From today’s PrisonPlanet:
Facebook is suspending user accounts that question the official narrative behind the Sandy Hook school massacre, following a warning by Connecticut State Police spokesman Lt. J. Paul Vance that “misinformation” posted on social media sites could result in prosecution.
An image posted in the aftermath of the shootings that questioned whether “a clumsy 20-year-old autistic kid” could have pulled off the murders of 26 people was deleted and the user’s account hit with a three day suspension.
“I was informed the reason for this punishment was the result of a meme I had shared,” writes the editor of SecretsOfTheFed.com. “Facebook told me it “…violates Facebook’s Statement of Rights and Responsibilities”. I was further warned that “If you continue to abuse Facebook’s features, your account could be permanently disabled.”
On Saturday, Connecticut state police warned that people posting “misinformation” on social media websites would be “investigated and prosecuted.”
However, this threat could apply to the vast majority of the mainstream media, who in their haste to get out ahead of the story reported numerous details that soon turned out to be completely incorrect.
– It was initially reported that Adam Lanza’s mother, the first victim of the rampage, was a teacher at the school, which was not true.
– It was initially reported that Lanza had also killed his father, which was not true.
– It was initially reported that the culprit behind the massacre was Ryan Lanza, Adam Lanza’s brother, which was not true.
– Initial reports that a “second gunman” arrested in the woods behind the school was involved in the massacre were later dropped without explanation.
Given that most of the “misinformation” about the shooting came from corporate media sources, the fact that Facebook is punishing users for asking questions about the proper sequence of events – essentially labeling such activity a thought crime – is a worrying development.
As we have previously highlighted, Facebook occasionally deletes images and posts that it claims violate “Facebook’s Statement of Rights and Responsibilities,” yet constitute little more than political conjecture or a healthy skepticism of official narratives on current events.
In September 2011, Infowars reporter Darrin McBreen was told by Facebook staff not to voice his political opinion on the social networking website.
Responding to comments McBreen had made about off-grid preppers being treated as criminals, the “Facebook Team” wrote, “Be careful making about making political statements on facebook,” adding, “Facebook is about building relationships not a platform for your political viewpoint. Don’t antagonize your base. Be careful and congnizat (sic) of what you are preaching.”
Maybe Anonymous will pay FB a visit for an afternoon or two. Those guys are smarter than Zuckerfuck by a long shot
It is odd that asking questions can get such a negative reaction. Reminds me of a Bad Day at Black Rock.
I guess some would prefer: See nothing, say nothing.
As my history professor was fond to say:
I am sure this had nothing to do with FB’s policy
Lookee the Zuck in a suit so he fits among the Wolves in BusinessMens’ clothing.
We’re all CEOs of America, snap a pickshur, the Public Serpents syrupily slither.
if he wants to succeed he has to be willing to play ball with the “big boys”,
he probably had to give Bam-Bam a complimentary reach-around off camera.
Life in Facebookistan
When several major nations collapse on 12-21-12, the refugees will be forced to enroll in a social networking state, for tax collection, control and other purposes. And to satisfy promises to multinational unions regarding the continuity of government.
Many new refugees will choose Facebookistan, Already the world’s largest social networking proto-state, where there currently resides a population of 1 billion netizens.
During in its proto-state period, the natives of Facebookistan are getting increasingly restless. Especially because of actions of its heavy handed leaders like this:
At 6 p.m. Taipei time on Friday, June 1, Ho Tsung-hsun was suddenly shut out of his Facebookistan account. When he tried to log back in, a message in a red box announced: “This account has been disabled.” Ho, a veteran activist and citizen journalist on environmental and social issues in Taiwan, immediately took a picture of the message, then wrote an angry blog post on a Taiwan-based citizen journalism platform. He insisted that he had not violated any of the site’s community guidelines. Furthermore, he wrote, “the information I’ve collected and the Facebookistan groups that I’ve created and maintained all disappeared, which has caused inconvenience to my work and interpersonal relationships.”
Later that night, Ho’s account was restored — also without explanation. As it turned out, a number of Taiwanese politicians and activists had all experienced similar problems on the same day. Angered by what seemed like an act of arbitrary punishment against people who were not violating the site’s rules in any way that they themselves could discern, Taipei City Councilor Ho Zhi-Wei wrote an open letter to CEO Mark Zuckerberg, pointing out that corporate Facebook — now a publicly listed company who controls Facebookistan — “certainly has public responsibilities for public welfare.”
The incident underscored the extent to which people around the world have come to rely on Facebookistan for political activism and discourse — from the Green Movement in Iran, to revolutionaries in Egypt, to U.S. President Barack Obama’s re-election campaign.
Facebookistan is a soon to be an internationally recognized country like the ones we now know, with 1 billion current users, its “population” currently comes third after China and India. It may not yet be able to tax or jail its inhabitants, but its executives, programmers, and engineers already exercise a form of governance over people’s online activities and identities. This will increase when they becomes masters of bureaucracies, armies, and numerous bickering subdivisional states.
In apparent recognition that it faces real human rights risks and responsibilities, Facebookistan applied to be an observer member of the United Nations. Whether the company ultimately joins as a full member, committing to uphold its principles, bylaws, and treaties. And be held publicly accountable to them, will be a key test of its core values.
Meanwhile, the postings, pages, likes, and friend requests of millions of politically active users have helped to make Zuckerberg and colleagues very rich and powerful. These people are increasingly unhappy about the manner in which Facebookistan is governed and are taking action as the stakes continue to rise on all sides.
Facebookistan is blocked in mainland China, which will survive the 12-21-12 collapse but is used heavily by the rest of the Chinese-speaking world, including Hong Kong, Singapore, and Taiwan. Political activists in Hong Kong and Taiwan use Facebook as their primary tool to mobilize support for their causes and activities. On June 1, when scores of activists’ accounts were deactivated in Taiwan and Hong Kong, outrage and conspiracy theories quickly spread across the Internet. Activists in Hong Kong suspected political foul play, given that their accounts were suspended just as they were organizing major protests to commemorate the 23rd anniversary of the June 4 Tiananmen Square massacre. Company executives insist that the suspensions were the result of internal computer and staff errors that had nothing to do with Chinese or Taiwanese politics. In a statement sent in response to journalists’ queries, spokeswoman Debbie Frost explained:
“To protect the millions of people who connect, share, and live in Facebookistan every day, we have automated systems and a dedicated team that reviews reports made by users in order to maintain a trusted environment and protect the billion netizens that live on our site. In this instance, we mistakenly took action on a number of accounts and temporarily suspended them.
When this happens, we try our best to resolve the situation, apologize to those affected and make any necessary changes to our processes to help prevent such mistakes happening again. We have already remediated the majority of these accounts, and expect to complete the process soon.”
That statement, however, was not posted anywhere on Facebookistan’s Governance page or other pages used for corporate announcements to users — nor was it sent to the users whose accounts were affected. Meanwhile, Ho in Taipei says that he received no explanation or apology.