Facebook apologizes for shutting down page AFTER the rally

[Cyberfx1024 7,980]

This is disgraceful and disgusting to say the least.  A group called San Diegans for Secure Borders (SDSB) was trying to set up a protest in response to this so called "Migrant Caravan" that will directly impact their communities in San Diego County was barred from his FB page and the event page was "Shut Down on facebook". They only opened up and apologized for their error after the protest was supposed to start on Sunday. This is what Zuckerberg clearly said he is not doing but in reality the company is censuring those of us that have different ways of thinking than the Liberal Left Wing agenda.

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5673529/Facebook-apologizes-shutting-page-set-anti-caravan-protesters-San-Diego.html

[Dashinka 24,494]

16 minutes ago, cyberfx1024 said:

This is disgraceful and disgusting to say the least.  A group called San Diegans for Secure Borders (SDSB) was trying to set up a protest in response to this so called "Migrant Caravan" that will directly impact their communities in San Diego County was barred from his FB page and the event page was "Shut Down on facebook". They only opened up and apologized for their error after the protest was supposed to start on Sunday. This is what Zuckerberg clearly said he is not doing but in reality the company is censuring those of us that have different ways of thinking than the Liberal Left Wing agenda.

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5673529/Facebook-apologizes-shutting-page-set-anti-caravan-protesters-San-Diego.html

Did we really believe anything that came out of Mark Zuckerberg's mouth?

[smilesammich 10,727]

from reading the article it seems like followers of the page questioned if facebook actually took anything down and this guy was already on a 30 day ban...wonder what for? 

i mean, what about this is disgraceful and disgusting?

 

Quote

He said Facebook took the page down on Friday night and only restored it on Saturday evening - hours after the protest was supposed to have begun.

'Our event had been up for about four weeks and had about 950 people signed up to either attend or 'interested' in attending,' Schwilk told Breitbart News Tonight.

He said he was locked out of his account for 30 days before Facebook emailed to say the event page had been restored after an 'error.'

 

However, Schwilke conceded that the event page was only down for a few hours after a commenter said he didn't notice anything.

'Except did they actually take anything down? I didn't see anything from yesterday to today,' the commenter wrote on the SDSB page.

 

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5673529/Facebook-apologizes-shutting-page-set-anti-caravan-protesters-San-Diego.html#ixzz5EAh6O951
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

wonder why he was 'locked out' of his account?

[Cyberfx1024 7,980]

53 minutes ago, smilesammich said:

wonder why he was 'locked out' of his account?

Because he is against the Liberal pov of that ALL Immigrants wither they are Illegal or Legal are Migrants. Thus we should welcome them with open arms no matter what.

[smilesammich 10,727]

Just now, cyberfx1024 said:

Because he is against the Liberal pov of that ALL Immigrants wither they are Illegal or Legal are Migrants. Thus we should welcome them with open arms no matter what.

where do you see this? the op just says he was locked out of his account, doesn't say why.

do you really think there's no anti immigrant groups on fb? there most certainly are.

[Cyberfx1024 7,980]

14 minutes ago, smilesammich said:

where do you see this? the op just says he was locked out of his account, doesn't say why.

do you really think there's no anti immigrant groups on fb? there most certainly are.

Of course there are other anti-immigrant groups on FB. I am referring to this one group that lives in that area that was doing a protest until their account is no more. It's very convenient isn't it?

[bcking 3,157]

1 hour ago, smilesammich said:

from reading the article it seems like followers of the page questioned if facebook actually took anything down and this guy was already on a 30 day ban...wonder what for? 

i mean, what about this is disgraceful and disgusting?

 

wonder why he was 'locked out' of his account?

In my reading of the article I can't tell if he was saying he received a 30 day ban on Friday as well as the website came down, or if he ALREADY was under a 30 day ban.

 

If he was already under one - Yes I wonder why? 

If he received it on Friday - Was that an "error" as well? What was Facebook's reasoning?

 

The other bit I noticed was:

 

"He said Facebook took the page down on Friday night and only restored it on Saturday evening - hours after the protest was supposed to have begun."
 

"A member of our team accidentally removed something you posted on Facebook,' the email said.

'This was a mistake, and we sincerely apologize for the error.'

However, Schwilke conceded that the event page was only down for a few hours after a commenter said he didn't notice anything."

 

From the first line yes it would obviously look very suspicious. It was down for 24 hours. That's a long time for an "error", especially if we assume he was trying to work with Facebook to fix the issue.

However the reality was that he was intentionally misleading, and conceded that it was only down for "a few hours". Now we don't have a specific number for that, but I wouldn't consider a near 24 hour period just "a few" hours. So he (Schwilke) was definitely being misleading in his initial facebook post about the site going down.

 

 

-------------------

 

All this being said I do support all of you in that Facebook shouldn't be making decisions on pages based on politics. If there are legitimate concerns for the safety of others, or if there is hate speech I think that is a different issue. From this article it doesn't seem like the group would fall under that though. They were organizing a protest. Nothing wrong with that. I wouldn't necessarily just assume this was intentional (it very well could be an error) but I agree the timing is suspicious.

 

That being said while I don't think Facebook should make these decisions, they are completely in their right to. They can limit free speech on their website as much as they like. 1st Amendment isn't protected on Facebook. The government isn't limiting your speech their.

 

[Cyberfx1024 7,980]

4 minutes ago, bcking said:

All this being said I do support all of you in that Facebook shouldn't be making decisions on pages based on politics. If there are legitimate concerns for the safety of others, or if there is hate speech I think that is a different issue. From this article it doesn't seem like the group would fall under that though. They were organizing a protest. Nothing wrong with that. I wouldn't necessarily just assume this was intentional (it very well could be an error) but I agree the timing is suspicious.

 

That being said while I don't think Facebook should make these decisions, they are completely in their right to. They can limit free speech on their website as much as they like. 1st Amendment isn't protected on Facebook. The government isn't limiting your speech their.

 

Of course FB is in their right to do this because it is a private company and thus one of many reasons I am using it less and less.

[bcking 3,157]

2 minutes ago, cyberfx1024 said:

Of course FB is in their right to do this because it is a private company and thus one of many reasons I am using it less and less.

As I said I agree with you that they shouldn't, and I think from a business standpoint they also shouldn't. Ultimately people will just have to tell them with their actions (not using the service).

 

I would draw a line somewhere though. They shouldn't allow people a voice who are calling for violence, for example. That wasn't the case here though (at least from the article...I didn't look at the page itself).

[smilesammich 10,727]

7 minutes ago, bcking said:

In my reading of the article I can't tell if he was saying he received a 30 day ban on Friday as well as the website came down, or if he ALREADY was under a 30 day ban.

 

If he was already under one - Yes I wonder why? 

If he received it on Friday - Was that an "error" as well? What was Facebook's reasoning?

 

The other bit I noticed was:

 

"He said Facebook took the page down on Friday night and only restored it on Saturday evening - hours after the protest was supposed to have begun."
 

"A member of our team accidentally removed something you posted on Facebook,' the email said.

'This was a mistake, and we sincerely apologize for the error.'

However, Schwilke conceded that the event page was only down for a few hours after a commenter said he didn't notice anything."

 

From the first line yes it would obviously look very suspicious. It was down for 24 hours. That's a long time for an "error", especially if we assume he was trying to work with Facebook to fix the issue.

However the reality was that he was intentionally misleading, and conceded that it was only down for "a few hours". Now we don't have a specific number for that, but I wouldn't consider a near 24 hour period just "a few" hours. So he (Schwilke) was definitely being misleading in his initial facebook post about the site going down.

 

 

-------------------

 

All this being said I do support all of you in that Facebook shouldn't be making decisions on pages based on politics. If there are legitimate concerns for the safety of others, or if there is hate speech I think that is a different issue. From this article it doesn't seem like the group would fall under that though. They were organizing a protest. Nothing wrong with that. I wouldn't necessarily just assume this was intentional (it very well could be an error) but I agree the timing is suspicious.

 

That being said while I don't think Facebook should make these decisions, they are completely in their right to. They can limit free speech on their website as much as they like. 1st Amendment isn't protected on Facebook. The government isn't limiting your speech their.

 

facebook makes errors like this all the time, and not just to people who are anti immigrant - i found all the parts in bold to be very suspicious. seems like much ado about nothing. if schwilke had 950 people interested in attending, why would he not go through with it anyway? makes no sense to me.

 

i'm most interested in why he was on a 30 day ban. until i know the answer to that i don't really care about this guy not holding a rally almost a thousand people were interested in, just because facebook maybe took his page down for a day. 

[smilesammich 10,727]

2 minutes ago, bcking said:

As I said I agree with you that they shouldn't, and I think from a business standpoint they also shouldn't. Ultimately people will just have to tell them with their actions (not using the service).

 

I would draw a line somewhere though. They shouldn't allow people a voice who are calling for violence, for example. That wasn't the case here though (at least from the article...I didn't look at the page itself).

i mean, if i'm guessing - calling for violence or bulling others who disagree with him is probably what got him his 30 day time out.

[bcking 3,157]

1 minute ago, smilesammich said:

i mean, if i'm guessing - calling for violence or bulling others who disagree with him is probably what got him his 30 day time out.

Are you basing that of anything other than your prejudice?

 

All I see from this article is he was organizing a protest. That doesn't mean he is a bully or wants violence. He just has a political opinion.

 

If you have examples of this guy doing more than that, please share.

[Cyberfx1024 7,980]

5 minutes ago, smilesammich said:

i mean, if i'm guessing - calling for violence or bulling others who disagree with him is probably what got him his 30 day time out.

But my thing is how are they calling for violence or bullying if they are just there to protest the protestors? It does seem like that group was either far-left/right so they should not have been an issue.

[smilesammich 10,727]

4 minutes ago, bcking said:

Are you basing that of anything other than your prejudice?

 

All I see from this article is he was organizing a protest. That doesn't mean he is a bully or wants violence. He just has a political opinion.

 

If you have examples of this guy doing more than that, please share.

basing it on my experience with why people get bans from facebook. you don't get a 30 day ban for being nice to others.

 

i said "guess"..do you know what GUESS means?

[smilesammich 10,727]

2 minutes ago, cyberfx1024 said:

But my thing is how are they calling for violence or bullying if they are just there to protest the protestors? It does seem like that group was either far-left/right so they should not have been an issue.

i'm not saying anything about the page coming down for a day, i'm wondering why the guy got a 30 day ban. i'm not saying the protest was calling for violence or bullying..i'm saying schwilke had a 30 day ban and i'd like to know what for.