Re: FB: Locked. Government Photo ID
Posted: Tue Apr 10, 2018 11:45 am
yes. indeed.RZehr wrote: .. Probably a work in regress.
Where Mennonites and others connect
https://forum.mennonet.com/
yes. indeed.RZehr wrote: .. Probably a work in regress.
The paradox of the human condition.temporal1 wrote:yes. indeed.RZehr wrote: .. Probably a work in regress.
the timing of Diamond and Silk’s FB “unsafe” designation .. could not have been more strategic.“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.”
i think of these words quite often.Robert wrote: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.
this thread has been about FB system problems, and, adult problems with FB, on both sides, FB itself, and, FB adult users/customers.Erika wrote: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
Content should not contain excessive use of derogatory language, including language intended to offend or insult particular groups of people.
Their monetization standards say this: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.
They seem to promote a lot of smears and conspiracy theories. Here are a few: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.
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.Bootstrap wrote: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.Their monetization standards say this: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.
They seem to promote a lot of smears and conspiracy theories. Here are a few: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.
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.
- Promoting the unsubstantiated claim that Marco Rubio is gay.
- Promoting a neo-Nazi and holocaust-denier on a video
Am I missing something?