FB: Locked. Government Photo ID

[temporal1]

.. Probably a work in regress.

yes. indeed.

[MaxPC]

.. Probably a work in regress.

yes. indeed.

The paradox of the human condition.

[temporal1]

Mr Zuckerberg’s vision for FB is for it to be a “platform for all ideas.”
Ted Cruz addresses Mark Zuckerberg / 5 min
https://www.theblaze.com/news/2018/04/1 ... n=theblaze

interesting video.
i do not view all news videos.

[temporal1]

Congressman Long gives MZ fair warning / 2 min
https://www.bizpacreview.com/2018/04/11 ... mpaign=DMS
he makes many good points.

“If I was you, a little bit of advice,” the Missouri Republican told the 33-year-old billionaire.

“Congress is good at two things: doing nothing and overreacting,” he said.

“So far we’ve done nothing on Facebook, since your inception,” he continued. “We’re getting ready to overreact. So just take that as a shot across the bow warning to you.”

the timing of Diamond and Silk’s FB “unsafe” designation .. could not have been more strategic.
in a larger than life, real time way, it reflects thousands+thousands of disgruntled FB users.
no one could make this up.

imho, the video is worth viewing.
this report/video might disappear. at any moment.

it’s almost as if the old quote is in play here,
“give them enough rope, they will hang themselves.”

[temporal1]

From Page 1

You should be able to easily create a new account.
I think it would be very humorous to tell them that you feel opressed by having to provide a government ID since you do not have to when voting. FB CEO is a very progressive person and strongly supports the democratic side of things.

They also have high schoolers and some very young people making these decisions.
You might ask their age as a verification for you.
They will not respond, but it might get them to back off.
They do not want the publicity of having them making decisions like that.

Tell them you want to take to a real adult.

i think of these words quite often.
somehow, the Diamond and Silk scenario makes me think of, “o. no. mom’s after us now!”

[temporal1]

yes. this thread is much about witnessing the secular world deal with itself.

[temporal1]

While this is a feed about Facebook I thought I would include this article here. As I said the problem that I have with Facebook is that it encourages the practise of conditional love - approval/ disapproval/ silent treatment. The Christian is called to unconditional love. A part of the Christian life includes respecting people's boundaries. As I have witnessed on Facebook regularly, ( when I had an account), when an argument ensues there is, at times, little respect shown for people's boundaries. An argument becomes a pile of disrespect which is a lack of love.There is a distinct lack of love in some of the posts that I have seen on Facebook. So where do Christians learn about unconditional love and it's boundaries? It is not during their formative years, when they are children? If they are raised on conditional love they will have no idea about boundaries, as is seen in enmeshed families/ social systems. Here is an article about how we can teach about unconditional love at an early age which hopefully will flow through to their adult years. Facebook doesn't encourage people to learn about boundaries and it is horrifying that young children are being conditioned by Facebook to practise conditional love by learning that everything must be approved and disapproved by them. They think everything/ one has to win their approval before they will love others, (with a heart shape or thumbs ups).Facebook is no place for children or the immature. https://growingfaith.com.au/parenting/p ... ional-love

this thread has been about FB system problems, and, adult problems with FB, on both sides, FB itself, and, FB adult users/customers.

you have numerous good points, i’m interested in a few books named in the link you shared.
your words remind me to be thankful my daughter has been very careful about not allowing her daughter, now 10, free access to the internet, no FB, no smartphone, no other social media ..

she is getting some exposure to computers in school now.
from what i see, these are controlled children’s ed sites that require passwords, etc. -
altho, i do not simply trust any site simply because a public school has approved of it and uses it!

what she picks up from children at school is somewhat unknown. children learn from one another with lightning speed!

i disagree with the idea that parenting years, ages 0-6, are the most difficult!
these are extremely important years, the foundation for what’s ahead.

i’ve told my daughter, parenting is one important stage following another .. in teen years, you’re not expecting to change diapers, but, your presence is ever bit as important to teens as to toddlers.

eventually, they may be married, then with children. again, your parenting looks different, but continues in importance. in these stages, you may actually begin to feel understood, accepted, and, appreciated, as never before!

one important part of unconditional love is, “i’m telling you, ‘no,’ and, i’m going to love you all the way through it, as you fight me,” in similar manner that God treats His (adult) Children, as we struggle to have our will over His.

parenting is not about accepting every child’s daily choice, being their best friend, but, about loving them in spite of their choices, approved and not approved. for many, limiting FB and internet use, is part of this.

one thing many folks are noticing about these recent questions posed to Mark Zuckerberg is, his apparent discomfort in talking with real live people in real time. his speech and body language raise questions. of course, he is under scrutiny, possibly as never before. still, he is not a teenager, he is a billionaire, and, he is in the pilot’s seat of vast influence in the world.

there are questions about what is happening to young people who are overly reliant on cyberspace (for everything) .. what sort of workers and leaders will they be? what are they learning/believing about Christian faith?

[Bootstrap]

Can someone explain to me exactly what the issue is with Diamond and Silk? As far as I can tell, their content was never taken down, they were not singled out, their page was affected by Facebook's new Content Guidelines for Monetization in September, 2017 along with many other websites.

They claim they were censored because they are women of color and conservatives. They weren't censored. Their content is still available. Were the guidelines applied differently to them because they are black women? Or because they are conservatives? If so, what is the evidence for that? When someone is accused of doing something wrong (violating the guidelines) and claims they are only being treated that way because they are black or female or conservative, I think we should look at the evidence before rushing to judgement.

As far as I can tell, Diamond and Silk have never released the complete email, so we don't know what it said. But I took a look at the guidelines and at some Diamond and Silk videos, and I wouldn't be surprised if they tripped over these guidelines:

Content should not contain excessive use of derogatory language, including language intended to offend or insult particular groups of people.

Debated Social Issues

Content that is incendiary, inflammatory, demeaning or disparages people, groups, or causes is not eligible for ads. Content that features or promotes attacks on people or groups is generally not eligible for ads, even if in the context of news or awareness purposes.

Their monetization standards say this:

Creators and publishers posting content flagged as misinformation and false news may be ineligible or may lose their eligibility to monetize. You can read more about this here. Creators and publishers sharing clickbait or sensationalism may be ineligible or lose their eligibility to monetize. You can read more about this here.

They seem to promote a lot of smears and conspiracy theories. Here are a few:

• Promoting the unsubstantiated claim that Marco Rubio is gay.
• Promoting a neo-Nazi and holocaust-denier on a video

As far as I can tell, they weren't censored by Facebook, they were simply treated like other people who do what they do. Erick Erickson has written about this.

Am I missing something?

[ken_sylvania]

I think I might disagree with you on whether demonetization constitutes censorship. I think it does, particularly if part of the demonetization consists of followers "not getting the usual alerts whenever [the author] posted new content."
I'm not saying that censorship is good or bad, just that I think this does meet the definition of censorship.

According to The Hill, Facebook stated in an email to Diamond and Silk that "We did not properly communicate these policies to you. As a result, you could not have known that the video content on your Page was not in line with our eligibility standards and did not qualify for monetization features."

The email also apologized for the company's claim that the Diamond and Silk Facebook page was "unsafe for the community," saying that the notification was "inaccurate and not reflective of the way we communicate with our community and the people who run Pages on our platform."

The idea that the notification was "not reflective of the way [Facebook] communicates with their community" is almost comical. If the notification was genuine, then it absolutely is the way Facebook communicates with the people who run Pages.

[lesterb]

Can someone explain to me exactly what the issue is with Diamond and Silk? As far as I can tell, their content was never taken down, they were not singled out, their page was affected by Facebook's new Content Guidelines for Monetization in September, 2017 along with many other websites.

They claim they were censored because they are women of color and conservatives. They weren't censored. Their content is still available. Were the guidelines applied differently to them because they are black women? Or because they are conservatives? If so, what is the evidence for that? When someone is accused of doing something wrong (violating the guidelines) and claims they are only being treated that way because they are black or female or conservative, I think we should look at the evidence before rushing to judgement.

As far as I can tell, Diamond and Silk have never released the complete email, so we don't know what it said. But I took a look at the guidelines and at some Diamond and Silk videos, and I wouldn't be surprised if they tripped over these guidelines:

Content should not contain excessive use of derogatory language, including language intended to offend or insult particular groups of people.

Debated Social Issues

Content that is incendiary, inflammatory, demeaning or disparages people, groups, or causes is not eligible for ads. Content that features or promotes attacks on people or groups is generally not eligible for ads, even if in the context of news or awareness purposes.

Their monetization standards say this:

Creators and publishers posting content flagged as misinformation and false news may be ineligible or may lose their eligibility to monetize. You can read more about this here. Creators and publishers sharing clickbait or sensationalism may be ineligible or lose their eligibility to monetize. You can read more about this here.

They seem to promote a lot of smears and conspiracy theories. Here are a few:

• Promoting the unsubstantiated claim that Marco Rubio is gay.
• Promoting a neo-Nazi and holocaust-denier on a video

As far as I can tell, they weren't censored by Facebook, they were simply treated like other people who do what they do. Erick Erickson has written about this.

Am I missing something?

I never heard of them. Facebook gives me an opportunity to network with some people I wouldn't have met otherwise. It helps me to get more reads on my blog. But if they kicked me off, I'd probably just shrug and carry on. I have no idea if I'm breaking their rules or not. I hope not but I'll find out sooner or later if I do, I suppose. I was hoping to get more exposure for my writing that way, and I think it has helped for that.

I'm sure that a professional marketer could get a lot more value out of it for me.