Facebook Jail

sasywtch

DIS Veteran
Joined
May 16, 2008
I think that those who believe their fact checkers are not politically biased are naive. I posted something that someone did (in response to another poster) and it came back as false/fact checked. I posted a link to the person admitted they did this but their fact checkers decided it was still untrue. It was negative publicity against someone that is within their party so according to Facebook it's not true even though the person I spoke about admitted it.
 

aprilgail

DIS Veteran
Joined
Nov 10, 2001
My friend and I refer to each other as "donkeys" all the time- and I mean the actually word DONKEY spelled exactly like that and whenever I go to hit post I get the facebook warning saying that is might be offensive and against their rules- I am like really? I can think of a heck of a lot more offensive things than donkey.
 

AndreaA

DIS Veteran
Joined
Aug 20, 2012
There are things in our lives that are so frequently used they just are part of it. Google for instance, Amazon and FB are ones, Twitter is becoming that way (especially how it's used). You can in fact be a private entity largely left to your own devices and yet also be ubiquitous to society. You can also be a public entity and be the same. So I'm not sure what one has to do with another.
Phone companies are regulated, the FCC to name one. Would you like FB and other social media to be government regulated? Already they've come under scrutiny over privacy and data leaks and people wanting more governmental control and oversight. I'm unsure though based on your comments if you would be for that, because that's really what you're asking them to do, conform to a set rules set up and monitored by the government so that they cannot do what you say they are doing.
I’m generally for small government all the way, but in this case, if regulation is what it takes to prevent biased censorship, then sure, regulate away. An entity ubiquitous to society should not be allowed to rule who and who is not allowed to be present, or what they can say there, short of breaking actual laws. Social media has become the “soapbox” of the world, and I don’t recall anyone being forbidden from stepping up on a literal one in the town square. Shouted down? Sure, have at it. As for “factchecking”, how about just letting people figure things out for themselves? I don’t need “big brother” looking out for me. Sheesh.

Let me be clear, if there are private groups on FB (or elsewhere) then people who run them have the absolute right to keep out anyone they like... I run a local conservative/libertarian group and have shut down anyone spewing “Q” nonsense because I, as group moderator, have decided I don’t want to deal with it. People are welcome to post about it all they like on their own feeds.
 
Last edited:

bdcp

DIS Veteran
Joined
Nov 13, 2004
My DH posted on a thread with a friend that "If I told you I'd have to kill you". Common phrase, means something quite different, but he got in trouble/warned for that. Another time a guy called him a s*** head and my DH went back with saying he had to be a particular leaning political way if he thought calling names was appropriate. The guy reported him (I guess he was offended with being connected to the political beliefs he held?) and DH got jail, and DH reported the guy for his language and he also apparently got jailtime. I agree that FB's political leanings are very obvious in what they choose to censor posters over. The algorithms are written in such a way that they are obviously pro certain groups, political leanings, and anti others. And, then, some are just stupid. There was a garden group that got in trouble for using the word "hoe" about a garden tool. Context is very important, but the algorithms aren't written that way.

I got banned from a FB group because a couple of people reported that I wasn't "nice" Reality is, I made comments concerning that they could get answers from the actual website. This group also made it against the rules to start a reply with "I think" instead of knowing for sure when we all know answers can and do change. I didn't even get ANY warnings of any kind. Some of the posters were so obviously easily offended that they just went straight to the manager lol (admins) and whined. Instead of just scrolling on by. I never broke any rules except apparently the very generic/subjective one about being "polite".
 

Beach Bunny

and also..bet your hubby's butt is sore
Joined
Apr 5, 2007
My friend and I refer to each other as "donkeys" all the time- and I mean the actually word DONKEY spelled exactly like that and whenever I go to hit post I get the facebook warning saying that is might be offensive and against their rules- I am like really? I can think of a heck of a lot more offensive things than donkey.
more than likely tied to political algorithms
 

Mackenzie Click-Mickelson

Chugging along the path of life
Joined
Oct 23, 2015
I appreciate you answering

but in this case, if regulation is what it takes to prevent biased censorship, then sure, regulate away.
I don’t need “big brother” looking out for me. Sheesh.
Respectfully these two viewpoints are in conflict with each other IMO.

On the one hand you want them regulated by someone/something so they can be at least biased as possible (perceived) but on the other hand you don't want big brother stepping in. Even if you mean big brother to be FB. Censorship occurs when there's "looking out". When you say prevent biased censorship but that you don't need someone looking out for you you actually are saying you want someone looking out for you..in this case preventing what you see as a biased application of censorship.

FB has recently in the last few years stepped up under a lot of pressure when for years they have resisted. They wanted to stay out of it leaning towards little interference. But when things over the last several years occurred their "hands off" approach was seen as aiding and thus had things they had to think about. There was accountability that people wanted FB to own up to, not sure I can blame the people wanting accountability. They do have a long way to go IMO on how they apply things but you can tell they are still trying to straddle the line of how much interference they do. They are a company that has little governmental oversight but the thing is to correct what people want to correct there would have to be a lot more governmental oversight into things. It's not just FB but Twitter has straddled the lines too in who they ban, when they ban, why they ban, how long they lock someone, what tweets they allow, etc. The world wants both the ability to say what they want to say and yet wants the companies held accountable (morally mostly but in other situations legally) for when things occur. It's not an easy position for them to be in.
 

Mackenzie Click-Mickelson

Chugging along the path of life
Joined
Oct 23, 2015
my DH went back with saying he had to be a particular leaning political way if he thought calling names was appropriate. The guy reported him (I guess he was offended with being connected to the political beliefs he held?) and DH got jail, and DH reported the guy for his language and he also apparently got jailtime.
Or people may poor assumptions of people's political leanings. I myself get so tired of that. My husband often gets called out in comments from other people assuming he leans one way..it's interesting that people make these assumptions because they're wrong every time. I don't know why my husband continues to comment lol but that's his biz.

Maybe if your husband had just left the political part out of it. I wouldn't say I'd report it but I wouldn't assume that someone who did report it was offended. It's just plain annoying that people don't have conversations without pointing fingers..no one ever gets anywhere when that's done, what's accomplished anyways?
 
  • bdcp

    DIS Veteran
    Joined
    Nov 13, 2004
    Or people may poor assumptions of people's political leanings. I myself get so tired of that. My husband often gets called out in comments from other people assuming he leans one way..it's interesting that people make these assumptions because they're wrong every time. I don't know why my husband continues to comment lol but that's his biz.

    Maybe if your husband had just left the political part out of it. I wouldn't say I'd report it but I wouldn't assume that someone who did report it was offended. It's just plain annoying that people don't have conversations without pointing fingers..no one ever gets anywhere when that's done, what's accomplished anyways?
    Since you have no idea what the conversation was about... It was a political conversation so really can't leave that out. Maybe you shouldn't assume things either. DH said what he said AFTER the guy used the expletive. The guy called my DH the name he did because he didn't agree with him, but obviously doesn't know how to communicate any other way, except to say something like he did. Maybe the other guy should have just said "I don't agree with you". He wasn't wrong about the guys leanings and the guy couldn't respond without name calling because he had no real argument against what was said. Also, why do some people think they have to play "Devil's Advocate"?
     

    Mackenzie Click-Mickelson

    Chugging along the path of life
    Joined
    Oct 23, 2015
    Since you have no idea what the conversation was about... It was a political conversation so really can't leave that out. Maybe you shouldn't assume things either. DH said what he said AFTER the guy used the expletive. The guy called my DH the name he did because he didn't agree with him, but obviously doesn't know how to communicate any other way, except to say something like he did. Maybe the other guy should have just said "I don't agree with you". He wasn't wrong about the guys leanings and the guy couldn't respond without name calling because he had no real argument against what was said. Also, why do some people think they have to play "Devil's Advocate"?
    I'm going by you saying "my DH went back with saying he had to be a particular leaning political way if he thought calling names was appropriate." There's nothing I can assume there :confused3

    What I was saying is leaving the political aspect out. If the issue is calling people names (which I would agree with) then there's nothing gained by adding in "particular leaning political way if he thought calling names was appropriate." That's what I was getting at. Everyone just pointing fingers it gets no where. No one needs to name call, regardless of an assumed political leaning. And when the conversation becomes about someone's political leaning..it goes nowhere. So I totally agree about no name calling but I don't think your husband had to go toe to toe either and it would have nothing to do with being offended. People are quick to say someone is offended too. I commented only because I don't think this is a FB issue. It's something that occurs IRL all the time, it's just no report button lol.
     

    Heigh-Ho

    DIS Veteran
    Joined
    Jul 13, 2020
    There's a Facebook jail!? Kidding. I do know some people who get in trouble a lot on Facebook but I've decided to just unfollow those people. I agree with others that sometimes Facebook doesn't do things right, sometimes they are almost too big for themselves where moderating can't be done as through as it should. I think if things were looked at more closely some reports would end up in action taken while others wouldn't. I'm not sure what the real solution is, they have so many accounts and the algorithms that people mention aren't infallible either.
     
  • Moliphino

    DIS Veteran
    Joined
    Jun 29, 2016
    I seem to have been banned from commenting on Yahoo over some very innocuous posts on a Ben and Jerry's article. :confused3 I wasn't even weighing in on the controversy itself, it was mostly pointing out that they've always waded into political issues.
     

    AndreaA

    DIS Veteran
    Joined
    Aug 20, 2012
    I appreciate you answering




    Respectfully these two viewpoints are in conflict with each other IMO.

    On the one hand you want them regulated by someone/something so they can be at least biased as possible (perceived) but on the other hand you don't want big brother stepping in. Even if you mean big brother to be FB. Censorship occurs when there's "looking out". When you say prevent biased censorship but that you don't need someone looking out for you you actually are saying you want someone looking out for you..in this case preventing what you see as a biased application of censorship.

    FB has recently in the last few years stepped up under a lot of pressure when for years they have resisted. They wanted to stay out of it leaning towards little interference. But when things over the last several years occurred their "hands off" approach was seen as aiding and thus had things they had to think about. There was accountability that people wanted FB to own up to, not sure I can blame the people wanting accountability. They do have a long way to go IMO on how they apply things but you can tell they are still trying to straddle the line of how much interference they do. They are a company that has little governmental oversight but the thing is to correct what people want to correct there would have to be a lot more governmental oversight into things. It's not just FB but Twitter has straddled the lines too in who they ban, when they ban, why they ban, how long they lock someone, what tweets they allow, etc. The world wants both the ability to say what they want to say and yet wants the companies held accountable (morally mostly but in other situations legally) for when things occur. It's not an easy position for them to be in.
    Respectfully, I disagree entirely with your premise. You are the one who said that limiting censorship required government oversight. For one thing the actual oversight of most utilities revolves around COST and ACCESS, not CONTENT. By me agreeing that maybe government oversight is needed, I’m specifically referring to ACCESS, and peripherally to CONTENT, in that no legal content should be censored. My idea of government oversight is a rule that says there should be zero oversight. Hardly akin to ”big brother”.

    One would reasonably think that right-minded people would simply agree that censorship is bad, even if they disagree with what might be discussed - barring of course things that manifestly break the law. “Fact checking” is one step away from censorship. The “facts” are often more opinion than objective. Not everyone checks the bias of the fact-checkers themselves. Interesting that you mention the “last couple of years” when for years before that, FB apparently didn’t care about more liberal misinformation/hate being spewed, but as soon as it was weighted in the other direction, they decided to take action. Unlike many people, I think that citizens of the world can make up their own minds about things without undue influence from government or corporate entities.
     
    Last edited:

    Mackenzie Click-Mickelson

    Chugging along the path of life
    Joined
    Oct 23, 2015
    Unlike many people, I think that citizens of the world can make up their own minds about things without undue influence from government or corporate entities.
    I haven't said anything to the contrary or even given you my viewpoint on the manner for being pro or against nor does that make me not right minded and I'm not sure you needed to add that slight in there (perfect example of my name calling conversation ironically). It's too long of a story to tell but an abbreviated version is in the past I've talked on this Board about how I appreciated how my alma mater allowed people to come on campus and protest, pass out bibles, put up billboards of things people would mostly agree is horrible (like aborted fetuses) and more because while I didn't have to like it I appreciated it was allowed.

    I'm just giving you reasons why FB is the way it is and how your complaint against them would be corrected at this point. I don't think we can go back to the "hands off" approach. You unfortunately have the citizens of the world to blame for that.
     
    Last edited:

    _19disnA

    DIS Veteran
    Joined
    Aug 8, 2018
    Don't use social media and my life goes on just fine without it. Places like twitter/instagram/FB/whatever seem like a place for bored people to start arguments so they can get someone to talk to them..............such nonsense. Used to use FB and a few years ago they changed something so that I could now see 'friends' of 'friends' even if I had no idea who they were. It used to be that you had to be 'friends' with someone to see what was being posted and that stopped being the case. Not sure if that is a mistake or not but seemed like a terrible idea and stopped using it. I never thought posting personal information/photos/etc. on public websites was a good idea regardless of whatever restrictions they claim to have in place on who can view. I wonder how many people on FB still don't realize that others who aren't their 'friends' can see what they are posting?

    I do laugh at those who seem violently opposed to limiting what gets posted. Typically those are people who want a platform from which they can spew nonsense without any guardrails regardless of which way they lean. Freedom of speech still doesn't allow you to shout 'fire' in a crowded movie theatre. Social media are privately run companies so I guess I don't follow how anyone sees the government involved in censorship.
     
    Last edited:

    Heigh-Ho

    DIS Veteran
    Joined
    Jul 13, 2020
    I don't think we can go back to the "hands off" approach. You unfortunately have the citizens of the world to blame for that.
    I agree. I don't think social media platforms would have stepped in unless they felt like they had virtually no choice and that's the responsibility of the people using these social media platforms.
     

    AndreaA

    DIS Veteran
    Joined
    Aug 20, 2012
    I haven't said anything to the contrary or even given you my viewpoint on the manner for being pro or against nor does that make me not right minded and I'm not sure you needed to add that slight in there (perfect example of my name calling conversation ironically). It's too long of a story to tell but an abbreviated version is in the past I've talked on this Board about how I appreciated how my alma mater allowed people to come on campus and protest, pass out bibles, put up billboards of things people would mostly agree is horrible (like aborted fetuses) and more because while I didn't have to like it I appreciated it was allowed.

    I'm just giving you reasons why FB is the way it is and how your complaint against them would be corrected at this point. I don't think we can go back to the "hands off" approach. You unfortunately have the citizens of the world to blame for that.
    I am not sure why you seem inclined to take offense at comments that aren’t aimed at you or even anyone in particular. Also not sure why you are using “citizens of the world” or “nor right minded” as an insult. You said that I was contradicting myself and I was simply explaining my reasoning. I think I am firmly in the majority in thinking much of the recent FB blocking is ill-conceived and implemented (posts in my CROCHET group have been blocked for cryin out loud!) so I really wasn’t expecting any pushback against voicing as much.
     

    Mackenzie Click-Mickelson

    Chugging along the path of life
    Joined
    Oct 23, 2015
    I am not sure why you seem inclined to take offense at comments that aren’t aimed at you or even anyone in particular. Also not sure why you are using “citizens of the world” or “nor right minded” as an insult. You said that I was contradicting myself and I was simply explaining my reasoning. I think I am firmly in the majority in thinking much of the recent FB blocking is ill-conceived and implemented (posts in my CROCHET group have been blocked for cryin out loud!) so I really wasn’t expecting any pushback against voicing as much.
    There's no offense. When you said right-minded people it implies that if people don't agree with your views on censorship they are not right-minded. And it didn't mean I personally took offense just that I disagreed with the idea that if someone doesn't have the censorship view you have that they are not right-minded, it was paralleled to the conversation about name calling. You think all censorship is bad totally fine by my book (and you probably would be surprised as how I feel about that but it's a conversation for another day).

    I never actually stated I disagreed with you about FB's monitoring. Throughout this thread I've said they sometimes go too far and not far enough. I've said they have a long way to go and they walk this fine line of trying and not trying, that they felt this immense pressure to do so.

    I asked what you wanted FB to do but I wasn't discussing whether I agreed or disagreed with your perception of the bias or censorship. To want oversight and yet to be left alone are not the same. Being left alone means anything goes and people self-police and moderate on their own which is what you appeared to want people to be able to do with your comment about you moderating the private FB group and that "citizens of the world can make up their own minds about things without undue influence from government or corporate entities."

    Wanting someone to step in to force an even balance against a perceived bias being applied is stepping in. No matter what you're asking them to censor for people...just an opposite way than what your perception is. Thus my contradictory comment. I think the conversation evolved because it sounds like what you more want is the olden days of FB so now I don't really know that you're asking them to be contradictory but rather be like they used to be.

    Many people are so laser focused on "you're this" "you're that". I've been on FB since 2006 and it's a long ways from what it was back then and how it's utilized. There are good progresses to how it's used (like I mentioned about FB messenger and getting in contact with companies) but there's not good progresses too. FB had to evolve as a matter of necessity. It's never going to be perfect but like Heigh-Ho said it's the responsibility of the people using these social media platforms. Things like the garden hoe stuff is something they can work on, some of the other stuff is much much harder because of the very people using these sites and how and what they say. These social media places are avenues for people and just how far you let people go has been the topic in recent years. Whether any of us agree with that or not it's where we're at.
     

    nene0182

    DIS Veteran
    Joined
    Feb 18, 2012
    I’ve never gone to FB jail but I did get muted in a group for 3 days for posting a recipe for ugly dip. Apparently they thought I was calling someone ugly or something like that but that’s literally the name of the recipe.
     


    Connect

    TODAY'S HEADLINES


















    Top