Anti-Porn Facebook Page is Deleted, Then Restored

Slashdot regular contributor Bennett Haselton writes: "An anti-porn organization's Facebook page is disabled by Facebook, and then resurrected. Was the page the victim of a 'complaint mob,' and could the previously-discussed 'voting algorithm' have saved the page from being shut down?"

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.

Comments

Without porn

[0racle]

Without porn, what is the point of the Internet?

Re:Without porn

[Anonymous Coward]

I've used the Internet since ~96 and I dont look at porn, on or off the net. Your point?

Re:Without porn

[onkelonkel]

So you're the guy.

Re:Without porn

[Anonymous Coward]

Trolling comes in at a close second.

Re:Without porn

[maxwell demon]

Without porn, what is the point of the Internet?

Slashdot.

Re:Without porn

[PIBM]

Don't give them ideas!

Re:Without porn

[Robert Zenz]

Who said it's a guy?

Re:Without porn

[Bill_the_Engineer]

God help us all.

Re:Without porn

[Anonymous Coward]

This is Slashdot.

Re:Without porn

[The Moof]

On the Internet, all men are men, all women are men, and all children are the FBI.

Re:Without porn

[Anonymous Coward]

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 disinterested in sex in order to raise its cost. Truth is, the average woman has more of a libido than a man and has her "mind in the gutter" more than a man, but she has learned to repress this (causing the fundamental female neurosis and cognitive dissonance, leading to irrational behavior). As a group, women hate "sluts" and "whores" and treat them with contempt to discourage those who do not participate in the artificial scarcity, giving them a lower social status and a bad reputation, in an attempt to decrease both their standing with other women and their perceived desirability to men. It is like the way the media companies feel about bittorrents.

Therefore a user who never looks at porn likely is a woman, or could also be a feminized man. A feminized man has been taught to think it is bad to have a penis, to be a heterosexual male, to feel the effects of testosterone, to look at the world rationally and not emotionally (he is accused of being "cold" if he does that). He has unconsciously adopted the female agenda of artificial scarcity. Both women and feminized men work to permit and encourage the phenomenon of legalized prostitution, where all men married or single are expected to pay in some way or another for the sex act despite the female's mutual enjoyment of it. The archetypical model here is the poor woman who marries into money because she happens to be very attractive and knows what price she can get on the pussy market, though even women who are millionaires tend to marry men who are multi-millionaires.

The major difference between a street prostitute and the average woman is that the prostitute has no illusions about the nature of the transaction. The other major difference is that a prostitute won't talk about her character, her mind, or her outgoing personality as things men should want her for. Average women by contrast give lip service to these things while the vast majority of time they spend working on themselves is spent on their physical bodies, in the form of cosmetics, tanning beds, hairstyles, clothes, etc. Their actual behavior contradicts their overt statements that they value something more than physical attraction. It is a rare women who actually does.

Anyway that's where most of this Puritannical bullshit comes from. It gets packaged in religion and moral crusades but its roots are immensely practical and designed to achieve a goal.

Re:Without porn

[jd]

Gos is too busy maintaining the Linux kernel.

Re:Without porn

[SeakingFUKyea]

reddit

Re:Without porn

[Anonymous Coward]

Please, oh please, let Slashdot remain porn free.

Hot, horny CowboyNeal. Rock hard Taco oiled up.

Those are nightmares that would never end.

Re:Without porn

[tool462]

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:Without porn

[Kamiza Ikioi]

Trolling comes in at a close second.

And thus was born TubGirl and Goatse the art of trolling porn, and with it, Rule 34.

Scientists today are working to combine it all with bacon, which makes everything better.

Re:Without porn

[icebraining]

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:Without porn

[Anonymous Coward]

An interesting window into your worldview. There must be some harsh experiences with women in your life... or, a lack of those experiences has left you extra time to ponder the mysteries of women. This is vain study since any understanding the underlying logic of the female gender requires irrational behavior changes in the women to throw you when applied to real life.

Men have learned this scam as well. They use it in the natural resource markets, most specifically fossil fuels.

Re:Without porn

[rtb61]

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:Without porn

[Anonymous Coward]

You fap to slashdot? Eww.

Re:Without porn

[CheerfulMacFanboy]

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:Without porn

[Anonymous Coward]

So what you're saying is that women are smarter investors than men?

Didn't say that but I am not surprised you read that into it. If you take an honest look you'll see that women have a very deep-seated and rather desperate need to feel like they're better/smarter/wiser than men. Unfortunately they prefer to do that by putting men down rather than lifting themselves up, and that puts the lie to this notion of course. If you wanna see a really good example, just look at mainstream feminists. Are they teaching women how to overcome their personal weaknesses and become better people? No. They mostly just hate men and complain about men.

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.

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.

Again with the materialism. I said most women engage in a form of prostitution but are not honest enough to call it that because they feel there is something wrong with prostitution, and would not proudly brag about how much of one they are. So they look for a way they can do the same thing and feel noble. So on Valentine's it's "buy HER a diamond to prove your love" and they all but say "then she'll just about HAVE TO put out!" Oh but it's so romantic. It's the same kind of phony rationalization people make all the time until they learn to believe it. This one is easy to believe since the culture teaches you it is normal from birth, that you can sit and do nothing of worth at all other than having two X chromosomes and Prince Charming will make great effort and sacrifice to come sweep you off your feet, that it's only prostitution when everyone openly calls it that. Hey some people need fairy tales because they can't handle hard truth.

For what it is worth I would never call it prostitution if it were an equal partnership, with a deep emotional and romantic connection, where both treat one another as cherished equals in a healthy relationship. But women overwhelmingly marry men who have more money and power than they do as their first priority. I wish you would research the demographic stats yourself before writing another reply. It's not just a tiny margin it's the overwhelming plurality. The rare exceptions are the ones who don't do that. Far as real love or romance goes, women only ever find that if they're lucky because it is not a primary priority.

Re:Without porn

[jawahar]

Slashot = Sarcasm

Re:Without porn

[icebraining]

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:Without porn

[Anonymous Coward]

Artificial scarcity is used every day is markets; it's not illegal in any way.

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?

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.

Says the guy who applied economics of supply-and-demand to pussy...

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.

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.

Re:Without porn

[icebraining]

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.

Perfectly natural...

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

As we all know, "The Internet Is For Porn." Like any large organism, the internet has a sort of immune system that rejects dangerous or invasive entities attempting to disrupt its homeostasis. That is why the facebook page in question was brought down, and why a thick "network cyst, preventing packets from spreading further into the network" is growing around locations like China and Iran.

Re:Perfectly natural...

[DNS-and-BIND]

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:Perfectly natural...

[Bigbutt]

I think he's alluding to the Great Firewall of China and whatever is in place for Iran.

[John]

Re:Perfectly natural...

[Anonymous Coward]

?? Ummm? Whoosh?

Re:Perfectly natural...

[RockDoctor]

I think he's alluding to the Great Firewall of China and whatever is in place for Iran.

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).

Who Gives A Flying Fuck

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Who Gives A Flying Fuck

[sseaman]

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:Who Gives A Flying Fuck

[jdgeorge]

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:Who Gives A Flying Fuck

[Moryath]

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 complain about their lack of representation in talk radio formats, a fair charge given that the owners of most talk-radio formats (including the Clear Channel pseudomonopolists) are crazed right-wingers and "Tea Party" kool-aid drinkers.

If "the government" doesn't censor, but a small number of entities who control the communication channels DO censor heavily, we still have a problem.

Re:Who Gives A Flying Fuck

[Abstrackt]

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:Who Gives A Flying Fuck

[Anonymous Coward]

Left-wingers complain about their lack of representation in talk radio formats, a fair charge given that the owners of most talk-radio formats

For whatever reason lefties seriously don't do well on talk radio. They have had shows before. None of them were terribly successful commercially. I think it's because the format lends itself to debate and most of Leftism is about emotion and mutable definitions of "fairness", things which tend to decay into religious matters when you try debating them.

Re:Who Gives A Flying Fuck

[darkshadow88]

I'm overwhelmingly anti-censorship, but this group should have remained deleted. I say this not because of their views (which I do strongly disagree with), but rather that they abused Facebook to shut down a perfectly legitimate pro-porn page by lodging false complaints, and then had the nerve to boast about it on their page. That screams "TOS violation" and should be grounds for an immediate and permanent ban, irrespective of their views.

Re:Who Gives A Flying Fuck

[ElectricTurtle]

This deserves to be modded to the moon. What hypocrisy, though that's par for the course for moralists.

Re:Who Gives A Flying Fuck

[retchdog]

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:Who Gives A Flying Fuck

[makomk]

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.)

My thought

[bigsexyjoe]

My theory is that the page was taken down by mistake and the email claiming that is was was basically true. There is probably an algorthim that deletes based on complaints and the appearance of words like "porn." In any case, the page is back up. Nothing to see here, let's move on.

Re:My thought

[_xeno_]

Not necessarily. It's happened before that a group maliciously reports a page 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.

(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:My thought

[Anonymous Coward]

Heck, I don't even think the algorithm goes so far as to analyze the page. If it receives a certain number of reports in a short amount of time, goodbye... and then the page's owner can just petition to have it restored (possibly with a bool saying "don't auto delete this page in the future").

Re:My thought

[Anonymous Coward]

You linked to Violet Blue. Fail.

Re:My thought

[hedwards]

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 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:My thought

[Anonymous Coward]

I decided to report them as hate speech.

Re:My thought

[jd]

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:My thought

[causality]

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 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.

Eventually this mentality demands a broader and broader definition of who the "oppressors" are. It's not difficult to understand why it would eventually expand towards blaming all men. That's where it has room to grow after it stops being reasonable.

Re:My thought

[budgenator]

Now the situation is clear as mud, anti-porn group cyberbullying a pro-porn group.

Re:My thought

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

So does that work both ways? Since this "PornHarms" group got someone else's page pulled from facebook, do they lose their right to object to being censored?

Live by the sword, die by the sword. Aww, a bunch of liberal ninnies telling other people how to live their lives got cut down, boo hoo. (I'm crying because they got their group back up.)

Re:My thought

[jd]

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 the sword" but I'm willing to bet that unless you're a hermit in a cave that you've lived by many a sword that you'd scream blue murder over if they were ever applied to you. That you'd use the word "liberal" in such a manner merely proves that particular point. Nobody but a person who lives by the sword demeans a class of people merely because they don't like the views, and nobody but a sword-wielding maniac would confuse a liberal with a censor.

Re:My thought

[SuricouRaven]

I see seven arguments, so let's see...

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:My thought

[SuricouRaven]

Sorry, replying to parent, not you. The stupid seven are at the link he posted.

Re:My thought

[Algae_94]

You seem to be describing some sort of ideal ethical world. We are referring to Facebook. If their TOS allow it, I can object to being censored and use the complaint system to censor others. This is all based on the rules Facebook has setup in their playground. We have no fundamental rights to speech, privacy, or anything else on Facebook's servers. They are the final arbiter of what you can and cannot do there. If people don't like their rules, they need to find another playground.

Re:My thought

[jd]

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 one being censored, when you become the final arbiter. Riiiight. Either they are or you are. Make up your mind and stick with it. If they are, you're abusing TOS by using the complaint system to censor others. Seems simple enough to me.

Re:My thought

[Synonymous Homonym]

Eventually this mentality demands a broader and broader definition of who the "oppressors" are.

-- crush all humen --

Re:My thought

[causality]

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.

Re:My thought

[Synonymous Homonym]

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.

Yes, their own devices shall have this effect.

Okay, I give up

[cforciea]

What is this guy giving to the /. editors to keep getting these useless stories front page'd? Do we really have to be subjected to this guy's "novel" musings over what is essentially a copy of the /. mod system every few weeks?

Re:Okay, I give up

[Roblimo]

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:Okay, I give up

[cforciea]

It hurts the SNR. I am not even one that normally complains about posted stories, but I can't help but wonder if these articles are somehow a running inside joke about how many paragraphs can get posted about what is essentially /.'s mod and metamod system without anybody breaking character. If I post a 3 page long article about how we could solve some of the internet's problems if we just came up with some hypertext markup language standard and then asked for opinions on it, would you post that, too?

Re:Okay, I give up

[bigsexyjoe]

I have also noticed a decline in story quality as of late. But to be fair, I might just be becoming old and curmudgeonly and Slashdot is running the same amount of nonsense it always has..

Re:Okay, I give up

[Anonymous Coward]

New Slashdot policy: You are no longer required to keep posting stories that the rest of us aren't interested in. Really. Just don't bother writing them. Nobody will miss them.

Re:Okay, I give up

[idontgno]

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 be /b/. Just roll with the trolls. If you don't think the article is interesting, worthwhile, or valid, just don't read it. (I don't mean don't RTFA.... of course, don't do that either. You'll disrupt the Slash-time continuum. But just skip the editorial summary, the comments, the whole shooting match. Maybe go browse the firehose.)

Re:Okay, I give up

[Ross D Anderson]

I agree, and it's the same guy who posted this arguing with you. Roblimo, I'd listen to your audience if I were you. Not even mentioning that the whole thing is a complete non-story. There aren't even any facts backing any of the points up! Just "Was this page automatically blocked because it says "porn"?" Yes. Probably. It was restored so who cares? 35,000 censorship crazed nutjobs?

Re:Okay, I give up

[thijsh]

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:Okay, I give up

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not really "of late." Bennett has never contributed anything of value, or at least nothing that wasn't buried under a mountain of self-congratulatory crap. That's why the "ohnoitsbennett" tag exists.

Re:Okay, I give up

[Bill_the_Engineer]

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 journal entry would make this clear.

Re:Okay, I give up

[idontgno]

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:Okay, I give up

[UnknowingFool]

Then can we have a Bennett Hasleton section so I can set my preferences to filter out his submissions. I don't mind a synopsis. I don't mind opinion. I don't like wordy theses that are at times longer than the stories. If Bennett Hasleton wants to write a blog then submit a link with it, I have no problems with that.

Re:Okay, I give up

[maxwell demon]

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:Okay, I give up

[just_another_sean]

Just give it up man, it's people complaining all the way down!

Re:Okay, I give up

[Anonymous Coward]

New Slashdot policy: you are no longer required to read stories that don't interest you.

Wait, so the policy changed so I have to read the stories that interest me now? I thought we weren't supposed to read anything! Gah!

Re:Okay, I give up

[jd]

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:Okay, I give up

[jd]

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.

I'm pretty sure I'm not alone in this one..

[nightfire-unique]

I have to say. Nothing gives me the chills quite like an organization called "Morality in Media."

I'm dead serious when I say it's only a hop and skip from denying girls education and stoning people for sex before marriage. Their attitudes are derived from the same imperative - moral superiority, and the belief that they have the right to dictate the personal behavior of others.

It's a good thing the constitution denies our government the privilege of restraint on speech, because this is one group I would like to silence.

Re:I'm pretty sure I'm not alone in this one..

[DNS-and-BIND]

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:I'm pretty sure I'm not alone in this one..

[carpefishus]

The Left wants the Right to get out of their bedroom. The Right wants the Left to leave the rest of their lives alone.

Re:I'm pretty sure I'm not alone in this one..

[mcgrew]

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 MY morality on them, they shouldn't try to push theirs on me or you.

Re:I'm pretty sure I'm not alone in this one..

[geekoid]

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:I'm pretty sure I'm not alone in this one..

[hedwards]

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:I'm pretty sure I'm not alone in this one..

[Farmer Tim]

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:I'm pretty sure I'm not alone in this one..

[GrumblyStuff]

So we should be tolerant of other people's intolerance as well?

Re:I'm pretty sure I'm not alone in this one..

[nightfire-unique]

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?

Sorry; I meant that a little tongue-in-cheek. Didn't come through well. :)

What I meant was - it is a good thing our forefathers fought for and enshrined the rights they did in the constitution, because we all have groups we'd like silenced. I think these moralists damage society, in the same way they think I (an a-moralist?) damage society. Luckily, our government lacks the privilege required to silence either of us.

Re:I'm pretty sure I'm not alone in this one..

[Tim C]

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:I'm pretty sure I'm not alone in this one..

[Hatta]

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.

Re:I'm pretty sure I'm not alone in this one..

[Asic Eng]

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:I'm pretty sure I'm not alone in this one..

[jd]

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 than one evil dictator, and arguably far far worse. One person you can imaginably persuade to moderate their views.

You DID try to moderate their views, right? ......Right?

Ah. So I was correct on the army of evil dictators then.

No, I don't agree with the anti-porn person. I disagree with them utterly. But unlike those who merely mouth that they'll defend the other person's right to a view or to express an opinion (I imagine a lot of the censorous lot who flash-mobbed the Facebook abuse system have - at one time or another - said something like that), I'm actually here doing so rather than violating my own principles. If you say you stand for another's right to disagree with you, go ahead. I dare you to do so.

Re:I'm pretty sure I'm not alone in this one..

[jd]

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 to dictate what opinions you are allowed to hold.

I disagree utterly with the anti-porn movement and regard them as deluded, but unlike those who merely chant the words that they'll stand up for another's right to an opinion, I'm happy to do so. I pity those contemptible to not hold their own views strongly enough to not censor.

Re:I'm pretty sure I'm not alone in this one..

[Anonymous Coward]

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)

Never heard of Evelyn Beatrice Hall but that quote is actually from Voltaire in the 1700's. You were 200 years off.

Morality?

[Dog-Cow]

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:Morality?

[LordLimecat]

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:Morality?

[twidarkling]

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:Morality?

[geekoid]

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 the industry is the idea of their actors unionizing.

Re:Morality?

[idontgno]

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:Morality?

[hedwards]

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:Morality?

[maxwell demon]

It really sounds as though you dont believe that there is such a thing as morality.

No, it doesn't. It sounds as if he doesn't see any moral issues in porn, and that's what he states. Indeed, he even hints at that he would find it immoral if people are exploited for making porn. Which completely contradicts your claim.

Re:Morality?

[Hatta]

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 argument.

Re:Morality?

[LordLimecat]

Possibly i was reading things into the post that werent there.

Facebook Algorithms

[The O Rly Factor]

I've notice that if an algorithm on Facebook needs revising and it doesn't have something to do with showing more advertisements to more people in more intrusive ways, it usually gets pushed to the back of the queue.

How come they got theirs back?

[Joe Helfrich]

Considering this same group harassed members of a pro-porn Facebook group, and then got their group deleted (despite it not violating the ToS) and then gloated about it, my only problem with this story is that the group got restored, honestly. http://violetblue.posterous.com/my-letter-to-facebook-about-removing-the-our

Re:How come they got theirs back?

[Anonymous Coward]

We should all do our part to get the group re-deleted. I've reported them for hate speech (which is a perfectly legitimate complaint given all the misandry on their page), and I'm sure if enough people report them they'll get deleted again.

Re:How come they got theirs back?

[r_jensen11]

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:How come they got theirs back?

[npsimons]

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. And the muslim group. Repeat ad naseum until somebody at Facebook gets the point.

TL;

[andrea.sartori]

DR

Re:TL;

[VortexCortex]

"DNR"
^ FTFY.

Imho, TFS: gtfo FB.
-TTFN

thats the summary?

[metalmaster]

is the article a series of books?

tl;dr

Can you hear that? It's the world's TINIEST VIOLIN

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm playing it to commemorate the anti-porn theocrats realizing that the "get a bunch of your supporters to complain about stuff to get it removed" sword cuts both ways. (remember Parents Television Council spamming the FCC?)

Anti-Porn

[Anonymous Coward]

WTF is anti-porn? If you could combine it with porn, would you get a vast amount of energy?

Re:Anti-Porn

[geminidomino]

WTF is anti-porn?

Walking in on your grandmother in the shower.

Re:Anti-Porn

[Anonymous Coward]

WTF is anti-porn?

Walking in on your grandmother in the shower.

BONER POISON! ;)

Umm...interesting, I suppose

[Anonymous Coward]

Is this the equivalent of a slow news day on Slashdot?

Parents Television Council

[Hatta]

"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.

As far as I'm concerned, it's time the pro-censorship crowd gets a taste of their own medicine.

Re:Parents Television Council

[ChinggisK]

So your solution to censorship is to to censor the censorers?
--insert "Yo dawg...." joke here--

Re:Parents Television Council

[Hatta]

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:Parents Television Council

[ChinggisK]

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:Parents Television Council

[Hatta]

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:Parents Television Council

[tlhIngan]

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 for porn apps after a PTC campaign. And after that, they started targeting other marketplaces 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:Parents Television Council

[Anonymous Coward]

So you'll protect "free speech" by censoring the free speech of others? Your philosophy is quite simply self defeating. If we follow your line of thinking, we'll only manage to make these types of problems worse for everyone involved (including you).

There's a big difference between FB and the FCC. The FCC has rules about what they allow and don't allow. They compare the complaints to the rules and decide if a rule was violated. Who cares if one group causes a lot of complaints? Their complaints will be heard, matched against the rules and if the complaints are VALID, the rules will be enforced.

On FB the mob tends to rule because FB will pull the page first before they check if it actually violated the rules. In this case, the mob is bypassing the rules and the page is considered guilty until it's later proven that the rules weren't violated.

So, innocent until proven guilty, or guilty until proven innocent? I much prefer the former. Can you see how the latter causes more problems than it solves?

Re:Parents Television Council

[Kamiza Ikioi]

Live by the *bleep*, die by the *bleep*... if you know what I mean. ;)

Re:Parents Television Council

[Anonymous Coward]

No, we absolutely and from right now on complain the hell out of the FCC, that there is not enough cursing and porn on TV, but instead people are terrorized by pro-child-rape* enemy combatants trough un-American bleeping censorship like in axis of evil and pinko states!

THAT is what he meant. :)

* they censor rape sites, so the rapists aren't caught, they protect rapist priests (a felony in itself, if you know he did it, but say nothing), and want to force girls who got raped to keep the child.

Re:Parents Television Council

[Anonymous Coward]

Attach less weight to the complaints of the most frequent complainers?

Completely disregard the complaints of someone with a history of false complaints?

Is there a point in there?

[shish]

I got bored around paragraph 3 when I still hadn't seen any point -- so facebook automatically takes stuff down if there is a flood of complaints, then manually checks it, then puts it back up if it's ok? Is that not a perfectly reasonable thing to do?

Re:Is there a point in there?

[geekoid]

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:Is there a point in there?

[Attila Dimedici]

Of course not, it is a Bennett Hassleton post. None of his posts have any point that I have ever been able to discern.

What's a non-member of the Inner Party to do?

[Anonymous Coward]

The OP refers multiple times to his "friend at Facebook" who helps him when he gets into trouble. However, even from statistics, it is hardly plausible that most people have such contacts in the Inner Party. If you get into FB's crosshairs, what then? (oh, nevermind: you'll be blocked forever and ever amen)

Some Free speach issues

[StillNeedMoreCoffee]

" (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 pornography or otherwise violating the Facebook TOS"

Assumes that the people that were complaining were thinking that this was a porn site and not complaining that the anti-porn material was the offensive part. There is a body (small it may be ) that upholds the idea that God created the world in 7 days and that Global warming does not exist or its not our problem. I suspect the site has an agenda and does not publish research that shows that there is no harm (I suspect such research exists).

OK, and?

[thePowerOfGrayskull]

I have been trying to register a page named "BBSSH - SSH and Telnet for BlackBerry". It keeps getting rejected because it has all caps in the name. They have a policy that says I can't do that. So I apply for an exception because that's the actual product and protocol name (and a page named BlackBerry Secure Shell - Secure Shell and Telnet for BlackBerry" would be dumb) but they keep rejecting it immediately without reviewing it. So I stopped trying; if I decide to host there, I'll find another name for the page. Why? Because ultimately if I want to use their resources, I have to follow their rules and decisions. Even those that seem arbitrary. If I don't want to follow their rules then I am free to go somewhere else.

Facebook is free to do whatever it wants, up to and including removing pages for any reason (such as a maybe-organized complaint campaign) or no reason. They own everything involved except the content supplied by users. They are under no obligation to publish or continue publishing any user-provided content. While I can understand how this seems like a big deal on the surface, it just isn't. We all know the rules of this game going into it. And if we don't, we shouldn't be playing.

Re:OK, and?

[maxwell demon]

Well, I know "ssh" only in lower case.
I don't know about BBSSH, though.

Re:OK, and?

[Anonymous Coward]

It is about freedom of speech. Of course, private companies don't have to be good citizens and permit you to have this freedom. But that doesn't mean we can't publicly shame them when they censor speech for any reason. Seems fitting that Facebook get some bad PR when they sought to engage in this against competitors systemically.

Re:OK, and?

[thePowerOfGrayskull]

In the sense that it's an acroynym SSH is mostly technically correct. Though an argument could be made for SSh, it's not common usage. Typically I see all caps when it's written about, and lowercase (obviously) when it's used as a program. BB is an abbreviated that's commonly accepted for BlackBerry

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... then automatically deny the exception without review.

the Facebook Effect

[doperative]

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!

[boristdog]

They're right you know.

My arms are getting really sore.

Bennett Haselton?

[Rhodri Mawr]

If it had been Bennett Halverson then it might have been worth reading.

forced change

[Anonymous Coward]

If you want to change the system you should make the issue more visible. I say we organize a content mob to shut down as many facebook pages as possible to force facebook to reevaluate their system.

Just reported

[Anonymous Coward]

Thanks for pointing that group, I just reported it as being offencing to my sexual orientation! Please report it.

report them.

[LoganDzwon]

That anti-porn site is clearly preaching anti-women hate speech. I've reported them as such.

Going Down?

[dbrossard]

Man that page keeps going up and then down and then up and down and up and down up down up down up down YES!

Stupid

[Anonymous Coward]

Should've stayed shut down.

Mod Parent Down

[Anonymous Coward]

If the parent had bothered to follow the link that they posted, they'd have discovered that their page was pulled over rather blatant terms of use violations, whereas the only violation anyone can think of for Porn Harms is that the page name includes the word "porn."

And, yes, no matter how many times Violet Blue brings up her little pet project being kicked off Facebook, it blatantly violated the terms of service, and no one misses it.

And if you can't figure out how that's different from Porn Harm's page, you should probably be kept away from computers - the drool coming out of your mouth poses an electric shock risk when combined with electronics.

Taste of your own medicine

[holizz]

Just followed the link and clicked "Report Page". You have a right to your opinions, but if you will go ahead and get people with opposing viewpoints' Facebook pages deleted, then I'm very glad yours got deleted too. I'm only disappointed a) nobody else got theirs back and b) you got yours back.

Supra Shoes

[Anonymous Coward]

My strength has not been restored . hidden in the shadow of his old head like a red nose Lengheng soon . grabbed Rope hanging from the cliff edge Supra TK Society Sale, and finally strenuous climb . two people not breath , thundered from the top of the head of a large spar falling, while the front of the supra shoes

Picked up as early as agile supra coma

, While the spar dodge the falling pieces have one side and ran quickly Paolu . this kid is not quite a bad eye Supra Skytop II Sale, I fear anger, supra killed immediately

. Duolu bolted in front of someone watching , pick eyebrows . faint smile , did not answer , looking at the supra shoes

Rapid disappearance of the figure, the face of the shadow of the complex look like flash . forest plan -completion of large-scale scientific research base collapsed Supra Indy NS Sale, so that all of the escape route is really awkward . continuously to find a few slightly larger Chuansong Zhen, were all Destroyed by man-made . Since a large area of potholes view , supra shoes

A Taste of Their Own Medicine

[Anonymous Coward]

"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"

No, actually last year, Violet Blue's "Ourporn" page was flagged off of Facebook, with PornHarms treating it as a major feather in their cap, and likely had something to do with the flagging. More here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_7Co9JWEK5s

So actually, PornHarms was getting a small taste of its own medicine, albeit, only a small taste, because I believe in Violet Blue's case, her page was permanently taken down over a mere link posted by a spammer.