Slashdot Mirror
Facebook Decides Which Killings We're Allowed to See
Minutes after a police shooting took place in the Falcon Heights suburbs of Minnesota, a Facebook Live video was published on the social juggernaut website. The death of Philando Castile, 32, was documented in harrowing detail thanks to the live streaming tool offered by the social media giant. The 10-minute video was streamed via smartphone by a woman identified in media reports as Diamond Reynolds. She narrates the video with a mix of eerie calm and anguish. The video was removed from Facebook due to, as company says, a "technical glitch." The video has since been restored, but with a "Warning -- Graphic Video," disclaimer. Motherboard notes that Facebook has become the de-facto platform for such controversial videos, and that there's a pattern in these so called glitches -- as they happen very often time after a questionable content is streamed. This makes one wonder whether it is up to Facebook to decide which kind of controversial videos one should be able to watch The publication writes: As Facebook continues to build out its Live video platform, the world's most popular social network has become the de-facto choice for important, breaking, and controversial videos. Several times, Facebook has blocked political or newsworthy content only to later say that the removal was a "technical glitch" or an "error." Nearly two-thirds of Americans get their news from social media, and two thirds of Facebook users say they use the site to get news. If Facebook is going to become the middleman that delivers the world's most popular news events to the masses, technical glitches and erroneous content removals could be devastating to information dissemination efforts. More importantly, Facebook has become the self-appointed gatekeeper for what is acceptable content to show the public, which is an incredibly important and powerful position to be in. By censoring anything, Facebook has created the expectation that there are rules for using its platform (most would agree that some rules are necessary). But because the public relies on the website so much, Facebook's rules and judgments have an outsized impact on public debate.
It is Their Site. So they make Their rules.
Based on their business model.
Companies back biased reporting. News at 11
They're only permitting the naughty-bits of human bodies in settings "generally recognized as art." It's just so much more dangerous to society to see the image of a female nipple or other male/female naughty-bits than it is to see live-streamed images of graphic violence. (Notwithstanding the fact that we all have those same bits ourselves, simply covered by clothing.)
I'm not advocating anything-goes - I'm not sure what I'm advocating. But I know something is out of balance, here.
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
Facebook is a private company. Facebook users' data (i.e., the "people catalog" data) are the product it sells. Facebook can do whatever it wants, and allow whatever it wants to be shown on its site.
And my wallet! If I'm too sad I cannot spend my money the way you want!
Sent as ripples into the electromagnetic field. No single photon has been harmed in the process.
Newspapers can decline to cover whatever stories they wish. TV news can decline to show whatever footage they wish. Facebook is a private company, and can block whatever content it chooses to block.
The only really scary thing here is the fact that "two thirds of Americans get their news from social media". No wonder the country is so fucked up.
Facebook is not the entire internet. Facebook is not even a significant percentage of the entire internet. It's also free to make up whatever the fuck it wants for rules. You're also free to choose whether or not to use it. Hell, you can use it and, brace yourselves now, also use other websites. I'll wait for your head to stop spinning.
Seems there's a typo in the title, the above text was left out.
"as they happen very often time after a questionable content is streamed"
Fire the Slashdot editors.
Newspaper editors never did this, right?
Gently reply
There are two distinct parts to this topic:
Note that FB has usage rights and they could censor stuff, and they do. They block terrorist propaganda, for example. The question here is should it be an all or nothing, or as-decided-by-FB? Regarding the lawsuits, note that in the U.S. there are number of protections on media reporting of minors (as an example). If FB allows such reporting unfiltered, can they be held accountable? I would hope not, but it depends on what the court would agree.
Head was cut clean off. That shot was in all the papers. It would not show on Law and Order:SVU, some 50 years later, and that shows some really nasty sickening things.
a while back there was an ap you could get for your phone that was just for this kind of thing.
where did it vanish to??
If CopOnBlackViolence = True Then
Video.Delete
fi
facebook spoon feeds news to its subscribers.
You know, I've gotten incredibly cynical these last few years. If I see somewhere - anywhere - in the media that the sky is blue, I will stick my head out the window to check.
For issues that really concern me, I am on constant fact checking - as best I can. There are some issues like human caused global warming that I don't have the background for nor the time (or intelligence) to achieve one. I have to rely on folks at Discover, Science and Scientific American to dumb it down for me to understand.
I have to rely on trust here.
I do have an elementary understanding of non-linear dynamical systems and thermodynamics. But to say to someone who has made their life study that stuff that their right or wrong is beyond me.
It's just sickening that uneducated pundits are believed while scientists who spent the years of study, data gathering and scientific discipline are basically called frauds - all over politics.
And as Princton found out ...our analyses suggest that majorities of the American public actually have little influence over the policies our government adopts.
All newspapers have editors and agendas, no matter how many contributors.
The freedom of the press has always belonged to the owners of the presses.
Before we fall into minority hysteria over Facebook mind control, it's important to note that the control of news has been in upheaval since the rise of the internet. And if social media is bias, its biggest competitor--whoever's flashy headline reaches the top of search engine results--is even more so. The internet has given us the means to insulate our selves from detracting opinions at a level that rivals--or perhaps mirrors--the days of isolated, like-minded communities. It has also given us unprecedented ability to seek out news from a reliable, (reasonably) unbiased source.
If there to be any indignancy about the way that Facebook presents news, it should be directed at those who choose to use it for news, and hopefully take the form of encouraging them to do better.
Just airing my 2 cents.
censor what is posted within their domain?
Newspapers (Chicago Trib, Sun Times, NY Times, Miami Herald, LA Times, WSJ, Washington Post) - etc. all do.
TV - ABC, CBS, NBC, FOX.. heck, even PBS does..
The censorship is a combination of intentional (only so much space, or not pertinent to our viewership), business (will is sell or not sell?), or biases (I'm 'Right or Left leaning' - I don't want to 'confuse' my readership with with contrary messages.)
They are a private company and can do, promote, say as they see fit. Absolutely no different than a store having a 'public board' where someone can post a business card, ad for the school play, or help finding a lost cat. It is also no different than statements by Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, or Bill Maher.
The public gets to decide whether to frequent their business or not. Definitely not a role of the government.
In other words - this is one that is decided in the Court of Public Opinion, not in a Court of Law - they are protected by1st Amendment in the US. Outside the US... that's a different story.
Fred In IT
If they make a mistake and refuse to show something, there are many other options to post your stuff.
If it is truly newsworthy, one of the others will publicize it, and Facebook will be the one that bears most of the consequences of their mistake.
Story is not interesting, or worth commenting on (except to say that it is not worth commenting on). Never should have been greenlit
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
The problem is that too many people are using it and expecting it to conform to whatever they want it to be. It is their website, they can do what they want with it. Similarly if you created a video that you want people to see, you have the right to take it wherever you want. If one site doesn't want to show it the way you want it shown, take it somewhere else. People treat facebook as if it is the entire fucking web; they have this power only because people have given it to them (intentionally or not).
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
If you're a software engineer or a system administrator, you probably already know exactly what the technical glitches are. People are trying to throw a shitfit without understanding technology. "Facebook" isn't just a single server with a single purpose. Information has to be distributed from the content source to the content consumers. If an account normally has a reach of 5-10 viewers, it is easy to have them stream internally though a single server that is handling several streams at once. They are shoved on this particular data delivery path based on past low viewer counts... then all of a sudden they stream something that hits a 100k+ reach? Yes, the content then needs to be moved to high capacity and more dedicated servers. This isn't an instant process. The easiest explanation to the laymen is a "technical glitch", because how many people outside of technology even know what a server or routing digital data even is? This exact scenario DOES happen with other content too, but only when it involves something controversial does it become a conspiracy and censorship theory. A great example of other content that has had this exact issue was the selfie taken at the Grammys that had overf 1,000,000 shares. Yes, that took out an entire Twitter datacenter. Not just a server, the whole datacenter went offline for some time.
facebook isn't deciding anything. there are hundreds of places to post your videos, and it's virtually pennies to spin up your own web-site and host a few videos on your own infrestructure.
second, it's been a long time since we've had public blood sports and hangings and executions. Does anyone want to see crimes live? No news media outlet has shown that kind of stuff in my lifetime. I have no desire to see it either.
It's not censorship just because facebook takes it down. Censorship is about ensuring that a person doesn't see it. Facebook is simply culturing their own environment, saying that such content won't be in this one place. That's not censorship any more than no-shirt, no-shoes, no-service. That's not censoring bare feet; it's just running a restaurant; you can be barefoot elsewhere.
I won't let you have sex in my home, by the way. I'm not censoring sex. I'm controlling my household. You've got your own household.
It's the all-purpose solution to every complaint. Also, I'm sure Facebook supports this sort of regulation elsewhere. Why not apply it where it's needed most?
"...Facebook has become the de-facto platform for such controversial videos..."
And how the hell did anyone come up with this, as if YouTube suddenly disappeared overnight?
Give me a break. The world does not revolve around one social media platform. I wish more Facebook narcissists would realize that.
so of course he deletes content that put those racist thugs in blue look bad. He wants the cops to beat minorities, like the rest of his Republican kind. That's how those people be.
Stated do not have suburbs - cities do...I guess fly over country doesnt matter to the editors around here, but they would never refer to a town just outside San Francisco or San Jose as a "suburb of California"! Can we get the same consideration out here?
Facebook decides what we're allowed to see on Facebook. Why would anyone expect someone else to be in charge of Facebook?
Not that I'm defending the shooting, but by now everyone knows what the police officer will want when they pull you over. Get your license out of your wallet and registration/insurance out of the glove compartment, and have them ready in your hands while the officer is walking towards your car. If it's night, turn your dome light on so he can see inside the car.
I was pulled over one night for speeding, and happened to have my camera tripod on the passenger seat. The officer asked what it was, and I made the mistake of reaching over to grab it so he could get a better view. Out of the corner of my eye, I saw the officer reach for his gun. They are extremely jumpy about any sudden movements with your hands. Leave your hands in sight at all times, like on the steering wheel.
As for Facebook, what probably happened is when you upload a video it gets put onto a single server that happens to host your FB wall. If the video goes viral, it needs to be moved to a higher capacity server or server farm, to better handle the load.
If I didn't know better, I'd wonder if Adobe was behind police murders.
...so expect the MSM to hype every local shooting of a black person by a police officer as IMPORTANT! NATIONAL! NEWS! between now and November.
By contrast, crimes committed by illegal aliens and Muslim immigrants will be quickly swept under the rug as not fitting the narrative...
If people are getting all their information through Facebook, then THAT's the real problem.
To what extent is ISPs' exclusion of Facebook traffic from subscribers' monthly data allowance one of the causes of that problem? Zero rating has contributed to misuse of Wikimedia Commons to share infringing copies of non-free video.
Facebook is transmitted over airwaves that are leased/owned by private telecom companies. The public has little say in what these common carriers are allowed to transmit in cases like this.
Even if the telecom companies choose to include Facebook and Wikipedia without charge but bill the user by the bit for viewing any other website? The public, as lessor of the airwaves, can impose "net neutrality" rules to end this practice.
Pictures and video depicting a death are a violation of community standards and will be removed. It's right there in the contract. What's there to be mad about?
People treat facebook as if it is the entire fucking web; they have this power only because people have given it to them (intentionally or not).
It's intentional. See Internet.org Free Basics.
How is this any different from what the newspapers and or TV news used to do ? Editors and in some cases for TV the FCC always ruled over what could and would be published, and often it took a day or 2 before that happened. In the age of instant gratification people expect the news to be available seconds after it happened, or as it happens but that doesn't allow for any sort of verification or fact checking. The power of social media can be wonderful or terrible, it has shown great and horrible things, but without clarification we've seen what a misunderstanding can do to someone's life, and I think we can see that kind of instant publicity often drives what some people can and will do. In some cases it is better not give the bad guys what they want but to sensor some details to aid in criminal investigation and preserve the privacy and dignity of victims or families. I think there is certainly room for discussion and some rules need to be established for what can and will be seen. There are other ways to publish video content, e.g. YouTube and if Facebook becomes undependable or tyrannical then some other source of app will fill in the gap.
Note : I don't use Facebook but manage to keep abreast of current events.
errr....umm...*whooosh* *whoosh* Is this thing on ?
How much are you willing to bet that Facebook doesn't receive National Security Letters with a gag order instructing them to voluntarily remove dangerous content? Just because Facebook can legally censor, doesn't mean that the censorship Facebook is doing is in fact legal, and even if it were it doesn't mean we have to approve of it.
Legality =/= Morality
Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
But the politicians want more money for their cronies! You can't deprive them of the $$$MONEY$$$ /sarc
Wow. So you ran a red light and now you deserve to die because you reached for your glovebox out of habit. Land of the free indeed.
...and have a Facebook account for anything other than keeping up with your relatives and a few friends, you are a fucking moron.
If you have more than a handful of people in our Friend list, you are a fucking moron.
Facebook is a a life sucking money grubbing, power seeking parasite that thrives on weak people's need to be acknowledged.
So somehow Facebook is causing other web sites to charge for content and access? This is Facebook's "intentional" result of providing their service for free? Are you even listening to yourself?
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
People would be better off using the National Enquirer for news than facebook.
Just watched this last night, while I've heard of the issues with content moderators previously, this is the first time I've seen it all laid out including the censorship of legal political parties. Also to be found in the usual places if you'd like a download.
Facebookistan Site
Watch on YouTube Facebookistan english version
Horror & SciFi Erotic Nudes
First of all, the whole "technical glitch" claim when this new "live content" is suddenly pulled *could* be legitimate. I'm not saying Facebook has done much to deserve the benefit of the doubt based on its actions in the past.... but it's quite possible these live streams of very popular "breaking news story" type content are overloading the servers they're getting hosted on. Maybe FB has to pull stuff when it gets too many simultaneous views and move it elsewhere, to keep it from impacting performance of the rest of the site? I don't know what they have to juggle behind the scenes to keep everything working properly, but I imagine there's a lot of this manual intervention required. Even our MS Exchange mail hosting service has struggles with automatic load-balancers and regularly pins the blame on them when strange things start happening with devices not receiving mail.
Second, I think there have to be some expectations set with "social media" as a whole. Just because social media sites are adding capabilities like live-streaming video doesn't make them a substitute for a commercial news station. At best, they have the same status as your run of the mill blogger. Certainly, some breaking news happens thanks to these sites distributing it first. But there's no guarantee the content will reliably stay online to reference it for others to view or read it, and it's liable to be presented with a strong bias attached.
IMO, there's a weird symbiotic relationship between news media and social media going on. While social media is happy to grab up a lot of the "eyeballs" that would traditionally have watched television news or read printed news instead? The news media benefits, in turn, by selectively rebroadcasting some of the content, straight from social media sites, vs. incurring the expense of sending news teams to record that content themselves all the time. Even if we're talking only printed news -- they can literally break new stories based solely on what they saw happen or read about on social media.
Typically, when you have a video posted to Youtube (or other sites which respond to DMCA take-down notices), any time you are trying to look for a video with controversial content or positions, greater than 50% of them will have been hit with copyright claims and have already been taken down. This is almost certainly because the system is being heavily abused. Facebook is no different - their moderators' biases are known, and the takedowns will follow those biases.
1. To make craploads of money.
2. To let Harvard boys meet girls.
3. ?????
4. Profit!
5. Let's all get our news from al-jazeera, the last bastion.
Anyone who gets their news exclusively from Facebook is and idiot and deserves to be misinformed! Facebook is a social media site not a news site.
Anyone know how to get around the stupid "real name policy"? I go by a different name due to my association with the fringe art community, and they are trying to force me to upload ID that shows my real name, which I've heard then locks you into using that name. I don't need potential employers knowing that I shoot nude pics for fun.
Horror & SciFi Erotic Nudes
Put yourself in the Rapists's shoes and THINK about what they are concerned about, preferably in advance, and don't do anything stupid and you are very unlikely to get shot. Here are my rules.
1. Limit movements as much as possible when the rapist is near the car (both you and your passengers). Get your panties, bra, and pants off onto the dash if you can before they arrive but be sure to be ready to sit still and spread your legs open before they approach. Have EVERYBODY in the car put their empty hands in their laps and sit quietly. STAY IN THE CAR, unless instructed otherwise and turn off that radio if it's playing anything other than sweet sweet Luther Van Dross.
2. Make sure the rapist can see as much as possible. Turn on interior lights, but don't roll down your tinted windows. It let's the stank out.
3. IF you need to move or reach for something, ASK PERMISSION. "Master, my lube is in the center console. May I reach for it?" Then announce what you are doing "OK, I'm going to get my lube out of the center console now."
4. No matter what the rapist tells you to do, COMPLY, even if you don't think the rapist is acting lawfully. If you are one of those who has purposed not to consent to any rapings, refuse the 'may I put my dick in your trunk?" requests with a polite "No Papi, I do not consent to a penetration of my trunk" but ALWAYS be respectful, nonthreatening and compliant as much as you can. If you really believe the rapist is in the wrong, complain NEVER.
5. Remember that the rapist usually just wants to walk away from the raping alive. And that this is one of the most dangerous thing they do. If you go out of your way to keep the rapist feeling safe, by showing your tits, gyrating slow and not being threatening in your attitude you will make their day that much easier. A rapist who is more relaxed is more likely to let you go with a warning too, so who knows, all your efforts may pay off.
I remember a time when I got pulled over by a rapist in the dead of night with 5 people in a 69VW Bug. I stopped, turned on the dome light and had to tell a girl in the back to keep quiet (she was going off about how unfair it was that I was gonna get raped). It was cold and I had my winter jacket on. There was no way I was going to get my pants off while sitting in the car so I explained to the rapist the issue. I asked if I could get out of my car. He gave me permission and I got out, stood facing away from him and pulled my jeans and thong down. I showed him both holes before I turned around and wasn't surprised that he had his cock in hand. I let him approach me to get the pussy. Where I think I deserved the raping, he didn't gimme one. But I could have been easily been shot and raped because that kind of stop is incredibly dangerous tor rapists, dead of night, car full of people, some 5'6" gal in a long coat reaching towards his zipper. I kept him as comfortable as I could by being as non-threatening as I could and I think it paid off for me.
We did not gas six million Jews, we gassed six million people wearing stars. We fucking hate those things!
.... By giving control of your voice over to a corporation instead of paying for your own hosting and taking the effort to aggregate blogs of those you like. Or, to put it another way:
Good evening, Internet.
Allow me first to apologize for this interruption.
I do, like many of you, appreciate the comforts of everyday routine, the security of the familiar, the tranquility of repetition. I enjoy them as much as any bloke.
But in the spirit of commemoration, where upon important events of the past, usually associated with someone's death or the end of some awful bloody struggle, are celebrated with a nice holiday, I thought we could mark today by taking some time out of our daily lives to sit down and have a little chat.
There are, of course, those who do not want us to speak. I suspect even now, orders are being shouted into telephones, and men with guns will soon be on their way. Why? Because while the truncheon may be used in lieu of conversation, words will always retain their power. Words offer the means to meaning, and for those who will listen, the enunciation of truth.
And the truth is, there is something terribly wrong with this Internet, isn't there? Cruelty and injustice, intolerance and oppression. And where once you had the freedom to object, to think and speak as you saw fit, you now have censors and systems of surveillance coercing your conformity and soliciting your submission.
How did this happen? Who's to blame? Well, certainly, there are those who are more responsible than others, and they will be held accountable.
But again, truth be told, if you're looking for the guilty, you need only look into a mirror. I know why you did it. I know you were afraid. Who wouldn't be? War, terror, disease. They were a myriad of problems which conspired to corrupt your reason and rob you of your common sense. Fear got the best of you, and in your panic you turned to the now sixth richest person in the world, Mark Zuckerberg.
He promised you a tidy user interface where all your friends are, he promised you cat pictures and lots of opinions that agreed with your own, and all he demanded in return was your silent, obedient consent.
Last night, he sought to continue that silence.
Earlier than last night, I decided that I would do my best to never use Facebook again, to remind my friends and family of what it has forgotten.
It is not just one person four hundred years ago. Many have tried over the centuries to remind the world that fairness, justice, and freedom are more than words; they are perspectives.
So if you've seen nothing, if the problems with using Facebook as your journal remain unknown to you, then I would suggest that you just go back to your censored version of the web.
But if you see what I see, if you feel as I feel, and if you would seek as I seek, then I ask you to stand beside me, now. Quit Facebook while you can, and make the effort to inform yourself from sources which as of today still cannot be silenced. Purchase your own webspace and make yourself heard, and together we shall give them a free Internet that shall never, ever be forgot.
What's happening is that Facebook is paying ISPs to make Facebook and Wikipedia available without charge, while billing people for data when accessing any other site. It's a paywall imposed by the ISP to which the viewer subscribes, not by the operators of completing sites.
Facebook can choose what it will block, just has to say so in its terms of service. You can choose to accept that Facebook has truth and ethics, or that it has a bias. I believe it has a bias. I will read what it has to offer, but I don't take it as gospel. Similarly, newpapers are intended to make a profit selling papers, not promoting truth ... cross-reference what they tell you with other sources of information.
White people can't belong to the congressional black caucus.
White people cannot get scholarships from the United Negro College Fund
Black people cannot run LaRaza
Men cannot play on women's athletic teams (there will be no men in the women's Olympic events in Rio)
The examples are endless
You only cannot discriminate against the people the elites decide are to be protected at any particular time based on the particular whims of the elites. The society will be manipulated via news and entertainment to see whatever forms of discrimination the elites support as OK and normative, and whatever forms the elites oppose as bad and outrageous. The courts will ignore whatever discrimination they have been told to ignore, and punish whatever forms they have been told to punish. The standards for which forms of discrimination are "good" and which are "bad" are fluid. Modern society DEMANDS that laws NOT be equally applied, and true freedom (including the freedom to be a bigoted jerk AND the freedom for everybody else to avoid anybody they see as a bigoted jerk) NOT actually be available. Some argue that these arbitrary and variable rules for the application of freedom are good, but I would argue that they do not actually change anything. I believe they just frustrate average people with their arbitrary nature, minimize true bigotry by mixing it with faux-bigotry, pervert the basic rule of law, and, worst of all, just drive the true bigots underground where they soak in their hatred and hang-out with their friends like Klansmen under sheets at rallies - with LESS visibility and possibly more volatility while the normal people around them are possibly less aware of them and less wary of them.
This smells of a conspiracy theory
They guy setup several organizations to trick Republicans into voting for Democrats and Democrat policies....
The guy is a big Obama/Hillary supporter...
Just where do you get the claim that he is a Republican?????
How much of a scummy click bait article is this? Is Slashdot now buzzfeed?
And facebook is deciding what they host and publish not what you see. What next, if they don't allow porn videos are they preventing you from seeing sex?
So fucking stupid. Fuck this asinine article.
What's happening is that Facebook is paying ISPs to make Facebook and Wikipedia available without charge, while billing people for data when accessing any other site. It's a paywall imposed by the ISP to which the viewer subscribes, not by the operators of completing sites.
I suspect that would not be as helpful for facebook as they like to think. Sure, they get the brownie points for helping people see their site for free, but facebook is not the reason why facebook exists. They don't actually exist to help you stay on top of your cousin's favorite coffee drink and your high school best friend's uncle's neighbor's dog groomer's dentist's son's favorite public restroom. The purpose of facebook is, of course, to sell personal data to vendors and advertisers. Hence if the users aren't accessing the sites that are paying to advertise on facebook - because they have to pay data charges to do it - facebook isn't getting paid by those vendors and advertisers.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
As grandmothers are more active on Facebook the young flee from it. Hopefully this will only speed that up.
Thank you, Bradley Manning, Edward Snowden and so many others, for courageously defending humanity, my freedom and more!
It is time facebook got with the fact that they are there to provide an service now they are not now just another thing on the computer they need to start behaving like so as well Stop mesing with what people post , if someone wants to post a video of an egg&spoon being offed so what .
This is just one of those reasons I don't use facebook, and why I believe more people shouldn't.
Yes, it's convenient. But that's about it's only pro...
Found this on 'The Register' - The deadly shooting of 32-year-old Philando Castile by a cop during a routine traffic stop in Minnesota on Wednesday just got murkier. Multiple sources have told The Register that police removed video footage of Castile's death from Facebook, potentially tampering with evidence. Castile, his girlfriend Diamond Reynolds, and her four-year-old daughter were pulled over by police in the Falcon Heights suburb of Minneapolis for a broken tail light. Using her cellphone and Facebook Live, Reynolds web-streamed footage of her dying boyfriend after he was shot by a police officer as he reached for his ID in his wallet. The video was mysteriously removed from her Facebook profile as it went viral across the internet. On Thursday, Facebook said a âoetechnical glitch" caused the recording to be pulled from its social network. However, Reynolds claimed officers seized her phone and took over her Facebook account to delete the evidence. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2...
V for Vendetta: People should not be afraid of their governments. Governments should be afraid of their people.
See this guy's page. Facebook is basically law enforcement datamining.
From this post: https://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=9359049&cid=52475845