100% true; the brutality by man on man must be censored if that brutality is extreme. If extreme it must not be shown and discussed on their platform, even though it is a social media platform.
In effect what Facebook is saying is that, even if 100% true; the brutality by man on man must be censored if that brutality is extreme. If extreme it must not be shown and discussed on their platform, even though it is a social media platform.
How Facebook members are to know when a video clip crosses their line of acceptability is impossible to define.
 |
| Holocaust Children Skeletons |
It is not rocket science to realize that this attitude means that video footage of the horrors of the Holocaust would have, and must still be, impermissible on Facebook. It means that video clips of mass genocide are anathema to Facebook …
and the reason is … ??
these reports ultimately set up a dispute between the perpetrators and the victims.
Both sides have members ... in significant numbers.!!!
Facebook does not want to lose membership on either side as this ultimately impacts on profit generation.
As said, it is the arrogance and hypocrisy of big business that cares tuppence about human rights and only serves at the altar of profit.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PS: I was originally blocked for 24 hours.
I filed a protest and request for review.Within 3 hours Facebook responded adhering to their ruling, but lifting the block.In addition, I was invited to file a request for another review.
I did this.
Back came a message confirming that the matter was under further review.
However the block was reinstated. ????????
That message states "please let us know if you think that this is a mistake". When you click on the message you are presented with an input field to make your representation and "submit".
On submitting you get this message --- "We could not process your request. Please try again later."
PPS: Then I get a message on my profile page from Facebook saying ... "4,380 people want to hear from you ....... please post something...."
and the reason is … ??
these reports ultimately set up a dispute between the perpetrators and the victims.
Both sides have members ... in significant numbers.!!!
Facebook does not want to lose membership on either side as this ultimately impacts on profit generation.
As said, it is the arrogance and hypocrisy of big business that cares tuppence about human rights and only serves at the altar of profit.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PS: I was originally blocked for 24 hours.
I filed a protest and request for review.Within 3 hours Facebook responded adhering to their ruling, but lifting the block.In addition, I was invited to file a request for another review.
I did this.
Back came a message confirming that the matter was under further review.
However the block was reinstated. ????????
That message states "please let us know if you think that this is a mistake". When you click on the message you are presented with an input field to make your representation and "submit".
On submitting you get this message --- "We could not process your request. Please try again later."
PPS: Then I get a message on my profile page from Facebook saying ... "4,380 people want to hear from you ....... please post something...."
No comments:
Post a Comment