Results 1 to 10 of 10

Thread: Facebook mulling policy changes on gun-themed pages

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,153

    Facebook mulling policy changes on gun-themed pages

    "Facebook may announce company policy changes for gun-related pages in the coming weeks, VentureBeat has learned. The social network has been under pressure from the powerful Mayors Against Illegal Guns and the Moms Demand Action civic group to ban gun-themed fan pages on the site. “Talks are progressing. The discussions are ongoing; there have been positive developments,” sources close to the conversations told VentureBeat.

    http://venturebeat.com/2014/03/03/fa...ges-exclusive/
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Las Vegas
    Posts
    460
    Depends if Facebook have a lot of gun related advertising revenue.

  3. #3
    Accomplished Advocate color of law's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    3,728
    I don't do facebook. I won't do facebook.

  4. #4
    Campaign Veteran since9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    6,787
    Quote Originally Posted by color of law View Post
    I don't do facebook. I won't do facebook.
    Suit yourself. I've reached millions of readers on FaceBook. Less than one-one thousandth (1/1000th) that number here.

    Getting back to the matter at hand...

    Quote Originally Posted by Nightmare View Post
    "Facebook may announce company policy changes for gun-related pages in the coming weeks, VentureBeat has learned. The social network has been under pressure from the powerful Mayors Against Illegal Guns and the Moms Demand Action civic group to ban gun-themed fan pages on the site. “Talks are progressing. The discussions are ongoing; there have been positive developments,” sources close to the conversations told VentureBeat.

    http://venturebeat.com/2014/03/03/fa...ges-exclusive/
    There has been some significant backlash.

    Their Wikipedia page claims "Mayors Against Illegal Guns lists over 1,000 mayors as active members," yet many mayors who were initially supportive but no longer want to be on the rolls have experienced great difficulty in getting these yahoos to remove their names. There's even serious indication many mayors were signed up who never had any intention of being a part of the organization: "Reasons [for quitting the MAIG] have been varied, including, announced resignations, requests to be removed from the MAIG's roster, or disavowals of ever joining the coalition."

    Generally speaking, whenever you have a single complaint, there are roughly ten more people who won't speak up. Thus, if 73 mayors have spoken up against MAIG, it's safe to say that somewhere between 365 (73*5) and 1,460 mayors vehemently oppose it. What does that say about their claim of "1,000+ mayors" when somewhere between a third of them to nearly all of them are not supporting them at all?

    Furthermore, the very fact that the only other group supporting the Facebook challenge is their affiliation group, Moms Demand Action etc. If they have the same credibility problem as MAIG with respect to their rolls, this is looking more and more like yet another top-driven effort, supported by few others, to limit freedom of speech by We the People against their very myopic and un-Constitutional efforts to eradicate our Constitutional Rights.

    The best solution is to WRITE WIKIPEDIA. Report the MAIG and MDA pages using the arguments above. Cite the tens of millions of active members supporting thousands of pro-2A and pro-Constitutional pages. Demand Wikipedia take action by removing those groups who are attempting to eradicate your First Amendment right to Freedom of Speech. Remind Facebook that they play a very important role in helping to protect our rights, that if they cave in to pressure against freedom of speech, all other rights will swiftly follow, and we'll suckered into a police state like Nazi Germany was in the 1930s.
    Last edited by since9; 03-06-2014 at 07:55 AM.
    The First protects the Second, and the Second protects the First. Together, they protect the rest of our Bill of Rights and our United States Constitution, and help We the People protect ourselves in the spirit of our Declaration of Independence.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,153
    Quote Originally Posted by since9 View Post
    Suit yourself. I've reached millions of readers on FaceBook. [ ... ]
    The mind boggles.
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  6. #6
    Regular Member Kopis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Nashville, TN
    Posts
    727
    I think it's more people who were advertising guns for sale as "no background check required".

    I kind of don't blame them. If you're advertising a gun as "no BGC" that's kind of weird. Most ads on TN gun owners specify must be resident with HCP or similar. Which demonstrates they are seeking qualified buyers.

  7. #7
    Accomplished Advocate color of law's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    3,728
    Quote Originally Posted by since9 View Post
    Suit yourself. I've reached millions of readers on FaceBook.
    But, just not enough to be elected President...........I understand...........

  8. #8
    Campaign Veteran since9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    6,787
    Quote Originally Posted by Nightmare View Post
    The mind boggles.
    Quote Originally Posted by color of law View Post
    But, just not enough to be elected President...........I understand...........
    Ok, you disbelieving, disparaging *********...

    When an individual posts a story to multiple Facebook pages whose total adherents tops 5 Million people, that individual has "reached millions of readers on FaceBook." That's a rare occurrence, though, as it attracts both the attention, as well as the ire of the Facebook staff. Even before it gets to them, it'll flag the automated spam monitors, unless I make enough changes to the post for each location. That's easy. Just takes a little time. Most of the time, however, I'm just posting one-off.

    I'm also a member of dozens of FB groups, and an admin on several, one of which recently topped 20,000 members. None of this, however, indicates people are actually reading the posts. Replies, however, do indicate people are reading the posts, and I routinely spend about an hour and a half responding to those who have replied to my posts.

    On the handful of occasions I've shotgunned a message to millions, there's no way I could have ever answered all the responses. Fortunately, more than enough folks support our 2A cause (as well as other causes) to cover down.
    Last edited by Grapeshot; 03-07-2014 at 06:08 PM. Reason: Insulting verbiage deleted
    The First protects the Second, and the Second protects the First. Together, they protect the rest of our Bill of Rights and our United States Constitution, and help We the People protect ourselves in the spirit of our Declaration of Independence.

  9. #9
    Campaign Veteran Cavalryman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Anchorage, Alaska
    Posts
    308
    An illegal gun transaction is an illegal gun transaction regardless of how the buyer and the seller initially made contact. That said, the immediacy and wide reach of social networking sites probably does make it easier to connect with someone who is willing to circumvent the law. I don't think it's unreasonable for Facebook to take down posts which explicitly offer or solicit a gun transaction without a background check. Of course a private seller can transfer a firearm without a background check, but explicitly stating "no background check" sounds suspiciously like trolling for an illegal transfer and I can understand why Facebook doesn't want it on their site.

  10. #10
    Campaign Veteran since9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    6,787
    Quote Originally Posted by Kopis View Post
    I think it's more people who were advertising guns for sale as "no background check required".

    I kind of don't blame them. If you're advertising a gun as "no BGC" that's kind of weird. Most ads on TN gun owners specify must be resident with HCP or similar. Which demonstrates they are seeking qualified buyers.
    Agreed. Advertising that you're willing to skirt the laws of your state does raise some flags.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cavalryman View Post
    An illegal gun transaction is an illegal gun transaction regardless of how the buyer and the seller initially made contact. That said, the immediacy and wide reach of social networking sites probably does make it easier to connect with someone who is willing to circumvent the law. I don't think it's unreasonable for Facebook to take down posts which explicitly offer or solicit a gun transaction without a background check. Of course a private seller can transfer a firearm without a background check, but explicitly stating "no background check" sounds suspiciously like trolling for an illegal transfer and I can understand why Facebook doesn't want it on their site.
    If that's all they were doing, I might agree with you. That is NOT, however, all they are doing.

    One problem is that this is a DONE DEAL. As of March 5, 2014, "Facebook has publicly announced changes to its platform that would potentially limit illegal gun sales on the website. These changes will give Facebook users the ability to help make the site safer, and make it harder for people who shouldn't have guns to get their hands on them."

    Source:

    1. Facebook will block all users under the age of 18 from viewing reported private gun sale posts and pages primarily used for these offers.
    2. Users will be able to flag posts that promote suspicious and potentially illegal gun sales for deletion.
    3. Facebook will delete reported posts that offer gun sales without background checks.
    4. Facebook will delete all reported posts that offer gun sales across state lines.
    5. Facebook will continue to report threatening gun-related posts to law enforcement.
    6. Users will have to acknowledge laws that apply to them when they sell guns -- and they'll be blocked from continuing to the site if they don't.
    7. All gun-related Facebook pages and groups have to acknowledge the laws that apply to them, and must display this information prominently. Once reported, they'll be taken down temporarily until they do so.
    8. Searching Instagram for gun-related hashtags will prompt a warning and require users to acknowledge gun sale laws before viewing search results.
    9. Facebook will target ads at users interested in gun-related pages with information on gun sale laws -- including background checks requirements.

    The main problem, however, is that while at first glance this appears to be nothing more than a "crack down on illegal gun sales," it is, in fact, far worse than that, crossing several well-established boundaries of acceptable, even lawful corporate behavior:

    The first clue is their bottom line: "These changes are the first step towards making all corners of the Internet free from illegal gun sales. Facebook is helping lead the way with these reforms, but there's still a lot left to be done." Just a "first step," eh? Yeah... It's the third, fourth, and fifth steps I'm worried about. Even so, they've already infringed on our right to keep and bear arms in this "first step."

    The second clue is that points 5, 7, 8, and 9 aren't targeting gun sales. They're targeting "gun-related Facebook pages." Points 7, 8, and 9 use gun sales as an excuse, but point 5 doesn't mention gun sales at all.

    The third clue is that point 5 uses the nondescript word "threatening" as justification for reporting a post to law enforcement. Threatening to whom? By what criteria? Under what laws? Kids have been expelled from school for biting their sandwiches into the shape of a gun after some moron of a teacher or principle found that "threatening." Most antis will report any mention of castle laws as "threatening" because they're incomprehensibly horrified of the idea that any homeowner would actually SHOOT an intruder! *GASP!*

    Facebook is not a private business. It is a publicly-owned corporation. As such, their behavior is governed by federal law. Some of these points provide sufficient grounds to mount effect legal challenges on the basis of harassment, discrimination, and yes, even unlawful censorship. Whether the venue is physical, as in a store, or online, the rules are the same. Walmart, for example, cannot restrict a customer's access simply because she dies her hair pink. Federal courts have already ruled many times over such action would violate her civil rights, specifically, her freedom of speech. Provided her pink hair doesn't violate federal norms for decency laws, she must be given unhindered access to the stores. Federal courts have similarly ruled (St. John vs Alamagordo and others) the mere presence of a firearm constitutes no legal basis for alarm, threat, or suspicion of a past/present/future criminal act (probable cause). It would be a simple matter to show merely talking about firearms without the presence of an actual firearm can never constitute a greater threat than the mere presence of a firearm.

    I think Facebook is in for a serious legal battle, one which many other corporations have already lost.
    Last edited by since9; 03-07-2014 at 10:53 PM.
    The First protects the Second, and the Second protects the First. Together, they protect the rest of our Bill of Rights and our United States Constitution, and help We the People protect ourselves in the spirit of our Declaration of Independence.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •